Christian Leaders Should Not Advocate Sharia Law - Moscow Patriarchate

Geneva, February 14, Interfax - The values of other religions, just as secular ones, should not be advocated by the heads of Christian Churches, said Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, who represents the Russian Orthodox Church at European international organizations.

"Our role is not to protect Sharia law, to glorify an alternative style of behavior or to preach secular values. Our sacred mission is to announce what Christ announced, to teach what his disciples taught," Bishop Hilarion said at the opening of a session of the World Council of Churches (WCC)'s Central Committee in Geneva.

He was commenting on a recent statement by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that it was inevitable that several aspects of Sharia law will have to be included in British law. His speech caused a public uproar in the UK.

"Many Christians around the world are looking up to Christian leaders with hope that they will defend Christianity against all the challenges it faces," Bishop Hilarion said.

He also criticized ‘liberal’ and ‘politically correct’ Christianity which Protestant and Anglican communities started promoting several dozens years ago. The Russian Church’s representative said that the gap between ‘traditional’ and ‘liberal’ Christianity grows so dramatically that today it's impossible to speak about one moral system preached by all Christians.

‘Politically correct Christianity will die. We have already been watching the process of liberal Christianity’s gradual decline as newly introduced moral norms lead to splits, discrepancies and confusion in several Christian communities,’ the bishop said.

Mike Huckabee, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Conservative Movement

I have been wanting to write a post on the conservatism of Mike Huckabee for some time. As should be obvious to readers of this blog, I truly believe he is a very important and articulate leader of the conservative movement in this country, and will be more so in years to come.

Unfortunately, he has been the victim of calumny by a rich, ambitious charlatan who, when preparing his business plan for capturing the White House, determined that espousing conservative positions contradicting everything he previously stood for, would be the surest route to capturing the Republican nomination for President. In this pursuit, he was backed by the White House and his friends at the Club for Growth, the very people that have done the most damage to working American families through international trade agreements, the export of American jobs, open borders, and the failure to enforce US immigration laws.

The following reflection from the Catholics for Huckabee blog affirms that Mike Huckabee is the authentic conservative, standing on the shoulders of conservative pillars like Russell Kirk, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan and Ronald Reagan.

When the debacle of the 2008 presidential election is over, authetic conservatives will begin the task of rebuilding the party and the conservative movement that this President and the internationalists at the Club for Growth have done so much to destroy.

The Schlafly Connection

Huckabee's CPAC speech last Saturday was clearly a watershed moment, revealing Huckabee as an authentic, old-school conservative. It was a crucial speech which managed to hit all the right buttons with his conservative audience, and finally connected the rest of the dots around this most intriguing candidate.

In a brief summary of the various factors forming his political conservatism, the former Arkansas governor mentioned his humble working-class background, his staunch Republican employer as a teen (a rare commodity in Arkansas), his desire for order amidst the growing mayhem of the '60's, and his struggle to implement conservative policies in his gubernatorial career.

Along with his personal experiences, Huckabee included some serious discussions of political issues, displaying a wide-ranging and well-developed political philosophy in the process.

Particularly comforting and a personal highlight of his speech for me, was Huckabee's reference to Phyllis Schlafly's 1964 book, A Choice, Not An Echo, which he read as a teenager. A bestseller at the time, this groundbreaking book called for the unification of the conservative movement under the leadership of Barry Goldwater, against the liberal Eastern Establishment wing of the Republican Party, whose wealth and media influence had controlled the presidential elections for years.

Phyllis Schlafly has always been a heroine of mine. A lawyer with a Master's in Political Science from Harvard, this Catholic mother of six became famous for her articulate and impassioned opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and the feminist movement in the '70's.

It was truly heartwarming to hear Mike mention the name of this gracious and eloquent defender of traditional values, still writing columns and speaking on the radio today, at the age of 81. Her name brought back memories of all the conservative Catholic giants of two decades ago: James Likoudis, Frank Morriss, Jean Kirkpatrick, Russell Kirk, and a young Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan. It also reminded me of pro-life Marches to our Denver capital building on windy January days, of the Eagle Forum, Gloria Steinem, Pat Schroeder, Richard Nixon and ERA bumper stickers.

