What's the Matter With France?

Jacob Sullum | June 5, 2008

A.P. reports that French politicians across the political spectrum are outraged by a judge's decision (noted this morning by Katherine Mangu-Ward) to grant a recently married Muslim couple an annulment because the bride misrepresented herself as a virgin. "The ruling ending the Muslim couple's union," A.P. says, "has stunned France and raised concerns that the country's much-cherished secular values are losing ground to cultural traditions from its fast-growing immigrant communities." I don't get it, just as I did not understand why so many Frenchmen thought it was imperative to ban headscarves from schools. This case seems like a straightforward application of a contract, albeit one constrained by laws regulating marriage:

In its ruling, the court concluded the woman had misrepresented herself as a virgin and that, in this particular marriage, virginity was a prerequisite.

But in treating the case as a breach of contract, the ruling was decried by critics who said it undermined decades of progress in women's rights. Marriage, they said, was reduced to the status of a commercial transaction in which women could be discarded by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden defects in them.

The court decision "is a real fatwa against the emancipation and liberty of women. We are returning to the past," said Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara, the daughter of immigrants from Muslim North Africa.

Notably, the wife, presumably suffering from false consciousness, joined the husband in seeking the annulment and has no desire to challenge the outcome or to publicize the case:

The hitch is that both the young woman and the man at the center of the drama are opposed to an appeal, according to their lawyers. The names of the woman, a student in her 20s, and the man, an engineer in his 30s, have not been disclosed.

The young woman's lawyer, Charles-Edouard Mauger, said she was distraught by the dragging out of the humiliating case. In an interview on Europe 1 radio, he quoted her as saying: "I don't know who's trying to think in my place. I didn't ask for anything....I wasn't the one who asked for the media attention, for people to talk about it, and for this to last so long."

Yet critics of the ruling, including the justice minister and the prime minister, insist it must be challenged because it represents a defeat for feminism and secularism. Evidently women's freedom must be restricted to protect their freedom: They cannot be allowed to enter into whatever contracts they choose or make their own legal decisions because they might misuse those rights. Just to be clear, that is the feminist position. As for the secularist imperative, which in France is strong enough to override the free exercise of religion, I do not understand how it can co-exist with legal principles that empower aggrieved religious groups to punish people for speech that offends them. How can the same country that fears Muslims are taking over when they insist on wearing headscarves or marrying virgins prosecute a novelist for contempt of Islam?

[Thanks to Mark Tarnowski for the tip.]

Comments

|6.5.08 @ 3:54PM|#

So two guys divorced their wife for lying about being a virgin? I am so confused.

|6.5.08 @ 3:54PM|#

There is certainly a point to be made that freedom means the freedom to engage in misogynistic barbaric practices and abandon your wife when she is revealed to not be a virgin. But of course the issue here is does the state have the authority not to give an annulment under these circumstances? Yes, this clown can always leave his wife for whatever primitive reason he wants. But does the state owe him the sanction of such actions by giving an annulment versus an ordinary divorce? I would say the people of France through their elected officials have every right to deny an annulment for whatever reason they chose. It is not like they are saying that the couple must stay together. They are only saying that we should not grant the extraordinary legal remedy of invalidating the marriage alltogether versus just ending the marriage for such a reason. Understand if it is anulled, the marriage does not exist. The women has no claim on her husband's property or any of the normal rights of a spouse. They are depriving her of those rights based on a primative social mores never contemplated under the law. Reason makes it sound like they want to stop their from being a divorce. That is not true.

|6.5.08 @ 3:58PM|#

John,

If I sign a contract to sell you my car, you pay me and it turns out to actually be a moped, how much of the money do I have to give back? Can I keep some?

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 4:00PM|#

Unwind John. Forget the virginity angle.

Two people entered into a verbal agreement to join into a single household. One person made false statements about the "assets" being brought forward. Therefore the agreement should be voided, not disolved after the fact.

Why these two people (one even just one of the two) felt virginity was an important of the agreement is irrelevant.

Brian Sorgatz|6.5.08 @ 4:01PM|#

I would say the people of France through their elected officials have every right to deny an annulment for whatever reason they chose. It is not like they are saying that the couple must stay together. They are only saying that we should not grant the extraordinary legal remedy of invalidating the marriage alltogether versus just ending the marriage for such a reason.

As with the gay-marriage issue here in the States, I'm scratching my head wondering why the state needs to involve itself in the marriage contract at all.

The communication gap between Jacob and the French arises partly from the fact that, for some strange reason, human cultures don't automatically or naturally favor individual liberty. They should, but they usually don't.

|6.5.08 @ 4:03PM|#

"If I sign a contract to sell you my car, you pay me and it turns out to actually be a moped, how much of the money do I have to give back? Can I keep some?"

One, is it a valid contract to sign promising your virginity and so valid that you can legally void the marriage as opposed to just ending it? There are a lot of good public policy reasons, namely not giving dead beat men a chance to abandon their wives, to say no that is not a contract enforceable in court. Understand we are not talking about a divorce here. We are talking about an annulment. An annulment allows this loser to walk away from his wife as if the marriage didn't occur. That is a drastic measure and one rarely granted at least in the US. Should France give this guy an annulment for this reason or just tell him to get a divorce if he thinks his wife lied to him? Fuck no. By giving him an annulment, the government is saying that a women not being a virgin and lying about it is a special sin worthy of special measures. Note, if the women had lied about anything else, say being a good cook, the remedy would be a divorce not an annulment. In granting an annulment versus a divorce, the court is accepting and legitimizing the barbaric culture that says women are somehow unclean and unworthy if they are not virgins when they marry.

|6.5.08 @ 4:04PM|#

Way I heard it, he didn't care if she was a virgin. He just didn't want to be hitched to [Sam Kinison voice] A LYING LITTLE BIIIIIIITCH! OH OH OOOHHHHH! [/Sam Kinison voice]

|6.5.08 @ 4:07PM|#

Even from a contract prospective, this is still a crazy result. Understand that an annulement says the marriage never occured versus just ending the marriage. If this women had lied about something else, no way would the court give an annulement. Why is this so special that it warrents an annulement versus a divorce? This is not like gay marriage at all. This clown isn't asking to get out of the marriage. He is asking for the law to come in and say the marriage never happened. The government of France doesn't owe him that. Fuck him. Give him a divorce and live with the consiquences. No one says he has to stay married, only that he cannot deny the marriage ever occured.

Nigel Watt|6.5.08 @ 4:09PM|#

John, if I bring you a moped and expect payment for the car, you never agreed to give me the money. That's an annulment.

Episiarch|6.5.08 @ 4:11PM|#

The frogs are in a bit of cognitive dissonance with the Muslims. Their multicultural impulses cause them to accept certain behavior, but they don't like it. But when it clashes with "French Values ®" it gives them an excuse to vent their actual dislike of the "immigrants" (many who were born in France).

They are deathly afraid of criticizing the Muslims and being called racists, but this situation gave them an opportunity because they were supposedly standing up for women's rights, and that victim group superseded the other.

|6.5.08 @ 4:12PM|#

"John, if I bring you a moped and expect payment for the car, you never agreed to give me the money. That's an annulment."

WTF? If I agree to sell you a car and don't perform on it or try to pass off a moped as a car, there is still a contract. We don't anul the contract. I just have to pay you damages for breaching the contract. Here, both parties entered into the marriage, this guy doesn't like how it worked out and the remedy is for him to get a divorce. The remedy is not for him to get the court to pretend the marriage never existed.

|6.5.08 @ 4:13PM|#

Islam aside, what other misrepresentations could be judged serious enough to warrant annulment?

Should a marriage be annulled if one of the two misrepresents their wealth? What if one misrepresents their personal tastes ("I hate jazz and I always have", etc)?

Where should the line be drawn?

|6.5.08 @ 4:14PM|#

John, my guess is he found out real fast. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't annulments generally used within the first several months or so of a marriage?

|6.5.08 @ 4:14PM|#

Interesting posts John. The question I have is though, how long were they married? Don't many countries annul marriages within the first 12 months or so? If he sought to end the marriage after such a period I can't see why he was granted a special remedy beyond divorce.

ed|6.5.08 @ 4:19PM|#

Yaaaawn. Getting sleepy...sleepy...

|6.5.08 @ 4:20PM|#

"Notably, the wife, presumably suffering from false consciousness, joined ....

If this is joined as in the legal since, then that is tantamount to a stipulated motion or petition. The parties should be able to agree amongst themselves a particular legal outcome if the law provides one. So I don't see what the outrage is either. Personally i would like a few miles under the hood but a lot people want their brand new car to have few miles.

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 4:20PM|#

An annulment allows this loser to walk away from his wife as if the marriage didn't occur.

Let's make this clear John. I despise the medieval culture of the fundamentalist muslims. But in this case, I tend to sympathize with the groom. He said wasn't upset about her not being a virgin. He was upset because she lied about being a virgin. It is impossible to create a marriage when one of the participant lies about something this basic.

Mark|6.5.08 @ 4:20PM|#

What's the matter with France?

It's full of French?

Nephilium|6.5.08 @ 4:21PM|#

John:

Maybe people would be right in fighting for this to be changed... if the woman involved in the case wanted people to. She wants everyone to drop it.

