   |
   |
  |
Posted on 12/24/2015 4:34:20 PM PST by Jyotishi
Brunei, Somalia and Tajikistan ban Christmas
In yet another sign of increasing Islamist intolerance around the world, the celebration of Christmas has come under attack in at least three countries this year: Following in the footsteps of the English Puritans who banned Christmas in the Middle Ages, Brunei, Somalia and Tajikistan are now clamping down on the Christian festival. Now, the announcement from Somalia, which is struggling to get back on its feet after decades of civil war, is possibly the least surprising. The country is officially under sharia'h law; it has almost no native Christians; and Islamist militants still hold some territory. In fact, last Christmas they had attacked the main African Union base in Mogadishu which killed three peacekeepers and one civilian contractor.
But Brunei and Tajikistan haven't been too far behind been -- having exhibited signs of growing religious puritanism in recent years. In 2008, Brunei's Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah announced his vision of developing the country as a sort of 'Islamic-Singapore', which he then followed up with his 2013 decision to implement sharia'h law in three phases. The first phase, which criminalises the missing of Friday prayers, pregnancies outside of marriage, and proselytisation, has already been rolled out. The second phase includes barbaric punishments such as floggings and cutting off the hands for property crimes. The Taliban-like third phase allows for stoning those convicted for crimes such as adultery, abortion, homosexuality and blasphemy.
The ban on Christmas, which includes a five-year jail sentence for so much as wearing a Santa Claus hat, must be viewed in this context. The only saving grace here is that the Christmas ban (and sharia'h laws in general) apply only to the Muslim population -- Brunei's micro-minority Christian community is allowed to mark the day but may not engage in excessive or open celebrations. Notably though these rules and restrictions do not apply to the Sultan's own business interests abroad. One of the richest men on the planet, he owns several landmark hotels in Western capitals and all of them have been adorned in Christmas decorations.
The situation in Tajikistan is somewhat similar. Here the Government has banned Christmas trees and other decorations in schools, and this is being viewed as part of a larger effort to clamp down on 'Western holidays' that are alien to Tajik culture. For example, last year, police reportedly detained people dressed as zombies for Halloween and the year before that, Father Frost was banned from the television. Still, Tajikistan's journey down this path is striking for two reasons: First, even though it is Muslim-majority, the Central Asian republic is still considered to be a nominally secular nation and, second, as a former Soviet state, it has some Christian influence even if the nature of that today is contested. In fact, a Christmas tree is expected to be briefly displayed before the new year in the capital city of Dushanbe.
“English Puritans who banned Christmas in the Middle Ages” and beyond! They banned it there (England) when they held power, they fled to the Continent as refugees when they were forced out of power (where have we heard this before, that those of a totalitarian mindset claimed “refugee” status and fled to the Free World?)
Yet in the Free World, when they held Power, they banned Christmas in this Free Country as well!
So we celebrate the Puritans at Thanksgiving? Give us all a break please. Despite other inclinations, the Puritans were iconoclasts and whenever and where ever they held power, they banned Christmas!
“Following in the footsteps of the English Puritans who banned Christmas in the Middle Ages, Brunei, Somalia and Tajikistan are now clamping down on the Christian festival.”
The editors might be slow to realize that, unlike these muslim countries trying to eradicate Christianity, Puritan were trying to keep it “pure” & from becoming a reveleres’ party. Think “Charlie Brown Christmas”.
There were no English Puritans in the Middle Ages. The term "Puritan" was coined in the middle of the sixteenth century.
Hey, Oliver Cromwell was a famous Puritan. He had his faults but he never slaughtered women and children. He was able to fight out-numbered and win. He drank beer and wine. He hunted and practiced falconry. His wife and daughters wore bright-colored fashions complete with decolletage and they were allowed to speak their minds.
Don’t compare zip-wad Mohammedans with Puritans.
And in rhe American colonies, the Puritan "Ban-Christmas" grinch-legislation lasted only for one generation (1659-1681), and only in Massachusetts.
In the rest of the colonies, people could sing and feast with their friends and raise a Jesus Birthday toast and get merry-like-Christmas if and when and how they liked. They were more into that Religious Liberty thing. And maybe they knew better how to have a good time.
But on the subject of pagan gods, you'll enjoy this, I trust:
Lutheran Satire Presents... Horus Ruins Christmas (YouTube)
Merry Christmas, Jyotishi! Merry Christmas to all!
NO MORE IMMIGRANTS from those countries
NONE
I was going to post what a historically inaccurate statement that was, but several FReepers already beat me to the punch...
Equating Islam with the Puritans is quite the leap...almost idiotic...
Someone has a very broad and non-standard notion of the Middle Ages if they think the Puritans did anything in Middle Ages.
What about Saudi Arabia or Iran? I wonder how they would react to someone singing glory to Jesus, their new born King?
Pay attention.
Mohammed preached peace and tolerance while his followers were outnumbered in Mecca. When they became strong enough and the city started resisting he advocated violence and forcible submission.
Muslims are encountering resistance worldwide now. So it’s time to drop the pretense and force submission.
Too bad the Crusaders gave up so easily. The world would be a better place if they had wiped this cancer off the face of the Earth long ago.
All the more reason for them to stay in their places. Actually, all the more reason for them to be confined to their places.
Today’s Islamist-Puritans Brunei, Somalia, Tajikistan and Jehovah Witnesses ban Christmas
there fixed it
There was nothing to fight for. Materially, that is. Wars are expensive, and way more expensive back in the pre-modern era, relative to productivity. Wars used to routinely kill off huge chunks of the population due to famine (and malnutrition-driven disease) resulting from war taxes imposed by each of the warring parties as they played musical chairs with territorial boundaries. Prior to an American figuring out industrial uses (other than the ancient one featured in the Aladdin tale) for the black crud that used to lie in pools on the surface, much of the Middle East was basically wasteland. Saudi Arabia had a population of 1.5m in 1900 (compared to 28m today) because, without oil revenues, that's all the country could support.
Europe had plenty of rain and fertile land. There was no reason other than piety for pushing into the Middle East. The Crusader kings spent huge fortunes in their quest. Frederick Barbarossa died on the way there. All-in-all, they spent more money than they could afford there, but learned a lot about fortifications, weaponry and military tactics, knowledge that would stand them in good stead during future Muslim incursions. And by not placing the cream of European chivalry in the Middle East, European leaders spared themselves the full weight of the Mongol war of annihilation that was to hit the region in the 13th century.
These people need to be exterminated. ALL of them.
They have darn near banned it here. How often do we see a nativity, the angel at the top of the tree, or hear carols like “Joy to the World” anymore? It’s all “this holiday...,” “holiday list...” on and on.
One of the biggest successes of political correctness religion has been the marginalization of Christmas and the turning it into an empty mercantile season whose real purpose cannot be mentioned in public.
Yankee-pecksniffy bump! Kick them out of the Union!
You realize, of course, that the Manor Bush and the Kennedy-Schwarzeneggers are going to get you for saying that!
[B^o
We Irish disagree with your premise, and we've got the dead bodies to back us up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.