Recalling the name of Phyllis Schlafly and her example of courage and resistance against the popular liberal tide was no accident. Curiously enough, Huckabee did not mention the other conservative hero whose name has been on everyone's lips these past few weeks. Instead he chose a leader whose legacy is very close to Reagan's, and who is really his feminine counterpart. A significant choice in more ways than one, perhaps.

In this momentous speech, Mike boldly planted his own conservative banner on the hilltop, an invitation for traditional conservatives to rally around. His speech is a declaration of war against the secular liberalism of McCain and a call for true conservatives to unite.

The classic conservative positions Huckabee outlined in his speech, as well as the name of Phyllis Schlafly, signalled his personal connection to the same well-grounded, consistent conservatism which has been tested and proven over the last few decades and which lives on in many corners of this nation. This kind of conservatism may not be exactly thriving in country clubs, corporate offices and the halls of Congress, but it is alive and well in the middle and working classes, in labor unions, volunteer fire departments, middle-class neighborhoods, farms, small businesses, churches and in homeschooling families and small private colleges and schools.

In other words, the conservatism of Phyllis Schlafly et al., has been kept alive by all of us who have been busy making hard choices, going against the grain, and not merely echoing the lies and empty promises that have been thrust upon us from almost every side for all these years.

Harassing Huckabee

by George Neumayr (more by this author)

The GOP's "Big Tent" looks more and more like a Circus Tent, and the barkers inside it never wanted Mike Huckabee under its spotlight. To his success, he has ignored them, picking up victories even as they instructed him to "get out of the race."

Usually party operatives tell a candidate to drop out of the race because he is likely to do badly; in Huckabee's case, they told him to get out because they feared he would do well. On the weekend before Super Tuesday, prominent GOP operatives called Huckabee "selfish" for staying in the race. He then proceeded to sweep much of the South.

How selfish of him to win. Doesn't this Arkansas hillbilly know that he belongs in coach with the other Christian conservatives? Doesn't he see that he should let the gents from the Squash Club call the shots in the party?

Even after winning in Kansas and Louisiana, the harassing question dogged him. Surely Huckabee is one of the only candidates in American political history who, upon winning, received as the first question: So when will you be getting out of the race?

And then there is Rick Perry's now-reported phone call to Huckabee, in which the Texas governor and John McCain supporter, behaving like a Soviet party hack, demanded that Huckabee drop out of the race there. How pathetic. So much for the GOP as the party of "rugged individualism."

Huckabee is right to mock GOP officials for their fear of competition and clamoring for "coronation." If Huckabee is too threatening to McCain in Texas, how could McCain possibly defeat Obama or Hillary in the fall? Anxious calls for McCain's coronation are a measure not of his strength as a candidate but his shakiness.

Whatever happens on Tuesday and beyond -- Huckabee's talk of a miracle tacitly acknowledges that it is a very long shot -- he has shown considerable pluck in bucking the establishment. Far from threatening his future, staying in the race this long has made it. Moreover, why should he listen to the counsel of Republicans who spent much of the campaign belittling him? Since they didn't make him, they are powerless to unmake him; if anything, their heedless hostility furnished him with a powerful motive to keep going.

Even conservatives who don't particularly like Huckabee should see that the longer he stays in the race, the better, if only because his presence stimulates much-needed debate about pervasive liberalism in the party. A vote for the Southerner at this point is a vote against the coastal Circus Tent Republicans who turned the GOP into a PC party.

Perhaps if Huckabee does well in a few more states McCain will get the message: that in order to get the conservative base out in the fall, he must knock off the liberal babble. Anybody who thinks McCain can defeat Hillary or Obama by poaching moderates and independents from them is dreaming.

Imagine McCain getting into a bidding war with Obama for independents: Obama's pitch is sure to be more seductive, and in any case, for every moderate or independent McCain, through PC Republicanism, could woo to the polls, he would thereby kill the interest of a host of conservative Republicans from even showing up.

