The secret – which Matt Drudge told, of course – is out: Britain’s rash and handsome Harry has fought behind Afghanistan’s front lines for the past two months. Now Britain is yanking her royal son from the Helmland and bringing him home.

The prince, a military academy grad and third in line to the British throne, couldn’t serve with his troops in Iraq so he cut a secret deal to go to Afghanistan instead. Red-headed bad boy and “playboy prince,” he’s always had a wicked flair his slightly balding, boring older brother William lacks. (William’s contribution to the Afghanistan fight: A letter saying Princess Di would have been proud.)

And this time, the world’s reaction is not to frown on the recklessness of a guy once dumb enough to dress up like a Nazi for a costume party. Kathryn Jean Lopez gushes on The Corner, “Prince Harry seems like such an impressive young man,” not just because of his bravery but also because he seems miraculously cured of his booze thirst. John Noonan writes on The Weekly Standard blog, “This kind of leadership impresses me no end.” Human Events writes, “Prince Harry the hero puts Europe to shame.” The Morning Journal says,“A prince obviously doesn’t have to do such things.” Allan Mallinson’s pride is palpable: “Well, now Cornet Wales can look every soldier in the eye. Indeed, he can look the whole country in the eye. And his gritty determination to do his bit ought to have recruits clamouring at every barracks gate.”

In an embarrassingly-timed column today, Abe Greenwald claims that democracy is superior to monarchy because good looks correlate with high intelligence: “Our radiant, twinkling, and smoldering candidates are clear indications of the health of our democracy.” Greenwald proves his point by unforgivably ignoring William and Harry’s good looks, choosing instead to compare our potential leaders with the unfortunate-faced Prince Charles. “Erase the great experiment of America,” he says, “and we’d be poised to kneel at the throne of this dull and cowardly man who makes Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich look like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.”

But Britons are allowed to be a little smug today: Erase the great American experiment and you could have some national pride in a prince who makes American worthies look, well, cowardly and dull. Commanders-in-chief usually conduct wars so far removed from the fight it’s like playing a computer game — push a button, make some sterile, artificial gore. Years ago, though, the men in charge of starting wars actually fought them. It didn’t lead to fewer wars, but it may have made for bigger, braver men.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said in a public lecture this week that the official recognition of Islamic sharia courts in the UK is not only “unavoidable,” but necessary for “social cohesion.. In an interview with the BBC, Williams defended his comments, saying: “It’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system.”

But the archbishop’s comments have generated a firestorm of criticism, including from both Labour and Tories in Parliament, in addition to many Anglican clergy. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s office immediately distanced the government from Williams:

“Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes. The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values.”

While Williams envisions sharia applied in the UK to private law and financial transactions, sharia itself recognizes no divisions between the the religious and civil spheres - a principle for which his predecessor Thomas Becket gave his life. The UK media have already identified sharia courts being used in criminal cases, in one instance freeing a group of Somali “youths” accused of stabbing another man.

Is the official recognition of sharia necessary for a pluralistic society, even if it undermines the rule of law and human rights?

Church of England Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, created quite a stir over the weekend by observing in a Sunday Telegraph oped that Islamic extremists had created de facto no-go zones in the UK, nearly identical to the banlieues of France that have been the battleground in the serial car-burning intifadas in recent years. Bishop Nazir-Ali (himself of Pakistani background) states:

Alongside these developments, there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into “no-go” areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.

Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an “Islamic” character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer.

The Sunday Telegraph dedicated a separate article to the Bishop’s comment, and the BBC discusses the political fallout and carries the obligatory denunciations of the Bishop’s comments as “Islamophobia…” (more…)

The contraception controversy isn’t limited to the United States. The United Kingdom is experiencing controversy too, along with a sexual health epidemic.

Teen pregnancies are increasing in England. In 2005, underage pregnancies went up 4%, the biggest increase in a decade. According to The Daily Mail, England and Wales have the highest-rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe, with the biggest recent increase for girls under age 16. A tenth of all 13-15 year old girls have gone to a community contraception clinic. Nearly a quarter of sexually active 13-year-olds have had four or more sexual partners, and their parents are clueless. Three in four parents thought their sexually active teens were still virgins.

In Dorset, health officials are responding by making it easier for teens to obtain emergency contraception. The Telegraph said instead of “having to answer embarrassing questions about their private lives,” girls can fill out a card requesting emergency contraception and then turn it in to the pharmacy. Keith Williams, health program advisor at Dorset Primary Care Trust, said this enables teens to avoid the stigma of admitting they’ve had unprotected sex: “These cards can be put on the counter rather than having to ask. It is almost adding a degree of confidentiality; people can do it almost without speaking.”

Britain’s Health Minister Lord Darzi just announced a plan that would allow pharmacists to dispense the pill to girls under age 16 without a prescription. The Daily Mail found that even a 12-year-old girl can easily obtain the morning after pill just by walking into a pharmacy, telling her age and doctor, when she had sex and whether she used protection. The law requires pharmacists to encourage girls under 16 to talk to their parents, but none of the pharmacists in Daily Mail’s investigation did so.

Christmastimes past have reminded those of faith that the newest enduring tradition is objecting to enduring Christmas traditions. But this year’s “War on Christmas” is uniformly more muted than in years past — especially if you’re English. Americans laugh at Seinfeld’s silly “Festivus” — that holiday “for the rest of us.” By comparison, the only public celebration allowed in several English communities now is “Winterval.”

Yet on Monday, leaders from Britain’s Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities cheerfully seconded a message out of England’s Equality and Human Rights Commission telling tree censors and nativity vilifiers to leave Christmas alone. In commission chair Trevor Phillips’ words, “It’s time to stop being daft about Christmas. It’s fine to celebrate and it’s fine for Christ to be star of the show.” Britons should “stop being silly about a Christian Christmas,” he said.

He apparently believes multicultural Britain is in need of some soul-searching vis-à-vis religion and integration after the July 2005 suicide bombings by homegrown Islamists killed 52 in London. He told Reuters he suspects there’s an underlying agenda — to use “this great holiday to fuel community tension” — so he’s keeping England off “ludicrous paths . . . populated with winter festivals instead of Christmas celebrations” and “anodyne messages of ‘seasons greetings’ and pointless embarrassment over biblical nativity scenes.”

The general secretary of the Hindu Council UK, Anil Bhanot, also told Reuters that Hindus celebrate Christmas — “a great holiday for everyone living in Britain” — while Indarjit Singh, who’s Sikh, said he gets asked every year if Christmas offend him. He responds, “It’s an absurd question. As ever, my family and I will send out our Christmas cards to our Christian friends and others.” And a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain added that the idea that Christmas is a great affront to Islam is erroneous. He asked, “Why can’t we have more nativity scenes in Britain?”

As it happens, there are more nativity scenes Stateside this year. But that’s mostly because Christians are winning this season’s disputes, not because the two sides have reached any mutual understanding: On Monday, aldermen in Branson, Mo. — the “Family-Friendly Las Vegas” — approved a resolution supporting the celebration of Christmas. In Wisconsin, state lawmakers voted Tuesday to restore the name “Christmas tree” to the capitol’s Christmas tree, previously renamed “holiday tree.” Congress even got involved Wednesday when the House voted 372 to 9 to recognize the “importance of the Christmas tradition and to condemn bigotry against Christians.” Anyone left objecting gets pounced on the rest of the week by “culture warriors” like John Gibson and Bill O’Reilly.