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.
Assuming I was very very old at any rate.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:30 am
I do know what it means, and it doesn’t matter where it began. It clearly describes something that existed prior to its conception
Lol, Josh, you strain not only logic, but sanity.
Clearly you don’t care where it began, because you didn’t KNOW where it began.
Now you do.
Actually CroMM,
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?
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
I do know what it means, and it doesn’t matter where it began. It clearly describes something that existed prior to its conception.
As I said, the problem is people calling themselves A-THEISTS who haven’t a clue what the word means.
wasn’t, stupid keyboard…
Clearly the problem is your ignorance of the word A-THEIST.
You have demonstrated you don’t know what it means. Where it began. Or who the central players in it were.
You here in your posts have posted three logical fallacies. One of which not only was necissarily true, but was by its very nature untrue, and you are questioning my logic?
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:25 am
No, clearly anyone existing before the term atheism was coined who believed that god did not exist could correctly be described as an atheist sir
No, “son”.
A-THEISM, is a DOCTRINE. A SYSTEM OF BELIEF.
It began, as anyone with a college education will tell you, in the 5th Century, BCE.
Clearly , you do not know what the word means.
Secondly, if there was NO BELIEF in a god or gods, then there would be NO SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, no DOCTRINE, to DENY THEM.
The belief obviously existed before the term. Therefore the term can accurately be used to describe the same belief before the terms existance. So, your argument holds no water.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:23 am
Apparently the schools for special children I atended taught logical analysis, not pedantic pontification
Well they obviously skipped over the logical theories of Greek Antiquity. And characters like Plato, and Diagoras.
Otherwise, you’d know when, and what A-THEISM was.
Nice try.
No, clearly anyone existing before the term atheism was coined who believed that god did not exist could correctly be described as an atheist sir.
See, the real problem here is like I said last night.
Too many people claiming to be A-THEISTS, who haven’t a clue what the word means.
People make up stuff all the time.
But there are not DOCTRINES invented to deny those things if no one ever believed them in the first place.
And A-THEISM, is a DOCTRINE, by defintion.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:19 am
not true, if someone speculated a god existed then there is a concept to deny. There need not be the belief.
You just cannot get past the baby talk, can you?
One more time Joshy.,
In order for their to be a concept of god to deny, there would first have to be one to purport.
If no one purported it, but merely hypothosized, and then immediately dismissed it, then there was never a concept of a god that materialized to the point of being able to “DISBELIEVE” in.
Apparently the schools for special children I atended taught logical analysis, not pedantic pontification.
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 2:18 am
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
Well, you got the first part down. Now lets help your brain along with the second part.
We are talking about A-THEISM.
Not some imaginary belief system that is particular to some imaginary individual.
We are also not talking about some elusive concept that you can label anything you want.
We are talking about the English word, A-THEISM, derived from the greek.
An A-THEISM, you will find if you ever get the chance to attend a real school, emerged in the 5th Century BCE.
Thats fact.
Look it up.
not true, if someone speculated a god existed then there is a concept to deny. There need not be the belief.