Nephilium

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 4:21PM|#

Is virginity or lack thereof a legal grouds for fraud in the US? If not, I suspect most US citizens would go apeshit if we made an exception to that for Muslims. So I don't understand why anyone would think the French would think it's okey-dokey to make a religious exception.

|6.5.08 @ 4:22PM|#

,i>It is impossible to create a marriage when one of the participant lies about something this basic.

I'm offering 5 to 1 odds that Kinnath is single and 20 to 1 odds that he's male.

Steve|6.5.08 @ 4:23PM|#

I don't understand who's hurt by this ruling. He wanted an annulment, she wanted an annulment, they got an annulment. What's the problem?

|6.5.08 @ 4:24PM|#

And 20 to 1 odds that I'll never master html to the point where I no longer need to use preview.

The first sentence was a quote.

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 4:26PM|#

If these were two fundamentalist christians in the US and both bride and groom had promised to stay virgins until marriage; then one party lying about being a virgin should warrant an annulment, not a divorce.

|6.5.08 @ 4:27PM|#

If this women had lied about something else, no way would the court give an annulement.

The article I read about this had mentioned an example of the french courts giving an annulment to a couple because it was found out by the husband that his wife lied about not being a prostitute before they got together.
The french didn't seem to mind that?

What is the difference?

Lying about your past and misrepresenting yourself in order to seem more attractive or to be considered marriage material to a mate isn't valid grounds for annulment?

One person lying to the other about themselves is fraud.

|6.5.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Should a marriage be annulled if one of the two misrepresents their wealth? What if one misrepresents their personal tastes ("I hate jazz and I always have", etc)?

Where should the line be drawn?

The same principles would apply here that apply to any contract. I don't see why this would be any more of a problem with respect to marriage. Typically the party suing for misrepresentation has to show that the other party lied about some objective fact and that he was induced to enter the contract based on that falsehood.

Clearly wealth would qualify if one party lied about it to induce the other person to marry him or her. Taste in music is probably too subjective, but as in any contract, it would depend on what you could prove in court.

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 4:29PM|#

I'm offering 5 to 1 odds that Kinnath is single and 20 to 1 odds that he's male.

I'll take the first bet for $1,000.

Married to the same women for 32 years, two adult children, four grandchildren, retired Roman Catholic.

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 4:30PM|#

Note, if the women had lied about anything else, say being a good cook, the remedy would be a divorce not an annulment.

How do you know? Can you tell me what misrepresentations are and are not grounds for an annulment in French law?

Besides, whether or not one is "a good cook" is subjective and therefore not really a matter subject to misrepresentation. If someone misrepresents a material fact, why shouldn't that void the contract?

The reasons people are up in arms over this [people who would ordinarily stand up for the right to contract] are pretty simple: you have Christofascist scum who hate Muslims and since the plaintiff is a Muslim, it's totally OK to make misrepresentations to him and he should just go back to work at the Quik-E-Mart and shut up; and you have feminists who want to make sure that the sexual freedom of women is unencumbered by silly annoyances like the personal preference or individual judgment of a potential male marriage partner.

|6.5.08 @ 4:30PM|#

The french are a crazy bunch. I was there during the whole headscarves thing and they passionately argued that it wasn't discrimination because the law also said that they wouldn't be able to wear a giant cross around their neck. Seriously.

Invisible Finger|6.5.08 @ 4:30PM|#

If you put 12,000 miles on a used car and then claim it's a lemon, you'd get laughed out of court. Likewise, if this guy fucked his non-virgin wife more than once, I'd say he's fulla shit.

These 2 French Muslims obviously have an amicable divorce. But the guy here wants some court blessing for a faith-based indulgence. Tough fuckin' shit in my book, that ain't the government's job.

|6.5.08 @ 4:31PM|#

I don't understand who's hurt by this ruling. He wanted an annulment, she wanted an annulment, they got an annulment. What's the problem?

The problem, for many of the french who are whining about this, seems to be that the law isn't invalidating Muslim ideals that the french deem archaic and ugly.

No one who has a problem with this seems to want to look past the virginity part. It isn't about virginity, it's the lying to the spouse that is the problem.

|6.5.08 @ 4:31PM|#

Ok, that post above was me - although Johnny Stecchino would probably have said something similar

jorgen|6.5.08 @ 4:32PM|#

The idea behind divorce settlement is that two people have invested a lot in eachother and shouldn't be able to just walk away from eachother. The only reason not to grant an annulment after a few days, or a few weeks or whatever it was is if there was a significant investment during that period, such as sex for those who are very particular about that. I think that if the couple wants to walk away from this and say it never happened, they should be free to do so.

|6.5.08 @ 4:33PM|#

"Article 180 of the Civil Code states that when a couple enters into a marriage, if the "essential qualities" of a spouse are misrepresented, then "the other spouse can seek the nullity of the marriage." Past examples of marriages that were annulled include a husband found to be impotent and a wife who was a prostitute, according to attorney Xavier Labbee."

That is from the article. The court held that being a virgin was an "essential quality" of a spouse in this case. After this case, a husband in France can demand that his wife be a virgin and if she lies about it, get the marriage annulled. I can see where the people of France object to that. Since you can only tell for sure that a women is a virgin, it is completely one sided against women. This is not a freedom issue, this is a legal sanction issue. No one is saying that you shouldn't be able to divorce your wife for whatever reason you like no matter how barbaric. The issue is should the law recognize Muslim cultural norms to such an extent that it considers being a virgin an "essential quality" of a marriage. My answer is hell no.

Steve|6.5.08 @ 4:34PM|#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

If the consent to the marriage was based on fraud or force;

and

One partner had been deceived by the other in order to obtain consent, and if the partner had been aware of the truth, would not have consented to marry


Doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me, if he had known that she wasn't a virgin he would not have agreed to marry her, she lied (fraud) about being a virgin knowing that the truth would have kept him from agreeing to the marriage. Seems legitimate grounds for an annulment, yes?

|6.5.08 @ 4:34PM|#

The reasons people are up in arms over this [people who would ordinarily stand up for the right to contract] are pretty simple: you have Christofascist scum who hate Muslims and since the plaintiff is a Muslim, it's totally OK to make misrepresentations to him and he should just go back to work at the Quik-E-Mart and shut up; and you have feminists who want to make sure that the sexual freedom of women is unencumbered by silly annoyances like the personal preference or individual judgment of a potential male marriage partner.

bing bing bing!

You mean like:
I think it should be illegal for men to take certain things into consideration when deciding whether or not to marry a woman. It's not fair that they should take sexual purity into account, and he should have to deal with it because everyone gets married because they're in love, and for no other reason. If he doesn't love her just because she's not a virgin, then he doesn't share our values and doesn't deserve our legal protection.

|6.5.08 @ 4:34PM|#

"How do you know? Can you tell me what misrepresentations are and are not grounds for an annulment in French law?"


Read the fucking article Fluffy you jackass. Is it your opinion that a women being a virgin is an "essential quality" to a marriage?

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 4:35PM|#

One person lying to the other about themselves is fraud.

No it isn't. It's a lie. Fraud is an entirely different legal concept.

Steve|6.5.08 @ 4:37PM|#

The issue is should the law recognize Muslim cultural norms to such an extent that it considers being a virgin an "essential quality" of a marriage.

No they are saying it was an "essential quality in this marriage which according to the bride and groom, it was...

|6.5.08 @ 4:37PM|#

The headscarf ban separated the true advocates of Women's rights from those who are just anti-Muslim. This case is no different. John, a divorcee has rights under the law, so a simple divorce does not cut it. If the conditions of the marriage contract were not met , then, the contract is void plain and simple.

|6.5.08 @ 4:37PM|#

Just wanted to mention that John's argument of annulment vs divorce is the only reasonable argument I have seen anywhere regarding this case from the 'against' side.

Steve|6.5.08 @ 4:39PM|#

No it isn't. It's a lie. Fraud is an entirely different legal concept.

Oh, you mean like when you misrepresent yourself in order to get another party to enter into a contract?

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 4:39PM|#

Is it your opinion that a women being a virgin is an "essential quality" to a marriage?

My opinion is not relevant. Your opinion is not relevant.

For two people that are adherents of a conservative religion (Orthodox Jews, Fundamental Christians, many Arabic Muslims), then yes virginity is an essential quality.

You have to argue that those religious concerns are illegitimate to rule against the groom in this case.

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 4:41PM|#

Since you can only tell for sure that a women is a virgin, it is completely one sided against women.

Only men can be impotent, and that precedent is already on the books.

This is not a freedom issue, this is a legal sanction issue.

Right - you want to legally sanction deception, because if that's what's necessary to let you stick it to Muslims, that's what you want to do.

It honestly doesn't matter if a preference for virgins is "barbaric" or not. The only party who can declare what qualities of a potential spouse are definitive is the person doing the marrying. Do you think the plaintiff is telling the truth that virginity really mattered to him? That's really the only issue here: If the plaintiff says he would not have entered into the marriage if he had not been deceived, does the court believe him? I would believe him; there isn't even a whiff of implausibility here.

Basically you have buried yourself so deeply into your hatred of Muslims that you have reached the level of absurdity demonstrated in Plato's Republic - you want to ideologically invalidate the standards other persons used to determine what they find attractive in a mate. And that's crap. Even if it's stupid to prefer a wife who is a virgin, it's absolutely this guy's prerogative to have such a preference.