With no resources save the fat of the free media, Huckabee has inspired a devoted following -- an instructive lesson for McCain who will despartely need those rank-and-file conservatives, many of them religious, to stay interested in politics.

Has the GOP already forgotten that the fear of gay marriage under the Dems handed victory to Bush in 2004? That it was the cultural contrast between the parties which got conservatives to the polls? In their pouting post-mortems, the Democrats acknowledged that aggressive secularism had turned off a lot of Americans and they scurried to find religion. The defeat scared Hillary enough that she, if only for a moment, changed her tune on abortion, casting it more in terms of regret than celebration.

The relative success of Huckabee's candidacy is a reminder to the GOP that many Americans still want a culturally conservative choice, not a secularist echo. If McCain remains blind to this and runs a campaign of muddled moderation and PC pieties, what we have seen in the primary elections -- Democrats rushing to the polls in huge numbers, demoralized Republicans staying home -- ill spill over into the general one.

The GOP ignores the Huckabee phenomenon at its own peril.

Mr. Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report and a columnist for California Political Review.

Archbishop Faces Fresh Pressure Over Queen’s ‘worry’ at Sharia Speech

From The Times

The Archbishop of Canterbury faces renewed pressure today after the Queen was reported to be concerned about his comments on the use of Islamic law in Britain.

The Queen was said to be worried about the continuing controversy surrounding Dr Rowan Williams’ belief that it was “unavoidable” that aspects of Sharia would be incorporated into the English legal system.

The Times has learnt that the Prince of Wales has already distanced himself from the Archbishop’s speech last week, fearing that his comments have damaged multi-faith relations.

According to The Daily Telegraph today, the Queen is also distressed over the controversy which she fears threatens to undermine the authority of the Archbishop and damage the Church of England, which already faces schism over homosexual clergy.

A royal source told the newspaper: “I have no idea what her view is on what the Archbishop said about Sharia. But the Queen is worried, coming at such a difficult time in the Church’s history, that the fallout may sap the authority of the Church.”

The Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, is the only person with the power to dismiss the Archbishop of Canterbury, but she would not act unless instructed to by the Prime Minister.

However, Dr Williams’ position would become untenable if it became known that he had lost the monarch’s confidence.

The Prince of Wales, a champion of good relations with Islam, has told friends he is concerned that the Archbishop’s speech is in danger of being taken out of context and distilled into scaremongering headlines.

The Prince fears that the misinterpretation of the Archbishop’s comments that Sharia was inevitable in Britain could harm relations with Islam and the Islamic world.

The Archbishop admitted on Monday that his intervention on the issue had been “clumsy" but refused to back down. He apologised to the Church of England for any “misleading choice of words” but made clear that he stood by his right to tackle such issues.

The Queen’s affection for the Commonwealth is well known and many Commonwealth countries with large Muslim populations, such as Nigeria, are incredulous at the Archbishop’s apparent appeasement of Islam.

The Queen is reported to have intervened previously in Anglican affairs over the appointment of an openly homosexual priest as the Bishop of Reading in 2003. She is said to have twice raised the issue with Tony Blair, then the Prime Minister.

The Queen has become increasingly interested in multi-faith issues. She used her last Christmas speech to call for all religions to work together to bridge the divide between young and old. The broadcast also featured unprecedented scenes from a mosque, a Hindu temple and a Jewish reception.

The content was seen as moving her closer to the Prince of Wales’s strongly held view that the monarch should be the “defender of faiths”.

The Queen emphasised that it was easy to focus on the differences between religions rather than what they have in common. “The wisdom and experience of the great religions point to the need to nurture and guide the young, and to encourage respect for the elderly,” she said.

Buckingham Palace refused last night to confirm or deny that the Queen had expressed concerns about the Archbishop’s views. A spokes-woman said: “I have never heard a view expressed by the Queen at all. We are not confirming or making any comment on this story.”

Lambeth Palace and the Church of England also declined to comment.

