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.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:16 am
And our colleges and books and scholars do not show us when atheism was created
Perhaps the ones in you attend. The ones for the “special children”.
For the rest of us, Classic Greek Antiquity and Diagoras, are common fare.
Yes, the word A-THEISM couldn’t be here without the word THEISM first. But clearly both beliefs existed before the words were coined so they mean nothing in conideration of the chronology of the beliefs. Another logical fallacy.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:16 am
All that is required to be an atheist is to decide that god does not exist.
If no one ever purported the concept of a god existing, then there would be no concept of god, to deny.
All that is required to be an atheist is to decide that god does not exist. It was possible to do this prior to the belief that god did exist. Not prior to the idea, but certainly prior to the belief.
And our colleges and books and scholars do not show us when atheism was created. You couldn’t show me one conclusive piece of evidence. At est they are guesses at things that occurred long ago.
And that my illiterate friend, is a concept even a child could understand.
The term A-THEISM, is the opposite of THEISM.
Hence without THEISM, there could not be A-THEISM.
And in order for their to be a DOCTRINE that DENIED BELIEF in something, there would first need by defintion, to be a belief in that thing.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:08 am
Not at all. You simply won’t be honest. I am not suggesting anything other than people could have been atheists before they were theists.
I am being 100 percent honest Josh. You however, are spouting babytalk.
And you are wrong.
A-THESIM began around the 5th Century.
There were THEISTS prior to that.
Josh babbled;
All they would have to consider is whether or not another sentient being created everything before them
Whether or not someone considered that concept is not in question here.
Our discussion, is on A-THEISM.
Like most children, you now try to move the goal posts to whatever you want the discussion to be on. What some man or woman thought a million years ago is not a subject of scientific thought in abscence of records, artifacts or any evidence whatsoever.
Our schools, universties, colleges, libraries, etc, show us when A-THEISM began.
Your childs theories aside.
Not at all. You simply won’t be honest. I am not suggesting anything other than people could have been atheists before they were theists. If such an event occured there would assuredly be no evidence of such. The end. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. It can not be proven either way. Therefore an honest man would not state anything regarding it as fact.
You can play all the baby word games you want, but the fact is, A-THEISM emerged around the 5th Century, BCE.
That my friend is what you’ll learn in school.
What you are teaching here tonight, is what you’ll learn in Kindergarten.
😐
From the other kids.
History shows us when A-THEISM emerged.
Just like History shows us, when DEMOCRACIES emerged.
Or when the Steam Engine emerged.
Or when Christianity emerged.
Or when English emerged.
Or when…..
This is baby talk Josh.
Childs arguments.
A-THEISM is what we are talking about.
You are now claiming, that the history books on Classic Greek Antiquity and the orgins of Hinduism, are wrong, and you, and your childs theory, are right.
Who said simultaneous?
Of course you have to define god first. I was wrong to question that. But you are still wrong to suggest you must believe first.
All they would have to consider is whether or not another sentient being created everything before them.
If I sit down, define to you a god while simultaneously telling you it is false information, there is no place left to go.
There is no room for “disbelief”, as there was never anything believed.
Am I right, or do you believe that the first believers believed in a god before they defined him?
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:00 am
No. Someone would have to CONSIDER IT
LOL, CONSIDER “WHAT”?
If I present it to you as FALSE, what exactly are you considering?
If I define something to you, and tell you it is “FALSE”, and then there is no room for you to “DISBELIEVE A FALSE THING”.
You’ve already been told it’s false.
“in order for a god to have been defined as anything other than FAIRY TALES, someone would have to first BELIEVE IT.”
No. Someone would have to CONSIDER IT.