Steve|6.5.08 @ 4:42PM|#

John- you realize it's possible to get an annulment in the u.s. if the bride didn't know the groom was impotent because he lied about it, right?

Either spouse was physically incapable to be married (typically, chronically unable to have sexual intercourse) at the time of the marriage;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

Is it your opinion that a man being able to get a woody is an "essential quality" to a marriage?

Episiarch|6.5.08 @ 4:43PM|#

You are all failing to learn the proper message here:

Never. Get. Married.

classwarrior|6.5.08 @ 4:44PM|#

It's probably not appropriate to treat this as a simple breach of contract matter. Chances are the woman faced extreme pressure from her family to marry another strict Muslim or be completely ostracized from her community, with the financial hardship of being thrown out of her family's home. Practically speaking, she probably had little choice in the matter. It sounds like she didn't care for this guy in the first place and is glad to be out of the arrangement.

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 4:44PM|#

Oh, you mean like when you misrepresent yourself in order to get another party to enter into a contract?

I lie and say I have a college degree, but in fact do not. If you enter into a contract with me because I said I have a college degree, I can still fulfill the contract and therefore the college degree is immaterial.

The question here is whether virginity can be codified as a legal grounds for annulment AND whether the court can make religious exemptions. IANAL, so I don't know the answer, but I can figure out the question.

|6.5.08 @ 4:45PM|#

"Article 180 of the Civil Code states that when a couple enters into a marriage, if the "essential qualities" of a spouse are misrepresented, then "the other spouse can seek the nullity of the marriage." Past examples of marriages that were annulled include a husband found to be impotent and a wife who was a prostitute, according to attorney Xavier Labbee."

So does this mean that the state has a list of essential qualities, or does it mean that couples can define for themseleves essential qualities and if they are misrepresented, then the marriage can be annulled.

If virginity is an essential quality to me, and it is misrepresented to my by my spouse...where is the problem?

You seem to be implying that virginity should never be an essential quality in anyones marriage and that anyone who holds that it is is inherently in the wrong. That seems rather prejudiced.

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 4:47PM|#

You seem to be implying that virginity should never be an essential quality in anyones marriage and that anyone who holds that it is is inherently in the wrong.

BINGO

|6.5.08 @ 4:48PM|#

I lie and say I have a college degree, but in fact do not. If you enter into a contract with me because I said I have a college degree, I can still fulfill the contract and therefore the college degree is immaterial.

You have still perpetrated a fraud, regardless of how good you are at your job. The other party absolutely has a way out of the contract.

I have seen lots of people get fired from jobs they were great at because they lied about their credentials.

|6.5.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to intervene.

Rhymes, schmymes.

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 4:49PM|#

Is it your opinion that a women being a virgin is an "essential quality" to a marriage?

Your authoritarian instincts are showing again, John.

You immediately assume that the court is here ruling that virginity is an objective essential quality of all marriages, and it's doing nothing of the kind.

A quality is essential if one party would not have entered into the marriage in the absence of that quality, and if the other party knew that and tailored an appropriate deception accordingly. It doesn't matter what the quality is, as far as I am concerned, as long as it was explicit, known beforehand, and has some element that can be measured or demonstrated [i.e. no claiming "he said he was my soulmate and he isn't!"].

|6.5.08 @ 4:50PM|#

I always wanted a red Ferrari; if it's not red, it's just not a real Ferrari. I find a Ferrari advertised, and after haggling over the phone with the owner (during which negotiation I make my preferences clear, and he assures me it's exactly what I have been looking for) I agree to buy it.

When I arrive to pick it up and close the deal, I discover the damned thing is gunmetal grey. It's the right model, clean, not a scratch or dent, runs like a scalded dog, but it's not red. Should he be able to take me into court and compel me to take it?

Rhywun|6.5.08 @ 4:51PM|#

Chances are the woman faced extreme pressure from her family to marry another strict Muslim or be completely ostracized from her community, with the financial hardship of being thrown out of her family's home.

Thank you. That has been my thought precisely. Not every human transaction boils down to a piece of paper.

|6.5.08 @ 4:51PM|#

Maybe this guy can go to Muslima.com (the ad at the top of our screen)

Fug Girls|6.5.08 @ 4:51PM|#

You might as well ask Lindsey Lohan what's the matter with pants!

|6.5.08 @ 4:52PM|#

No one who has a problem with this seems to want to look past the virginity part. It isn't about virginity, it's the lying to the spouse that is the problem.

Yes, I think ChicagoTom is right that the virginity issue is overshadowing the real issue. People ought to be able to seek any trivial (to me) trait in another person they want. If someone doesn't want to marry anyone who has ever been to Disneyland and the other person lies and says she hasn't when in fact she's ridden the Matterhorn more than a few times, it doesn't matter that the rest of us think that's stupid.

The problem with this ruling though, as I mentioned on the other thread about this case, is the language the court used, "an error in the essential qualities of the bride" which seems to imply that they are accepting lack of virginity as prima facie evidence of misrepresentation. If not, why even venture into contemplating "essential qualities"? Just say she lied, he relied on that, end of story. Instead it's like they're saying "What? She's not a virgin? 'Nuff said, judgement for the plaintiff!" Of course I haven't read the actual article or decision, but if that's the case then it is the right result but based on terrible reasoning.

In short, the virginity and "essential qualities" crap should be irrelevant, the lying is all that matters.

|6.5.08 @ 4:53PM|#

Chances are the woman faced extreme pressure from her family to marry another strict Muslim or be completely ostracized from her community, with the financial hardship of being thrown out of her family's home.

Thank you. That has been my thought precisely. Not every human transaction boils down to a piece of paper.

I don't understand what the implication of these statements is. Do... you think they shouldn't be allowed to get an annulment because her family wouldn't like her anymore?

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 4:53PM|#

We hire judges to make value judgements, because it is simply not possible to predict every future predicament that must be settled in court.

If a 88-year-old women seeks an annulment because her newly married 92-year-old husband can't get it up, I would expect a judge to throw the case out. Not the same as 32-year-old woman finding out her new 35-year-old husband had a motorcycly accident and can't get it up.

I would expect that a judge should issue an annulment if a devoutly religious person said that virginity was an essential quality that he/she expected in a spouse.

|6.5.08 @ 4:54PM|#

"Basically you have buried yourself so deeply into your hatred of Muslims that you have reached the level of absurdity demonstrated in Plato's Republic - you want to ideologically invalidate the standards other persons used to determine what they find attractive in a mate. And that's crap. Even if it's stupid to prefer a wife who is a virgin, it's absolutely this guy's prerogative to have such a preference."

No, it is not about his preference. He can have any preference he likes and is free to divorce the women. What he is not entitled to is the state endorsing his preference by declaring "being a virgin" an essential quality of his spouse and given the extraordinary remedy of an annulment versus an ordinary divorce. Note that this is different that impotence, which is the most common ground for annulment. The state recognizes that sex and children are the purposes of marriage and is willing to give an extra ordinary remedy when someone lies about that subject. Virginity is entirely different. It only applies to women so it is fundamentally unfair. Also, when someone is impotent the other party is measurably harmed because they can't have children in that marriage. The marriage ceases to function for the purpose it was created because they can't have sex and can't have children. In this case, there is nothing stopping this guy from having sex or children or any other aspect of married life. He is just angry his wife wasn't a virgin. Well, the remedy for that is divorce not annulment.

I don't hate Muslims. If you knew anything about Muslims you would know that most of them are not hung up on their wives being virgins. This is not a Muslim issue, it is a cultural issue. There is nothing about Islam that necessarily means that you have to be this way. Lots of Muslims are not.

If you were not such a PC weenie who thinks that anything brown people do must be great, you would realize what a horrible decision this is and how bad it is for women in France.

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 4:55PM|#

It's probably not appropriate to treat this as a simple breach of contract matter. Chances are the woman faced extreme pressure from her family to marry another strict Muslim or be completely ostracized from her community, with the financial hardship of being thrown out of her family's home.

Actually, had the court recognized any of these facts, THAT I would have found to be inappropriately catering to Muslims.

I don't want to hear any sob stories about how tough it is to grow up a Muslim, and how that's why you lied to induce someone to enter into a contract with you.

If we provided this woman with a right to commit a fraud to trick someone into entering a contract with her because she was raised in a Muslim household and felt pressure to get married, that would be much, much worse than the ruling of the court here.

|6.5.08 @ 4:56PM|#

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:29pm | #
I'm offering 5 to 1 odds that Kinnath is single and 20 to 1 odds that he's male.

I'll take the first bet for $1,000.

Married to the same women for 32 years, two adult children, four grandchildren, retired Roman Catholic.

Okay, okay, I'll pay up, but only if you are ready to tell me that dishonesty has never once entered your marriage.

|6.5.08 @ 4:57PM|#

John, I get your argument, however, you can still have children even if the male is impotent.

|6.5.08 @ 5:01PM|#

Look,
there's a giant connection between the "essential quality" argument and the "she lied" argument, in that she lied that she had an essential quality. The only way the "essential quality" argument doesn't hold up to the same standards as the "she lied" argument is if he had made an assumption that she was a virgin and then found out she wasn't. If she explicitly told him that she was, it was both a lie and a lack of a mutually agreed upon "essential quality."

|6.5.08 @ 5:01PM|#

"You seem to be implying that virginity should never be an essential quality in anyones marriage and that anyone who holds that it is is inherently in the wrong. That seems rather prejudiced."