The Prince of Wales, who will take the title Defender of the Faith when he becomes king, has said previously that he wished to be seen rather as a defender of faiths. However, his wish for a multi-faith coronation was dismissed by the Church of England which asserted the importance of a Christian-only service designed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

A history of conflict

—— Thomas à Becket and Henry II: when Henry reasserted his ancestral rights over the Church, Becket refused to comply. Four knights murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170

—— Cardinal Wolsey and Henry VIII: the Cardinal fell from grace when he was unable to persuade the Pope that Henry should be granted a divorce from Catherine of Aragon

—— Thomas Cranmer, who compiled the first English Book of Common Prayer, was the first Protestant Archbishop. Queen Mary had him burnt at the stake for heresy and treason in 1556

SPP: A Canadian Perspective

Hassan Yousseff (left), Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, and NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian address the crowd at the London (Ontario) forum.

Photo by Ross McDermott, LondonTopic.ca

From: London Topic

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was a hot topic at London's (Ontario) Wolf Performance Hall, Friday (Feb. 8), where NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian told those in attendance that the controversial agenda is about much more then just "jelly beans," as stated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and if continued, could become a threat to Canadian sovereignty.

About 90 people turned up at the London forum to hear the reasons the federal NDP are vehemently opposed to the SPP, which was thrown into the spotlight last summer when violence broke out as police clashed with protesters during the annual trilateral meeting of the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S., at the Montebello Summit in Quebec.

In one instance, Quebec police officers disguised themselves as protesters and, according to the Council of Canadians, attempted to incite a riot during what was a peaceful demonstration (see video below).

Julian was hosted by London-Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen, and was joined by Eduardo Sousa from the Council of Canadians and Hassan Yousseff, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. The two-hour forum provided information that could be viewed by some as a threat to Canadian sovereignty.

The SPP began in Canada as a Prime Minister Paul Martin, Liberal government initiative in March, 2005, to boost co-operation on security, trade and public-health issues between Canada, the United States and Mexico. However, staunch criticism of what some see as a closed-door agenda has raised concerns among people on all sides of the Mexico, U.S. and Canada borders.

"We are essentially giving up our ability to function independently as a nation, and essentially that is what is at stake with the SPP," said Julian.

For the most part, guidance in relation to decisions being made within the SPP is provided by a group called the North American Competitive Council (NACC). Officially launched in June of 2006, the NACC was comprised of the 30 senior, private-sector representatives, 10 from each of the three countries, with Canada's 10 including Dominic D'Alessandro (Manulife Financial); Paul Desmarais, Jr. (Power Corporation of Canada); David Ganong (Ganong Bros. Limited); Richard George (Suncor Energy Inc.); Hunter Harrison (CN); Linda Hasenfratz (Linamar Corporation); Michael Sabia (Bell Canada Enterprises); Jim Shepherd (Canfor Corporation); Annette Verschuren (The Home Depot); and Rick Waugh (Scotiabank).

Julian told those in attendance that the NDP have compiled 10-top reasons why they are opposed to the SPP.

"It's anti-democratic by design," he said, adding the SPP discussions are being held behind closed doors.

There are 19 working groups involved with the SPP, all operating behind closed doors, and over a two-year period the NDP, through access to information requests, managed to procure documents in relation to these closed-door, working group sessions. "We finally managed to get the documents…hundreds and hundreds of pages…" Julian said, holding up pages marred heavily in thick, black lines – most, if not all of the information vetted out. "Courtesy of the Government of Canada," he said.

This veil of "profound secrecy" began with Martin and the Liberals, and in a "seamless transition," is being carried on today by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

However, Julian continued, within those documents the party was able to determine that there were more than 300 areas of safety and protection, "important to Canadians," he said, adding the SPP contains a "deep and wide agenda." He said the SPP has been called the next logical step to follow NAFTA. But noted Canadians rejected NAFTA in two national elections, and though the majority of individuals in this country suffer economically under that agreement, with the SPP things will only get worse.

