That's what I call a war on Christmas!
To all those who keep ranting about the "War on Christmas", this should put things into perspective a little bit.
The super-rich ruler who stones gays, now bans Christmas: Sultan of Brunei threatens Muslims who celebrate it with up to five years in prison while Christians must keep theirs secret
- Christmas trees, carols and even Santa hats are off in the Borneo nation
- Muslims caught celebrating are threatened with up to five years in prison
- The nation's non-Muslims are allowed to celebrate in their communities
- But revealing their celebrations to Muslims would also lead to jail time
- In 2014 the country introduced an anti-gay Sharia Penal Code, which includes the execution of any Muslim for sodomy
- The sultan owns the hotel chain with the Beverly Hills Hotel and Dorchester among others - and those properties are decked out Christmas
While I'm aware that the Sultan of Brunei does not necessarily represent all of Islam, the same way Donald Trump does not represent the whole of Christianity, much less "The West", and that there are equally stupid, close-minded, or bigoted people, or people lusting for power and control all around the world, the difference is that Trump's stance and the stances and actions of those who support him* seems to be based on a (pretty primeval) response to a perceived terrorist threat, whereas the blatant religious intolerance in cases like the above-cited is not that much understandable, at least not by anyone who strives to be rational - although it stems from centuries of societal primitivism.
Besides, you can still vote against Trump, and you're (still) not obligated to follow Christianity in order to stay within the law in the US (or any other secular Western society, to that matter). At least not yet - and despite all claims that "we're a Christian nation", etc. Or the fact that you practically can't get elected to a high position in politics, unless you put a star-sprangled lapel pin on your coat, and recite verses from the Bible on a regular basis in front of as many witnesses as possible. Brunei is an absolute monarchy, granted, where the sultan is both the head of state and head of the government - a privilege bestowed upon him for life by divine law.
On the other hand, such presumed paragons of democracy like the UK for example still seem to be responsible for the defense of that medieval kingdom (much like the way most of the West are friends with a medieval theocracy like Saudi Arabia, while preaching about human rights in the same breath). I mean, the British Gurkha units are still there in Brunei right now, ready to fight and die on behalf of this tinpot despot. As the Queen of Britain is apparently the "Defender of the Faith", i.e. of Christianity, as well as unelected Commander in Chief of the British armed forces for life, you can see where the impression of hypocrisy comes from. But I digress.
* The same way it's not OK to ban people from professing their religion or practicing their traditions, it's not OK to suggest putting a stop on people from entering your country based on their religion, and pretending that this is a solution to anything. Which is what seems to already be happening, if the claims in some media are really true. Case in point:
British MP Says US Denied Boarding to Muslim Family
"Prime Minister David Cameron's office says he will look into a lawmaker's claim that U.S. officials prevented a British Muslim family from flying to Disneyland for a planned holiday."
Not cool. Definitely not cool, if true.
The super-rich ruler who stones gays, now bans Christmas: Sultan of Brunei threatens Muslims who celebrate it with up to five years in prison while Christians must keep theirs secret
- Christmas trees, carols and even Santa hats are off in the Borneo nation
- Muslims caught celebrating are threatened with up to five years in prison
- The nation's non-Muslims are allowed to celebrate in their communities
- But revealing their celebrations to Muslims would also lead to jail time
- In 2014 the country introduced an anti-gay Sharia Penal Code, which includes the execution of any Muslim for sodomy
- The sultan owns the hotel chain with the Beverly Hills Hotel and Dorchester among others - and those properties are decked out Christmas
While I'm aware that the Sultan of Brunei does not necessarily represent all of Islam, the same way Donald Trump does not represent the whole of Christianity, much less "The West", and that there are equally stupid, close-minded, or bigoted people, or people lusting for power and control all around the world, the difference is that Trump's stance and the stances and actions of those who support him* seems to be based on a (pretty primeval) response to a perceived terrorist threat, whereas the blatant religious intolerance in cases like the above-cited is not that much understandable, at least not by anyone who strives to be rational - although it stems from centuries of societal primitivism.
Besides, you can still vote against Trump, and you're (still) not obligated to follow Christianity in order to stay within the law in the US (or any other secular Western society, to that matter). At least not yet - and despite all claims that "we're a Christian nation", etc. Or the fact that you practically can't get elected to a high position in politics, unless you put a star-sprangled lapel pin on your coat, and recite verses from the Bible on a regular basis in front of as many witnesses as possible. Brunei is an absolute monarchy, granted, where the sultan is both the head of state and head of the government - a privilege bestowed upon him for life by divine law.
On the other hand, such presumed paragons of democracy like the UK for example still seem to be responsible for the defense of that medieval kingdom (much like the way most of the West are friends with a medieval theocracy like Saudi Arabia, while preaching about human rights in the same breath). I mean, the British Gurkha units are still there in Brunei right now, ready to fight and die on behalf of this tinpot despot. As the Queen of Britain is apparently the "Defender of the Faith", i.e. of Christianity, as well as unelected Commander in Chief of the British armed forces for life, you can see where the impression of hypocrisy comes from. But I digress.
* The same way it's not OK to ban people from professing their religion or practicing their traditions, it's not OK to suggest putting a stop on people from entering your country based on their religion, and pretending that this is a solution to anything. Which is what seems to already be happening, if the claims in some media are really true. Case in point:
British MP Says US Denied Boarding to Muslim Family
"Prime Minister David Cameron's office says he will look into a lawmaker's claim that U.S. officials prevented a British Muslim family from flying to Disneyland for a planned holiday."
Not cool. Definitely not cool, if true.