Yeah it is. Some things are worthy of prejudice. Do you think that it is a great thing? The idea that a woman should be a virgin at marriage, note of course no one ever asks the man, is sexist as hell and based on the primitive idea that a woman who has had sex is somehow unclean and unfit for other men. Yeah, I am prejudiced as hell against that idea. Just you are prejudiced as hell against people who think it is morally wrong for people of different races to marry.

Let me ask you and Fuffy this. If some white supremacist cracker here in the US married a women who lied about her being all white and he later found out that she really had a grandmother who was black, do you think that he would be entitled to an annulment? If not why not? Aren't the two parties allowed to determine what is "essential" in the other side? Isn't pretty prejudiced of you to think less of him for not wanting to be married to someone who is part black?

It amazes me how once you move out of the context of the US and start talking about other people how people's morals and judgment go right out the window. Warren, you would tell the white supremacist to go screw himself and you should do the same here. Just because he is brown doesn't make him right.

|6.5.08 @ 5:01PM|#

Neither of these people seems particularly distraught over the dissolution of the marriage; what are the odds, Mr Oddsmaker, that this was an arranged marriage which neither of them found particularly appealing?

It might not be an ideal solution,but each is now free to go his/ her own merry, unattached, way.

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 5:03PM|#

If you were not such a PC weenie who thinks that anything brown people do must be great

Yeah, that's me. The PC weenie who thinks that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is tyrannical, and who regularly posts that hotels and restaurants should be allowed to exclude blacks if that's the owner's choice. PC Fluffy.

you would realize what a horrible decision this is and how bad it is for women in France.

The point is that I don't care if it's good or bad for women in France, because the social utility of the ruling is irrelevant to me.

That means I don't have to care about the symbolism of it, I don't have to care about the cultural implications of it, and I don't have to care about whether or not it advances some chimera of "social justice". Because none of that BS should have any place in the law.

Individual justice should be the sole province of all law. Certainly all civil law. And that means that if one party lies to another to induce them to enter into a contract, that party should be denied ANY benefit from that action. In this case, that means stripping the lying non-virgin of any marital benefit, and an annulment accomplishes that where a divorce would not.

We have a plaintiff who - it is not disputed - made clear that he only wanted to marry a virgin, and a defendant who heard that and chose to lie. Case closed. Next case. Oh, does that offend women? Too bad.

Zeno|6.5.08 @ 5:03PM|#

And the alternative? That the state FORCE the unhappy uncouple to remain legally married?

No matter the downsides, the ability to divorce without requirements is probably a net good.

|6.5.08 @ 5:04PM|#

John, what if the man had told the woman he'd never had sex before, then some proof was presented immediately after the wedding that he'd been lying and the woman wanted out?

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 5:04PM|#

Let me ask you and Fuffy this. If some white supremacist cracker here in the US married a women who lied about her being all white and he later found out that she really had a grandmother who was black, do you think that he would be entitled to an annulment?

Yes. Absolutely.

Next question.

|6.5.08 @ 5:04PM|#

"We have a plaintiff who - it is not disputed - made clear that he only wanted to marry a virgin, and a defendant who heard that and chose to lie. Case closed. Next case. Oh, does that offend women? Too bad."

Ok Fuffy. what about the White Supremicist who wants an annulment because his wife has a black relative? What do you think about that? How is this any different?

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 5:05PM|#

Okay, okay, I'll pay up, but only if you are ready to tell me that dishonesty has never once entered your marriage.

You are on the hook for $5K dude.

No, I haven't been dishonest with my wife. And I don't believe she has been dishonest with me.

Also don't confuse dishonesty during the courtship leading up to marriage with dishonesty during the marriage. One leads to annulment, the other to divorce.

On my way out the door, so no more posts from me.

|6.5.08 @ 5:07PM|#

What he is not entitled to is the state endorsing his preference by declaring "being a virgin" an essential quality of his spouse and given the extraordinary remedy of an annulment versus an ordinary divorce

Uhmm....they are stating that being a virgin was an essential quality, TO HIM, and his spouse deceiving him warranted an annulment.

The ruling doesn't seem to make virginity an essential quality to ALL marriages.

Also, when someone is impotent the other party is measurably harmed because they can't have children in that marriage. The marriage ceases to function for the purpose it was created because they can't have sex and can't have children.

Who are you to tell others what the function and purpose of marriage is?

He is just angry his wife wasn't a virgin. Well, the remedy for that is divorce not annulment.

No, he is angry that he was deceived. Why do you keep ignoring that point and pretending like that isn't the reason he stated for the divorce?

Shorter John:
"These people should live by my values"

Rhywun|6.5.08 @ 5:07PM|#

If it's just about the lying, then I'd expect to see a lot more annulments going forward.

|6.5.08 @ 5:07PM|#

"Yes. Absolutely.

Next question."

I call shenanigans. You are totally talking out of your ass. No way would you endorse that if you hadn't talked yourself into such a corner on this issue. Further, what you are really saying that every divorce should be an annulment then. Any lie about anything should justify an annulment. You are confusing annulment with divorce. No one is saying this guy shouldn't be able to get a divorce, only that he is not entitled to an extraordinary remedy of an annulment.

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 5:08PM|#

You have still perpetrated a fraud, regardless of how good you are at your job. The other party absolutely has a way out of the contract.

Not at all. The other party hasn't suffered any harm.

|6.5.08 @ 5:08PM|#

Ok Fuffy. what about the White Supremicist who wants an annulment because his wife has a black relative? What do you think about that? How is this any different?

If she knew he felt this way, and knew she had a black relative, and lied about it -- it shouldn't be any different.

Why is this so difficult?

Episiarch|6.5.08 @ 5:09PM|#

Let me ask you and Fuffy this. If some white supremacist cracker here in the US married a women who lied about her being all white and he later found out that she really had a grandmother who was black, do you think that he would be entitled to an annulment?

Yes. Absolutely.

Next question.

OK Mister SmartyPants, who is the last cylon?

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 5:10PM|#

And the alternative? That the state FORCE the unhappy uncouple to remain legally married?

Can you not read? The court will grant the divorce with no problem. An annulment is something else entirely.

|6.5.08 @ 5:10PM|#

Not at all. The other party hasn't suffered any harm.

They may not be able to get any damages from a civil suit, but they would be able to terminate the contract for fraud.

Misrepresenting yourself to deceive another party to get something you want that they wouldn't give you if you were honest is fraud. Regardless of how stuff worked out eventually.

Rhywun|6.5.08 @ 5:10PM|#

The ruling doesn't seem to make virginity an essential quality to ALL marriages.

Sure it does. From now on, all a Frenchman has to do to get out of a marriage is say "she told me she was a virgin".

|6.5.08 @ 5:10PM|#

Same goes for you Warren. You are really just saying that anytime someone lies going into a marriage that person should be entitled to an annullement. That is not the law and that is not what is going on here. The white supremicist would never get an annullment. The French court is giving special status and legal sanction to this particular cutural mores where it wouldn't in other cases. This is not a freedom issue, it is an issue of special status. Why is this guy entitled to sanction that most other people would not get?

|6.5.08 @ 5:11PM|#

This is why government's role in marriage is so danged bad. What he should be doing is pointing to Section 13(a)(iii) of the Marriage Agreement, which clearly states that he can annul if she turns out to be a lying slut. Unfortunately, we have, in our great wisdom, allowed the government this power over our lives.

Episiarch,

Mal Reynolds.

|6.5.08 @ 5:13PM|#

Not at all. The other party hasn't suffered any harm.

Actual harm is not an element of misrepresentation. All that matters is that you lied about an objective fact that the other person relied on in entering the contract.

Again, people have the right to look for any conditions they want, no matter how stupid you might think they are. It's not your right to decide their desires are trivial and lie in order to induce them to engage in some transaction with you. Allowing that goes against a pretty fundamental tenet of freedom in my mind.

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 5:14PM|#

Further, what you are really saying that every divorce should be an annulment then. Any lie about anything should justify an annulment.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that any lie offered to satisfy an explicit and known condition of the marriage should be grounds for annulment.

If you explicitly say, "I will only marry you if you are white," and the other party, knowing they are black, says, "Well, yes, I'm white. Certainly. Let's go get married!" that should be grounds for an annulment.

But if your spouse finds out in an offhand way that you lied when you said you were working late, and that you really went to watch the Celtics game at your friend's house instead - no, that would not be grounds for an annulment.

I call shenanigans. You are totally talking out of your ass. No way would you endorse that if you hadn't talked yourself into such a corner on this issue.

Um, no. It's called not being intellectually dishonest. Based on the premises I have argued here, I would have no grounds for objecting to the white supremacist's request for an annulment. You tried to run the reductio on me, but I am a hard person to do that too because I am perfectly willing to suck it up and stomach the offensive example. So you have successfully demonstrated to me that my support for the principle of fair dealing in contracts forces me to support the petition of a deceived white supremacist seeking an annulment. Oh well.

|6.5.08 @ 5:15PM|#

Sure it does. From now on, all a Frenchman has to do to get out of a marriage is say "she told me she was a virgin".