Julian talked about hazardous wastes and said during the Montebello Summit, the way Canada handles its hazardous wastes was handed over to the U.S. "While Canada's system was not perfect, in the United States there is no tracking of hazardous chemicals," Julian said.

Last spring Harper announced the harmonization of allowable pesticide residue on food to match American levels – levels much higher than those previously upheld in Canada. This is detrimental to the health of Canadians and unfair to Canadian producers, Julian said.

A major threat related to the SPP concerns natural resources such as water, oil, and natural gas, he said.

"Water stewardship is fundamental in Canada. We know that despite the fact that we have 20 per cent of the world's fresh water supply, only six per cent of the world's renewable water is found in Canada," Julian said.

The export of bulk water is not permitted under NAFTA, unless one province or jurisdiction approves such activity. At that point any company can apply for bulk water exports and if Canada does not comply, those companies can sue for compensation under the controversial Chapter 11.

"Water diversion is on the agenda of the SPP," Julian said. "Though we haven't seen any concrete plans yet there is no doubt that there is a huge appetite in the United States to simply divert Canadian water."

In relation to oil and natural gas, Canada has already given up more sovereignty in the area of energy than any other country in the world. Under NAFTA Canada is obliged to share 60 per cent of its oil and 60 per cent of its natural gas with the United States, even in the event of a major supply shortage.

"Mexico said 'No' to the same arrangement – it's crazy," Julian said, adding "Under the SPP the negotiations are going even further. Essentially our energy resources will be considered part of the strategic energy resources of the United States."

The issues surrounding softwood lumber, he continued, is just the beginning. Though Canada has seen more than 10,000 job losses in the lumber industry, and Washington having a veto over any changes to Canada's forestry policy, thanks, once again to NAFTA, "Under the SPP that veto will extend across the economic spectrum and other industries will be treated the same way."

Julian touched upon what he called "the slippery slope of civil rights," noting that already Canada has mirrored its southern neighbour – implementing a no fly list. In the area of military he said Canada's capacity is now based on "working with the U.S. military," and the tradition of Canada being thought of as a peace-keeping country, "a Canadian invention," he said, is swiftly becoming a thing of the past.

In addition, he noted, the latest foreign policy report from 2007, "specifically referred to Canada relating its foreign policy to American priorities."

Julian urged the public to speak out against the SPP, in order to stop the "deep, wide-ranging agenda."

Hassan Yousseff, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, said engaging the public will be a challenge.

"It's hard to get the public to engage in regulatory issues in their own country, never mind what's happening at three national levels… and that is the tremendous challenge which we face."

Yousseff said one of the biggest conspiracies related to the SPP is the lack of coverage coming from the national media. Pointing to the Montebello Summit, he noted that the trilateral meeting received very little press.

"It was only when police were exposed disguising themselves as protesters – and that was the story. The bigger story of what the three leaders were doing in Montebello, of course, never got the debate that was required – never got reported," he said.

He too echoed the need for Canadians not only to speak out against the SPP, but to demand information regarding the three-country discussions that take place every year.

"I wish it were about jelly beans, then I would stop worrying," Yousseff said. "It's critical we understand the debate because if we don't understand the debate we might put the same bastards back in power."

Eduardo Sousa with the Council of Canadians said 9-11 provided a vehicle for the powers that be to propagate the SPP under the guise of security. He urged the public to visit the Council of Canadians website to view a chronological timeline (see link) outlining the events that have happened since 9-11, all directly related to Canadian sovereignty and the SPP.

"We're giving away sovereignty over our energy – sovereignty over our water – our ability to determine what is safe and what is good in more than 300 regulatory areas – to determine what is good and safe for our environment – our collective ability to decide, as Canadians, what kind of society we want to create," Julian said, adding, "What is left?"


BEYOND THE ONIONS: Time for Canadians to stand up and stop the SPP
WEB: Council of Canadians -- SPP Timeline
WEB: Government of Canada -- Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

Bush Declares McCain "A True Conservative"

I don't know about you, but I am so reassured now that President Bush has declared John McCain "a true conservative." How could we have misjudged the man?

