Afghanistan Closes Videogame Stores

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to the UK Guardian's report that authorities in Afghanistan have closed hundreds of shops where children played video games. Authorities claimed they were "reacting to complaints from parents that their children spent time and money in the shops instead of going to their schools", and also cited alleged gambling and alcohol drinking in the stores as "corrupting the morals" of young people. The story links this move to increasingly conservative elements in Afghanistan's post-Taliban government, mentioning that cable television was also recently banned by an Afghan supreme court judge.

Comments

Re:A bit vague

[lightspawn]

isn't the most remarkable news that Jalabad, in the most fundamentalist part of the country, already has over 300 video game shops to close down?

From the article:
"People would gamble and drink alcohol in those video game shops"
"Besides playing video games, customers watch DVD movies for a fee."

These places aren't an equivalent of your gamestop or electronics bootyq. They sound like small time combination bars/movie rental/arcades/game rental businesses. They may not even offer anything for actual sale - I find it hard to believe that the corrupted kids even have PSOnes in their homes.

And it's not even clear if children were allowed in those places like the first paragraph suggests, or if it's only "young people" who were corrupted. Or what percentage of the corruption was caused by the games, how much by DVD movies, and how much by alcohol. It's even likely that many of these places were completely movie oriented - imagine the market demand after the population is exposed to movies for what may well be the first time.

Re:Uh-oh

[FroMan]

but this country was founded on separating that from the ruling government.

Common misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.

Actually, "spearation of church and state" was not thought about until a certain (forget which) supreme court ruling. Read it again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It simpley says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of." So, infact laws saying that employers cannot discriminate against folks based on religion are indeed unconstitutional. It also means that laws against having the 10 commandments in schools or court buildings are unconsitutional.

The reason the clause was put into the first amendment was to prevent a "church of england" ans such issues. Many of the first settlers who first came the the new world were fleeing persecuting governments because of the religion they practiced was not the state religion. They however did not wish for a necessarily atheistic government, they simpley decided that there would be no state endorsed religion.

However, this has been twisted to attempt to even outlaw folks from practicing religion. Such as the fact that Bush, Ashcroft, and others often hold prayer meetings (not required to go to them, and on off time) are still challenged by folks because they think that they are somehow endorsing a religion as the state. Quite the opposite, since they are doing these optional and offtime, it is upto the people to attend. These folks are allowed to be Christian, muslim, hindu, taoist, whatever on their own time. It would be wrong of the state to refuse the people the right (constitutionally protected) to practice their religion.

However, many, even here on slashdot refuse to see that. They harbor such a hatred of Christians that they would rather stomp on the first amendment instead of uphold it for people they disagree with. The first amendment used by the anti-christians is to suppress ideas and thought. It is no longer "I will disagree with everything you say, but defend to the death your right to say it." More likely now it is, "I disagree with everything you say, but I will stomp on the first amendment to stop your right to say it."