1. In this case, both parties are agreeing that marriage was contingent upon her being a virgin. She didn't dispute that she lied to him, nor that his entering the marriage was contingent upon her being a virgin. That seems to make a bit of a difference.

2. So? How is that inherently bad.

The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.08 @ 5:15PM|#

Find me a case where a French Catholic get a state (not church) annulment on the same grounds and I'll throw in with you.

Since you can only tell for sure that a woman is a virgin...

What? I don't think there's any money back guarantee on *that* test. You pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Should a marriage be annulled if one of the two misrepresents their wealth

My grandfather and his second wife both did this. Each married thinking the other one had some cash. Joke was on them both.

They are deathly afraid of criticizing the Muslims

And they are sitting on a powder keg that one day will splatter them like Gallagher's watermelon.

One person lying to the other about themselves is fraud.

Well, then I guess that's grounds for annulment of most marriages.....

bubba|6.5.08 @ 5:15PM|#

She lied about being a virgin. She thought he'd get over it.

He didn't.

They BOTH decided that under the circumstances, the marriage wasn't going to work out.

So, an annulment.

BFD.

|6.5.08 @ 5:16PM|#

"Again, people have the right to look for any conditions they want, no matter how stupid you might think they are. It's not your right to decide their desires are trivial and lie in order to induce them to engage in some transaction with you. Allowing that goes against a pretty fundamental tenet of freedom in my mind."

That is great and if that were the law you might have a point. But that is not the law. I could not go into a French court and claim that my wife lied to me about her race or that the rug matched the drapes and get an annulement. You only get an annulement in a few very special circumstances. You people are acting like you can get an annullement for anything. You can't. What is happening here is this guy is getting an annulement because the court has deemed this cutural norm special and worthy of special legal consideration versus say my concern that my wife's hair be her natural color or any other crazy consideration.

D.A. Ridgely |6.5.08 @ 5:18PM|#

Married to the same women for 32 years, two adult children, four grandchildren, retired Roman Catholic.

Wow! I've heard of lapsed but never retired Roman Catholics! Did you get a watch?

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 5:19PM|#

That is not the law and that is not what is going on here. The white supremicist would never get an annullment. The French court is giving special status and legal sanction to this particular cutural mores where it wouldn't in other cases.

The fact that the court would [might?] deny justice to a white supremacist is no excuse for them to deny justice to a Muslim.

|6.5.08 @ 5:20PM|#

Well, then I guess that's grounds for annulment of most marriages.....

Another person being purposely obtuse.

Lying about yourself to get someone to marry you is and should be grounds for annulment.

Please don't play dumb.

|6.5.08 @ 5:21PM|#

What is happening here is this guy is getting an annulement because the court has deemed this cutural norm special and worthy of special legal consideration versus say my concern that my wife's hair be her natural color or any other crazy consideration.

Shorter John: "THE BARBARIC MUSLIMS AREN'T BEING REPUDIATED --- WAAAAH!"'

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 5:24PM|#

I could not go into a French court and claim that my wife lied to me about her race or that the rug matched the drapes and get an annulement.

Well, now you're the one who should go read the fucking article.

The court specifically stated that while virginity might not be an essential element of all marriages, it was acknowledged to be an essential element of this marriage.

This means that if you could similarly convince the court that your opposition to the use of hair dye was an essential element of your decision to enter into marriage, you would get a fair hearing. If they shot you down, it would be because they didn't believe you. They would pass judgment on the credibility of your statement that this was decisive for you, and not the preference itself.

Rhywun|6.5.08 @ 5:28PM|#

In this case, both parties are agreeing that marriage was contingent upon her being a virgin.

Well, once your husband is dragging you to court for an annulment, I think that means the relationship is over regardless of what they agreed upon. I wouldn't fight to remain married to the jerk either. In fact, she knows she's better off with the annulment rather than the divorce when it comes to future marriage prospects - of course she'll agree to it. And that includes saying she lied about being a virgin even if that never happened.

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 5:29PM|#

Actual harm is not an element of misrepresentation.

But actual harm IS an element of fraud. Which is what annulment (not divorce) is based on.

|6.5.08 @ 5:30PM|#

Maybe she lost her virginity by riding a horse?

Rhywun|6.5.08 @ 5:31PM|#

If they shot you down, it would be because they didn't believe you.

And they didn't believe you because, unlike virginity, natural hair color is not an accepted prerequisite for a bride in any culture they're aware of.

|6.5.08 @ 5:32PM|#

I think this is way to much bandwidth to be wasted on a used cooter.

|6.5.08 @ 5:33PM|#

I just looked at the wiki entry on annulment. It jibes more or less on what I remember from what I learned about annulment in the family law section of my bar review course, years ago. Here's the kicker (this entry follows U.S. common law, from what I can tell):

Grounds for a marriage being voidable or void ab initio vary in different legal jurisdictions, but are typically limited to fraud, bigamy, and mental incompetence including the following:. . .If the consent to the marriage was based on fraud.

If lying about her virginity fraudulently induced him to marry her, it would seem to be reasonable grounds for annulment. I don't see that rejecting her for her lack of virginity is so bad as to make this against public policy.

|6.5.08 @ 5:33PM|#

What about all the guys who tell their girlfriends that "everything will change" after the wedding?

If that's cause for annulment, half the marriages in the US could be annulled in the first year.

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 5:34PM|#

The court specifically stated that while virginity might not be an essential element of all marriages, it was acknowledged to be an essential element of this marriage.

And the argument is that the court doesn't have the authority to decide what essential elements of marriages are on a case-by-case basis.

|6.5.08 @ 5:44PM|#

I'm trying to figure out what makes an annulment so "extraordinary." At least in Indiana, you can get your marriage annuled simply because you haven't been married long enough to acquire joint possessions. At least that is why my cousin got an annulment instead of a divorce after 3 months. I'm going to assume that this guy decided he didn't want to be married to the woman after about 30 minutes. So what possible reason could there be for a divorce?

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 5:48PM|#

Pro Liberate,

If lying about her virginity fraudulently induced him to marry her, it would seem to be reasonable grounds for annulment.

You're leaving out the legal definition of fraud. Look up the wiki on "fraud" and you get:

"fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them... Marriage Fraud can take several forms and is the act of entering a marriage for personal gain rather than a genuine desire to enter into a sincere marital relationship. Marriage Fraud is usually associated with obtaining immigration benefits."

(immigration benefits essentially being a fraud against the government.)

Urkobold™|6.5.08 @ 5:50PM|#

NICK M., YOU FOOL AND POOR EXCUSE FOR A CONTINUITY DIRECTOR, ANNULMENT IS NO MINOR DECISION FOR THE COURTS! ONCE THEY HAVE DECIDED TO ANNUL A MARRIAGE, ALL OF THE GIFTS MUST BE RETURNED, THE INVITATIONS DESTROYED, AND ALL GUESTS WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY MUST BE ELIMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. THE KEY TERM TO ANNULMENT IS "NULL." IT NEVER HAPPENED, AND NO ONE CAN BE ALLOWED TO LIVE WHO CAN SAY OTHERWISE. THIS GOES FOR THE JUDGES AS WELL.

Ben|6.5.08 @ 5:58PM|#

I can't believe there's so much disagreement about this on a libertarian site. Its a basic contract issue, I don't see how anyone who calls themselves a libertarian could find anything wrong with this situation.

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 6:02PM|#

At least in Indiana, you can get your marriage annuled simply because you haven't been married long enough to acquire joint possessions.

If both parties agree to an annulment, the court should probably forego the whole issue of "essential elements". Since the court didn't I'm assuming it's not as cut-and-dried an annulment request as people want to believe. Either way, the court made a mountain out of a molehill (at the request of one party or on its own whim) and the court setting new precedents is important.

|6.5.08 @ 6:02PM|#

There's criminal fraud, then there's fraud in the inducement. Here's a definition of that tort in Florida (just for example):

Fraud in the inducement requires proof of:
(1) a false statement of material fact;
(2) that the defendant knew or should have known was false;
(3) that was made to induce the plaintiff to enter into a contract; and
(4) that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff when acting in reliance on the misrepresentation.

The fourth prong is all that is at issue here, and I think he suffered adequate injury to seek relief. Obviously, we're only using the fraud angle as a basis for granting an annulment, not for actually seeking damages against the woman for fraud. I'd say that would be a little more difficult to prove. Plus, family law is a different animal. . .which is the crux of the problem, anyway.

|6.5.08 @ 6:04PM|#

D A Ridgley-

The term "retired Catholic" has been around a while. I have used it for years, as far back as the late 80s. I forget where I first heard or read it, but, like you, I took an immediate liking to it. Incidentally, while the line did(and still does) technically apply to me, I must confess that I often used it with an ulterior motive: charming a gal blessed with both pulchritude and an anti-papist philosophy.

The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.08 @ 6:10PM|#

Please don't play dumb.

Oh bite me Tom, you need a drink. :-)

Russ 2000|6.5.08 @ 6:13PM|#

and I think he suffered adequate injury to seek relief

And I'm trying very hard to figure out just what injury he suffered. What injury are you seeing that I'm not? Loss of self-esteem?

