There is outrage in Kathmandu after the Nepal Supreme Court ruled that the Kumari has rights. The country has long taken a pre-pubescent girl that declared her a “living goddess” – – a nice status but it comes with a denial of school and other basic rights like freedom of movement. The ruling means the the current Kumari, nine-year-old Preeti Shakya, can be freed from a virtual ornate prison in the palace.
The reform comes on the heels of the return to democracy and elimination of the Nepali Hindu monarchy. The Kumari was used to reinforce the legitimacy of the 240-year-old monarchy.
The ruling could signal the beginning of the end of the tradition. Officials are livid at the ruling. ajan Maharajan, the vice president of the committee that looks after the Kumari and her palace. insists” “This is not good news. In any case, she is a goddess so how can court rulings apply?” He insists that the living God receives three hours of schooling a day at the palace and is not a prisoner. As the video shows below, however, the Kumari is not allowed to speak to anyone.
While the Kumari is a living princess, she loses that status when she starts menstruating — then a new Kumari is selected. The tradition obviously repels many feminists and Westerners.
For a video of the Kumari, click here.
For the full story, click here.
96 thoughts on “Nepal Supreme Court Rules that “Living Goddess” Has Right to School and Free Movement”
(AY-thee-iz-uhm) Denial that there is a God. 1
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2002
the belief that God does not exist
Cambridge Dictionary of American English © Cambridge University Press 2008.
A”the*ism (#), n. [Cf. F. athéisme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being
Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
Absence of belief in the existence of God or deity, gods.
Disbelief in the existence of God or deity, gods.
Etymology: athéisme, from athée “atheist” < (polytonic, ) (atheós) “godless” < (polytonic, á-) a-Prefix_5, (a-) “without”, + (theos) “deity, god”.
A’THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being
Webster’s Dictionary , 1828 edition
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1912 edition
atheism [‘ei?iiz?m] noun
the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
(´th-z´´m) (KEY) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07
ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.
Pronunciation e thi ih zEm
Definition 1. the belief that there is no God.
Wordsmyth.com ©2002 Wordsmyth
the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods. — atheist, n.
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc
n atheism [ˈeiθiizəm]
the belief that there is no God.
Password English Learner’s Dictionary © 1986-2008
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
the belief that there is no God [Greek a- without + theos god]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
See Josh, the problem I have with A-THEISM is the same problem I have with THEISM.
Get enough people together in a room, let them think they’ve got some answers to questions that no one has yet answered, and next thing you know they’re clowning around in government.
Next thing you know, we end up with things like The Suppression of Heresy, The Inquisitions, The Crusades, and the less obvious but nonetheless destructive results of the mingling of church and state.
Thats why I think, “BELIEF SYSTEMS” are a bad thing.
And A-THEISM, like THEISM, is a belief system.
And one rapidly gaining footholds throughout the new “progressive movement”. A fact evident by the number of bloggers in progressive blogs professing A-THEISM without understanding what the word really means.
And if A-THEISM replaces THEISM as the new Belief System that influences our government, it is not at all improbable that THEISTS may become the subject of discrimination and or persecution, much like A-THEISTS have been.
And we don’t need more of that.
What we need now, is a few calm heads, who don’t need belief systems to correlate their understanding of the universe, and who are capable of simply saying, “gee, I don’t know“.
Instead of what we’ve got, which is a bunch of self professed erudite’s claiming to be A-THEISTS, who like you, don’t even know what the word means.
If by “semantics” you mean using the correct terminologies, and correct english, and the DICTIONARY, then sure.
I’m very semantical.
you ignore the point by rguing ymantics
I assume you meant to say arguing semantics, right?
I’m the one referring to Classical Greek Antiquity, the sources of A-THEISM, Hinduism, Anthropological evidence, and the presenece of belief systems as taught in our Universities and Colleges.
And you are the one making up your own defintions of the word A-THEISM, and inventing imaginary stories of impossible scenarios to try and sell whatever refutatiuon of my position that you are trying to sell.
And yet, you call me the one playing “semantics”?
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:42 am
I’m doonsir. You aremonstrably wrong, but even when demonntrated you ignore the point by rguing ymantics. Good night
Thats a lot of typos Josh. We all make em, but that’s like one long typo.
I assume the drugs and booze are kicking in?
Josh the Wise said…
Of course you wouldn’t have been called an atheist, but you still would have been one.
No, you couldn’t be an A-THEIST if THEISM didn’t exist.
Without the concept of a belief in a god, there is no concept to disbelieve in one.
Without THEISM, there is no A-THEISM.
I’m doonsir. You aremonstrably wrong, but even when demonntrated you ignore the point by rguing ymantics. Good night.
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:39 am
Ah, you are so freaking stupid.
I am stupid, yet you’re the one who doesn’t by his own admission, know a thing about classical Greek Antiquity.
I am stupid, yet you’re the one who doesn’t even know the meaning, of the word A-THEIST.
I am stupid, yet you’re the one arguing that someone could form a doctrine of disbelief in something that no one has yet ever purported as real.
yea… josh… I’m the stupid one.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus.
That statement however, would not mean anything, if no one ever professed to anyone that Santa Claus was real.
To say I don’t believe in Bugs Bunny, is to say nothing at all.
Because no one ever believed in Bugs Bunny in the first place.
It’s a cartoon, and was never presented otherwise.
Ah, you are so freaking stupid. I gave you so much more credit than that. I’m arguing the idea and you’re arguing the term. Of course you wouldn’t have been called an atheist, but you still would have been one. You knew what I meant all along and you still argued symantics. What an idiotic and childish thing to do. Ignore the point by arguing symantics. What everyone said about you is right. Good night sir. And go to bed. I’m done with you.
And if someone disbelieved in a god, or gods, someone FIRST would have to have CONCEPTUALIZED that god or gods, prior to disbelieving in them.
You cannot DISBELIEVE in that which was never purported to be real in the first place.
We are not talking about esoteric “what ifs”.
We are not talking about fiary tales and baby’s stories.
We are talkinng about the DOCTRINE of A-THEISM.
A Doctrine, which emerged, in the 5th Century BCE.
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:32 am
I have a simple question and I would like you to answer it honestly. Could I have been an atheist before the word atheism was coined?
There could not have been an “A-THEIST”.
There could have been someone who disbelieved in a god, a specific god or gods, but they would not be called an A-THEIST.
Just like there couldn’t be a CHRISTIAN, before the birth of Christ.
Someone could have demonstrated CHRISTIAN MANNERISMS, or VALUES, but they would not have been a CHRISTIAN.
Because CHRISTIANITY had not yet emerged.
Answer my question please.
Where the word began has no bearring on the belief.
Secondly, in order for you to understand how stupid your babies theory is, you need to take another look at the defintion of the word.
Then, you can argue the dictionary like the rest of the illiterate.
Comments are closed.