What a relief to know that we won't have to worry about massive new entitlement programs, a doubling of federal education spending, domestic snooping, unbridled government growth, runaway federal budgets, ballooning deficits, devalued currency, and Wilsonian foreign policy that would have Uncle Sam playing policeman, banker and Santa Claus to the entire world.

ENGLAND'S CRISIS IS OUR'S TOO

From Real Clear Politics

By David Warren

The United Kingdom, from common language and shared heritage, offers us our best window into what is happening in Europe. This is especially so when we try to come to grips -- if we have the courage to do so -- with the historically sudden irruption, and rapid spread, of Islam across Europe.

There are parallel developments in all the nations on the Continent: high immigration rates from Islamic countries, comparatively high birth rates among that immigrant population, and the radicalization of their young in Wahabi mosques financed by the oil wealth of Arabia. But for many English-speaking Canadians, it is the British experience that brings the phenomenon home.

The demographic issue is at the centre of much controversy. There can be little dispute over the statistical facts, which are quite dramatic, and as exhilarating from an Islamist point of view, as they are ominous for those who fear the loss of everything associated with western civilization. For, owing to the prior triumph of the leftist "multicultural" ideology, which holds that one "culture" is as good as another, and therefore it is wrong to preserve our own way of life, there is considerable opposition to discussing these facts.

We have seen this in Canada, where journalists Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have been hauled before "human rights tribunals" -- kangaroo courts in which defendants are stripped of all the traditional protections of court law, and where judgments may be passed against them by people with no legal qualifications on the basis of whim and hearsay.

Mr. Steyn, in particular, stands accused of having openly discussed demographic questions. Mr. Levant stands accused of having published materials the mainstream media had been cowed into suppressing by the fear of Islamist violence.

In both cases, the journalists are being prosecuted by Muslims who advocate the imposition of Shariah law, but are using an apparatus that was designed by the Left for the persecution of those expressing right-wing views.

The British system works differently, and the media in Britain remain more robust than the media in Canada, and willing to report things that would be studiously ignored in a Canadian newsroom. On the other hand, by sheer force of numbers, and the intimidation value of several Islamist atrocities on London's streets, the "fear factor" in Britain is much higher, and the Labour government has proved much more responsive to Islamist demands.

The chief, and most consistent Islamist demand, is for the imposition of Shariah law, at least for Muslims, but ideally by the whole state. In fact, many Shariah courts are already operating informally in Britain, dealing mostly with routine civil questions of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and financial disputes, but sometimes with crime. For instance, a Shariah court in the London district of Woolwich was allowed recently -- apparently with the co-operation of police -- to pass judgment on unnamed Somali youths in a knifing incident. (The assailants were released in return for an apology to their victim.)

In various other ways, Shariah is being recognized, semi-formally. For instance, although bigamy remains nominally a crime in Britain, the Labour government has approved new social provisions by which extra welfare payments, council housing privileges, and tax benefits may be claimed by polygamous households, and the cash benefits to which the extra wives are now entitled may be paid directly into the account of their husband.

At a higher level, the (Anglican) Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, publicly called this week for the recognition of "some form of" Shariah law for Muslims in Britain, and said it should be given equal status with parliamentary law. While Archbishop Williams has a long history of muddled pronouncements, and is widely observed to be emotionally unstable, the strength of his office is now engaged on the Islamist side.

Muslim groups such as the Ramadhan Foundation responded luke-warmly, welcoming the suggestion but criticizing the archbishop for having failed to punish his Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, who is under police protection after recently suggesting that various Muslim districts in Britain had become "no-go areas" for people who are not Muslim. (The Anglican Archbishop of York is also under fire, for making remarks critical of radical Islam.)

The saddest part of this, is that so many "moderate" Muslims emigrated to Britain (as to Canada) expressly to escape from societies in which Shariah law is normative. And what they are learning now, is that, thanks to the triumph of multiculturalism in the West, "you can run but you can't hide."