JB|6.5.08 @ 6:20PM|#

It's France. When it comes to politics, they are retarded. They should stick to wine and cheese and let other countries run their political system.

|6.5.08 @ 6:43PM|#

Russ 2000,

Well, if we were talking dollar damages, I'd agree. But if we're just talking equitable relief--namely, an annulment--it seems reasonable enough to me. He was (arguably) harmed by money he spent on the ceremony, the lost time and opportunity to seek a wife who met his standards, etc.

I'm not sure what the big deal is in this instance, to be honest. Where this could be a bigger issue is when it's done to avoid the property division and other implications of a divorce. But that's only a serious concern when there's been time for marital assets to accrue (time is relevant even in community property states, I think, though someone who knows more should correct me if I'm wrong).

|6.5.08 @ 6:55PM|#

Those here saying she should not have been allowed a mutually agreeable annulment but instead should have been forced to either wait for her husband to sue for divorce or sue for divorce herself miss the essential justice of the court's ruling.

By granting her an annulment, the woman here is free to marry again immediately. She can do this without the very real and possibly greater handicap that being a divorcee could have when compared to being able to seek a husband while never having legally been married.

|6.5.08 @ 7:05PM|#

She could marry the guy who devirgined her. That would offer a symmetrical dénouement to this national crisis, L'Affaire Hymen, if you will.

Terry|6.5.08 @ 7:40PM|#

If she wasn't a virgin, the why did the stupid girl marry a stupid religious freak that gets all stupid over virginity?

|6.5.08 @ 8:09PM|#

France is mad because a growing and significant share of their population has ideas about life, society, culture, politics, religion, etc., that seem horribly, horribly wrong to them. And they are worried that as this group becomes larger they may impose said ideas on them (that is kinda what humans do). Are they crazy? If France became 50% Muslim immigrants 2morrow it would cease to be France, wouldn't it? I happen to like French culture (and British, and Russian, etc). I'm not a fan of "Muslo-Franco" culture. And shit, it's note even MY culture! So I don't blame these people for being upset...Good for them, though maybe too late...

|6.5.08 @ 8:15PM|#

And, Western civ has evolved to a point where most people don't take kindly to marriage being reduced to the terms of an economic contract. I've often said many libertarians would be better named "contractarians" or "responsibiltarians" and it is this kind of thing that makes many people agree with me I should think...

Fluffy|6.5.08 @ 8:45PM|#

And, Western civ has evolved to a point where most people don't take kindly to marriage being reduced to the terms of an economic contract.

OK, fine - but the feminists most angry about this ruling are thinking, "Bu-Bu-But in annulments the wife can't take half the husband's money!"

If it weren't for the economic contract implications no one would give a shit about this either way.

Even John, who seems the most agitated person here about it, would have no problem if these people were divorced. John doesn't want this guy to just get an annulment, because if he has to get a divorce presumably it will cost him money and that will make him suffer enough for his "barbaric" preferences to make John happy.

"It's not about the money," almost always means the opposite of what it says.

kinnath|6.5.08 @ 9:17PM|#

By granting her an annulment, the woman here is free to marry again immediately.

BINGO

John is pissed because she is losing her "rights" as a divorcee. All the while ignoring any benefits she may derive from never having been married.

T|6.5.08 @ 9:37PM|#

What remedy do people who are outraged by this decision want? Should the courts have forced them to stay married?

(Standard Libertarian Disclaimer: Obviously you shouldn't need a state license to get married and if they didn't exist this never would have happened.)

|6.5.08 @ 9:41PM|#

fluffy-I don't agree with many ultra-feminists (normal feminism I would say is just common sense and I of course agree with) but I think their beef is that the woman should be judged "inadequate" based on her sexual actions (was the man held to that standard?).

|6.5.08 @ 9:49PM|#

Here's the crux-if you live in a culture where such a determination would harm you, but not a gender opposite, then what? OK, there is no governmnet "coercion" but there is the remaining effects of past government coercion, culturally...And it matters...

Mad Max|6.5.08 @ 10:52PM|#

"As for the secularist imperative, which in France is strong enough to override the free exercise of religion, I do not understand how it can co-exist with legal principles that empower aggrieved religious groups to punish people for speech that offends them."

I don't think this is a contradiction. The secularist project is based on the idea that the goals of the state - defined without reference to traditional religion - should predominate in the public sphere, but this does not preclude religious believers practicing their religion in private, with people of all religions uniting in harmony to promote the higher goals of the state.

Essential to this project is the idea that religious differences need to be minimized or ignored. Some weirdo who goes around criticizing the tenets of a particular religion will turn debate in the public square onto religious topics, where there are urgent *secular* matters to be debated, like increasing the subsidy for Provencal beet farmers.

Mad Max|6.5.08 @ 10:54PM|#

Alternate explanation - the laws of most countries (particularly including France) are not internally consistent.

Robert|6.6.08 @ 12:13AM|#

As for the secularist imperative, which in France is strong enough to override the free exercise of religion, I do not understand how it can co-exist with legal principles that empower aggrieved religious groups to punish people for speech that offends them. How can the same country that fears Muslims are taking over when they insist on wearing headscarves or marrying virgins prosecute a novelist for contempt of Islam?

It's because the country whose slogan calls for liberty, equality, and fraternity hazing exalts the equality and fraternity hazing above the liberty. They subsidize religious schools, but if people in the "public" schools (which are supposed to be secular by contrast) were allowed to wear ostentatious religious symbols, that would be considered an invasion of the public, secular space by a particular religion, resulting in inequality. But allowing persons to criticize a religion publicly would also be unequal, because a particular religion is being targeted.

Robert|6.6.08 @ 12:15AM|#

But you're allowed to criticize or insult all religions equally.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|6.6.08 @ 2:40AM|#

Was she hot?

Mark Tarnowski|6.6.08 @ 9:41AM|#

The questions that really need to be asked are what is the underlying evolutionary/biological reason that hymens exist in the first place? And do other mammels have them?

J|6.6.08 @ 9:44AM|#

The real kicker would be if she really is a virgin and it broke some other way.

jtuf|6.6.08 @ 10:25AM|#

How can the same country that fears Muslims are taking over when they insist on wearing headscarves or marrying virgins prosecute a novelist for contempt of Islam?

This is a great point. I can venture a theory. Sacrificing the novelist placates enough Islamic protestors to make the headscarve ban feasible. Sacrificing the divorced couple placates enough secular protestors to make speech bans feasible. When a country is closely divided on a topic it can end up with many inconsistencies if just 10% accept the sacrifices.

Fug Girls|6.6.08 @ 3:57PM|#

As far as we're concerned, we won the thread.

zoltan|6.6.08 @ 9:17PM|#

How were they able to tell? A hymen can be breached by many things other than sex.

euphemism or exoneration?|6.7.08 @ 5:12AM|#

Brian Courts | June 5, 2008, 4:52pm | #
in fact she's ridden the Matterhorn more than a few times

RADHASOAMI|6.7.08 @ 12:28PM|#

Ten Basic teachings and Key message of spiritual Mission





Be a magnet unto thyself as God abodes within the Self of everyone.
Heart of man and his house should be the paramount place of worship where the parents and incoming outsiders be respected like deities.
Worshiping places, God messengers and scriptures are the milestones and not the ultimate Reality.
Keep on sowing the seeds of every virtue you have e.g. money, love, good thoughts etc. Without sowing the seeds we can?t harvest crop in nature.
All the creatures either living or non-living should be loved by following the path of non-violence. Don?t exploit nature and sustain surrounding environment.
Be cooperative and positive. In this universe, we can?t move and act individually. All the systems of nature are depending on and moving around another.
Self-giving should be the motto of life. We can attain every treasure of nature by self-giving. One can become Emperor or Yogi through sacrifice not by begging.
Love is the guiding and gliding force of universe. This gliding force is moving the whole existence on the wheels of time and space.
Only through love we can surpass the insurmountable limits of the limitless Spirit as true love itself has no limits and boundaries.
The mystery of spiritualism and living God can be known through the live Master of illumination who has acquired the secret of Surat-Shabd yoga.
Key Message :
Be a magnet unto thyself. God resides in the heart of every one. Love and self-giving to nature and surroundings is the gate to enter.


Radhasoami

Religion of Soul - Religion of All

Saint Tara Chand Ji Maharaj generally used to say in his discourses- Brahamana (a higher cast in Hindu cast system) is that man who has dissolved himself into Brahamic (cosmic) consciousness. He does not accept donation, but tries to give, whatsoever he has, to the needy, indigent and destitute. Power of Word, the Creator, reveals in his soul which fulfills all his desires. The Lord of imaginations (Kalpavriksha) accepts his offerings of Love and devotion and provides all the treasures of life to him. Saint Charan Das says-





Brahmana is that who identifies Brahman (God) in himself



Becomes introvert and seeks the vision of Lord



His senses cease to travel outward



He nurtures compassion for every creature



He becomes devoid of passions, anger, lust, greed and ego;



Brahmana is that who possesses these virtues.




We are devoid of internal treasures embedded in the deeper layers of our Self because we have not identified the hidden enrichment inside. The actual bliss lies inside but we are groping outside in the gloomy world of passions and grief. We are adopting lopsided approach which create imbalance in our life energies. The outer achievements are dominating over the spirit of rationale and wisdom which has created imbalance between the inner and the outer world. The result is tension, instability, selfishness, individuality, unhealthy competition, nepotism, communalism and terrorism.



The reason of this imbalance is that we have not awakened the spirit of Wisdom seated in the middle of eyes (Third eye); the Lord of which gives all the orders; all the actions originate from this sphere (Ajya Chakra) of actions. Ajya means command, Chakra means sphere. All commands emanate from this sanctioning authority. All the senses respond to the mandate of this housing spirit. But the inner Self of this sanctioning authority has been sleeping in his den for innumerable lives. We have not made efforts to awaken its power which is sleeping encoiled for many past lives. When it awakens, the life force starts dancing which is seen and enjoyed by the devotee, the yogi.



The Hindu scriptures have called this state as the 'Awakening of Serpentine power'. It is called serpentine power as it opens its vistas of light like the expanding and contracting face of a snake. Sri Aurobindo has called it Psychic being who is the actual representative of Supermind and master of transformation in this phenomenal world of actions and reactions, and cause and effect. It is the immutable spirit which dwells in the mutable spectrum of physical consciousness. It is the glimmering spark of eternity amidst the fort of dark forces of relative existence. Bhagwat Gita has narrated this power as Kshara Purusha; the mutable Spirit of universe which goes on changing upto the time this cosmic play persists. This Kshara Purusha is the Lord of Works and Psychic being remains in its fold as the representative of Supreme Being, the Satpurusha. It coordinates and commands all the activities of this Ksaras Purusha in any individual existence. Upto when this psychic Being is not awakened, its spirit remains liable to mutability and perishability and remains the instrument of the changes of time, space and causation. It follows the principle of cause and effect. Its eternity does not manifest in its self. Its bliss does remain unveiled and disguised. The friability and fragility of its grounded nature becomes slave of lust and passions. Problems, sorrows and grief of the lower nature remain integrated part of its spirit. This state of helplessness and weakness of the spirit is called 'Jiva' in Hindu jurisprudence. When this spirit identifies its natal strength of Real nature, Para-prakriti, Para-shakti or Radha, it awakens and the higher nature of imperishable, intangible and immutable Purusha descends into the brittle regime of Ksara Purusha and dismantles the domain of illusion and hallucination. This immutable spirit has been called as Aksara Purusha, Aksara Brahman or Shabd Brahman; the eternal and imperishable power of Supreme Being which manifests through the melody of celestial Song (the Word Power) in the universe.




This Aksara Purusha or Brahman is the Lord of knowledge; the originator of all the streams of mental consciousness from where outflows all the gnosis of visible and invisible spheres of the existence. Discriminative power of mind and wisdom are the results of the outpouring of this Sun of luminous knowledge. Lord of Works draws its vitality from this Sun of gnosis. This Purusha has also been called Savitri-Surya or Gayatri-Surya. This sphere of consciousness is the golden womb, Hirnaygrabha; the womb of universe where lies all the seeds of this universe. The universe takes birth from this womb of Lord of knowledge; the Aksar Purusha.




There is third layer of consciousness which reconciles the opposition of Ksara and Aksara, mutable and immutable, God and non-God, thesis and anti-thesis. All the physical, vital, mental and spiritual forces become satiable in this stratum of consciousness. All works, all knowing and unknowing plunges into the ocean of Bliss of this Purusha (Soami), the Satpurusha or called Purushottama in Gita. Sri Aurobindo calls this state of bliss as the Supramentalisation of the being. This realization of the Self can come through self-giving as it is the inherited legacy of the Lord of love and devotion. The fortified spheres of Ksara and Aksar can only be surmounted and churned through the intense longing of love and devotion for Satpurusha. This realization goes beyond all the boundaries of abysmal lows and sublime highs. All the limitations and perceptions of life, mind, gods, and non-gods, virtues and non-virtues get vanished after taking a sip of the ambrosia, Amrit, of the sanctity of Satpurusha.




The path of self-realization starts with the awakening of sleeping power lying within ourselves. It is called opening of Third eye. Buddha says it Divya Chaksu, supernatural eye of brightness. Mahavir Swami says it Param Jyoti, the supreme Light. Hazrat Muhammad calls it Noor; Light as the embodiment of Allah. Jesus Christ calls this experience as the Light of the world. In this experience, supernatural powers of gods and goddesses of goodness and virtue shower their grace on the yogi. The endowed grandeur of cosmic energy starts flowing unobstructed through the yogi as through a vessel of Supreme Being. But this opening of third eye is the initiation of spiritual realization. It is the opening of consciousness of Ksara Purusha, the Lord of Works or Virat Purusha, from where all the physical and gross form of cosmos originates. It is the starting of celestial or heavenly experience.




Kapil, an Indian sage, calls this state of realization as the attainment of the power of discrimination, Vivekkhyatiprapti, and intuition. Patanjali Rishi narrates it the vision of cloud of Virtue, Dharammegha Samadhi. Sankaracharya, Sri Aurobindo and other seers of reality have called it the experience of Samprajyat Samadhi, a state of trance where all unknown becomes known. Vedic literature says when the Sun of Truth rises, the dark of ignorance vanishes; tat satyam suryam tamsi ksiyantam. This Sun of Gnosis remains refulgent for ever within the soul of yogi; adityavat prakashyati tat param. When this Sun shines inside the Soul of yogi, every kind of knowledge starts flowing towards him; yasmin vijyate sarvam vijyatam.




When yogi surpasses this experience of refulgence, he reveals the truth in the form of superconscient light; not visible even with the supernatural eye of the Being. The fervour and intensity of this light becomes so dense that it is not visible through the celestial eye of gods; the Third eye. This is the experience of Sahasrara; the seat of Param Purusha (Supreme Being). This experience has been known as the realization of Nirvikalpa (beyond all alternatives), Asamprajyat (beyond all knowledge) and Nirbeej (devoid of all the seeds of happiness and sorrows) Samadhi. Christian mystics have called this state as the 'Dark night of Soul' or 'Dark Secret'; the experience of which was engrossed by Prophet Moses on Mount Sinai. In this experience he was enveloped by a cloud of darkness when he approached the abodes of God. It is a blissful experience where the spirits of God and non-God get immerged into the ocean of Bliss of transcendental Eternal. The experience of Sahasrara has been considered just a milestone in Radhasoami Yoga. It is the lower seat of Brahamic (Cosmic) consciousness.



Osho opines that upto when the Ajya Chakra, is not awakened, man cannot break the shackles of slavery. He always remains in bondage of physical, economical, social and religious slavery. A slave of many masters, inner slavery as well as outer; an instrument in the hands of whimsical and unflinching forces of lower nature. Once released from the clutches of one master, he is incarcerated in the prison of another. He can not give command; he is not capable of giving command. He can only accept the orders because his power of Command, Ajya Purusha, is sleeping.




Tantric philosophy says that senses are the food of third eye. This eye is hungry for many lives because it has undergone through the trance of deep sleep thereby losing its sense of intuitive discernment. The gate of its sensibility has been locked. Key is missing. Key which can awaken the serpentine power has been lost. The treasure can only be unearthed with the key of wisdom and the power of true discrimination. This enclosed bud can open its petals of wisdom only through the incense of psychic enlightenment. Once this psychic awakening is realized, the gates of benevolence and magnanimity will open. All the treasures of life and knowledge will become accessible. The adamant and obdurate walls of ego and ignorance will shatter and their consciousness will ultimately transform into the gnosis and bliss of superamental Power. The impressions of grief and hunger will vanish from the mantle of humanity. The sense of self-giving will dominate the sense of wit and the doors of 'Heaven on Earth' will be opened to the aspiring humanity.




The sign of true religion is that it makes a man independent and provides redemption. It does not imprison him through the temptation of heaven and fear of hell. God lives within and it can be revealed by self-giving as love and devotion is the soul of supreme Realization.




This realization is complete in all the respects. It fulfills a person in totality. The beauty and outpouring of enlightenment from the Self enriches the depleted consciousness of body, life, mind and psyche.




Darkness is nothing but the depletion of light. Sorrow is nothing but the depletion of joy and bliss. Poverty and hunger is nothing but the depletion of faculty of mind and physique. Anger is nothing but the depletion of love. Vanity is nothing but the depletion of compassion. Greediness is nothing but the depletion of the spirit of self-giving. Communalism is nothing but the depletion of vastness of religion. Terrorism is nothing but the depletion of spiritualism from the core of the heart. Soul, being integral part of bliss, eternal splendor and consciousness, love, compassion, sacrifice and grandeur of the Supreme Being, impregnates all these qualities. All the virtues flow exuberantly and dwell inherently in the religion of Soul and Self-realization.




God governs all because he exceeds all and dwells in all. Hence the religion of Soul is the religion of God and the religion of all. That is why the religion of Soul is capable to replenish all the depleted energies of an individual as well as the whole humanity and the whole existence. It is a converging and enlightened state of all the diverging and combating energies and vital forces of the universe.



Radhasoami

HELLO HUMAN BEINGS "LOVE BY THOUGHT , BY RELATION , BY IMAGINE , BY TALK , BY LOOK ,BY FEEL , BY TOUCH - ALL ARE THE LOVE OF PHYSICAL WORLD & HAS TIME TO END" IT IS KARAM - KANDA .THIS PHYSICAL LOVE CREATE NEW GENERATION TO CONTINUE THE TIME & PHYSICAL WORLD.IN THIS LOVE YOU HAVE TO NEED ANOTHER PHYSICAL PRESENCE .

"THE INTERNAL LOVE BY SOUL(ATMA OR COSMIC ENERGY) TO GOD( PARMATMA OR SUPEREM POWER) IS THE PUREST & HOLY PRINCIPLE OF LOVE" IT HAS NO TIME TO END . IT IS KARAM - YOGA .IN THIS LOVE YOU HAVE NO NEED OF ANOTHER PHYSICAL PRESENCE .THIS PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSE & MATTER OF AFTER TIME .

" LOVE IS YOGA - LOVE MAKES ONE " WE CAN MAKE OURSELVES IN ONE BY SOUL(ATMA) WITH GOD(PARMATMA). THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE.
"WHEN WE MAKE OURSELVES ONE BY PHYSICALLY - WE MAKE NEW GENERATION TO CONTINUE TIME OF PHYSICAL WORLD "
"YOUR LIFE IS TIME "
"YOUR SOUL IS PRINCIPLE"
"A FRUIT - IF YOU DON'T EAT OR USE IN TIME IT WILL DESTROY .IT IS THE MATTER OF TIME LIKE YOUR PHYSICAL LIFE ."
"BUT SEED OF FRUIT WILL NOT DESTROY - IT BECOME A TREE OR PLANT TO CONTINUE .IT IS NOT THE MATTER OF TIME , IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPEREM POWER LIKE YOUR SOUL."

"MAN HAS SEED TO FEED IN WOMAN TO CREATE THE PHYSICAL WORLD" WOMAN FULFIL THE NEED & GROW UP THIS SEED , SO WOMAN DO EVERYTHING IN THIS WAY LIKE EARTH . SO EARTH IS CALLED MOTHER OF US . IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY "GOD" IS CALLED "SUPEREM FATHER."
WHEN A MAN STOP THE FLOW HIS OWN SIEMENS(SEED) TO CREATE NEW BIRTH OR ENJOY THEN HIS ENERGETIC POWER OF SIEMENS(SEED) ENLIGHT AS SOUL & THIS LIGHT(SOUL) RETURN TO IT'S SUPEREM CENTRAL GRATIVITY (SEPEREM PRINCIPLE )IN RADHASOAMI YOGA .IN THIS JOURNEY WHEN THIS ENERGY RETURNS TO IT'S PRINCIPLE - THIS PRODUCE A SOUND BY POWER OF SPEED BASED ON LOVE , THIS SOUND IS THE "WORD" .LIKE WHEN HIGH VOLTAGE OF CURRENT GOES INTO THE WIRES , IT ALSO PRODUCE A SOUND .SO LIKE THIS ALL HUMAN BEINGS OF THIS WORLD HAVE FEMALE FORM AS SOUL IN THIS UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE & WE CAN SAY THIS FORM OF SOUL IS NATURE .IN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE WE CAN SAY THIS NATURE IS WOMAN .
IN THIS JOURNEY OF SOUL(COSMIC ENERGY ) TO GOD HAS 18 SPHEARES :-

1)6 OF PHYSICAL - ( MAN & WOMAN )
2)6 OF SUBTLE - (ATMA & PARMATAMA OR SOUL & IT'S SUPEREM FORM )
3) CAUSAL - RADHA + SOAMI = RADHASOAMI YOGA )
" PERFECT UNIVERSAL YOGA OF LOVE FOR EVER & EVRYWHERE IN THIS UNLIMITED UNIVERSE "
YOU ALL ARE THE CONSCIOUS PRESENTATION OF GOD IF YOU WANT TO MEET & KNOW ABOUT GOD THEN PLZ ENLIGHTED YOUR ALIVE PART WHO NEVER DIES .YOUR PHYSICAL WORLD HAVE END BUT COSMIC ENRGY WILL ALIVE TILL UNIVERSE IF YOU ENLIGHTED YOUR INTERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS (SOUL) . REMEMBER LIGHT IS THE FASTEST SPEED IN THIS UNIVERSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW ABOUT PAST , PRESENT , FUTURE MEANS ABOUT TIME & AFTER THAT ALSO AFTER TIME WHICH IS THE MAIN CENTRAL GRATIVITY . THE ONLY YOUR CONSCIOUS ENERGY CAN CONTACT EVERYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE YOUR PHYSICAL WORLD HAVE NO RANGE TO REACH THEM .WHEN YOU ENLIGHTED YOUR COSMIC ENERGY ( SOUL ) THEN YOU WILL FIND THAT YOUR ALIVE ENERGY IS THE PART OF UNIVERSAL ENRGY IS EVERY WHERE IN THIS UNIVERSE . THIS KIND OF CONTACT IS THE TRUE & HOLY LOVE OF GOD . WHICH NEVER DIES TILL UNIVERSE "
IT CAN BE START SLOWLY ONLY BY PRINCIPLE OF YOUR PHYSICAL TIME NOT CAN BE DONE BY LESS OR MORE TIME . SO YOU CAN CALL SURAT + SHABAD YOGA , RADHA+SOAMI YOGA .YOU CAN DO IT EASILY & SLOWLY BY ITS' OWN FORMATION IN TIME OR AFTER TIME OF UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE SO YOU CAN ALSO CALL IT "SAHAJYOGA".

------------

" YOU ALL ARE CONSCIOUS PRESENTATION OF GOD " & YOUR CREATION OF PHYSICAL BEHAVIOUR (LOVE) BY ENERGY IS THE WORLD OF GENERATION IN TIME - WHEN THIS ENERGY RETURN INSIDE YOU & CHANGE INTO ABSOLUTE PERFECTION OF INTERNAL ENERGY (BY LOVE OF SOUL) TO UVIVERSAL ENERGY (SUPEREM SOUL)IS THE PRINCIPLE OF UNLIMITED UNIVERSE & UNLIMITED TIME ( NO TIME LIMIT OR AFTER TIME ) OF GOD "

-------------

"LIFE IS NOT A REHERSAL - IT IS THE FINAL STROKE "
------------
Key Message : Be a magnet unto thyself. God resides in the heart of every one. Love and self-giving to nature and surroundings is the gate to enter.


DR . HARIOM , SR . SCIENTIST - AGRONOMY , CCSHAU - HISAR (KURUKSHETRA)TO ASK [e-mail] [e-mail]& PLZ VISIT TO KNOW MORE www.radhasoamitaradham.com

RADHASOAMI|6.7.08 @ 12:31PM|#

Heaven on Earth

Thousands years ago Vedic Rishis (sages) had dreamt of peace, order and co-existence of all the living creatures not only on earth but in whole universe. In times to come king Aggrasain made it to happen in his rule and laid foundation of a prosperous and progressive empire where no one was in sufferings; all the citizens used to help each other. This kingdom was a unique example of spiritual socialism. In the west message of "KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH" became strong voice of common man on the advent of Jesus Christ. In a very short period it became an eye-sore of the then emperor when this Message started taking swing as a movement. It became a fear of the emperor. The emperor started thinking that this man has become a threat to his empire and he should not be allowed to remain alive. The Emperor ordered for his crucifixion. Jesus Christ left this world but this message started spreading like wild fire. The institution of Church fixed the day of doom also and proclaimed the reincarnation of Jesus Christ on earth and declared: only that person shall be able to book entry to heaven who is a member of the church. This opened a race for registration as a church member and within a short span church turned into an institution of mammoth wealth and power. Church priest and custodians of Christianity became slaves of comfort and leisure like Indian gurus (spiritual masters) of the present day. On the other front, religious revolution perpetuated in Christian religion, affected polity of the world and started showing impact on social and economic set up. This resulted in many religion battles and different strategies, ethical or non-ethical, were adopted for propagation of imperialism. Slowly and slowly Christian religion spread its wings to such an extent that Sun never set in their empire .Even on date number of followers of Christianity is the highest among all the religions. Hence, before we discuss "Heaven on Earth", it is important to know the original character of Christian religion, without analyzing the conscience of this religion it would not be possible and fair to know whether laying the foundation of kingdom of God can even be thought of in the prevailing and never ending diversity in religion, politics and human nature. It is important for both believers and non-believers to first understand true form of religion and spiritualism before we proceed further.

Since initial times, some doubts crept into the mind of followers of Christianity which created unusual situation in front of the Church fathers. When Emperor Constantine declared it the religion of the State and appointed the priests to high positions, people started doubting if Jesus Christ was really an angel Of God or he was an ordinary man?


As the time passed, Christian religion became more consolidated and powerful. Church turned into a large institution of wealth and power. Some questions were still unsolved on the mental horizon of common man but none could make it open to others for the fear of being victimized, because voice against Jesus Christ or Bible meant invitation to death. Slowly and slowly modernization followed. As a result wealth, power and position were enjoyed by god fathers. In a short span combination of industrial and science development wrote a story of revolution of all round prosperity and development in the western countries. People had a feeling of comparatively more independence and economic freedom. Expansion of literacy was also riding the wings of the air. Invention of printing press gave acceleration to it. This helped in dissemination of knowledge to far flung areas. It encouraged for seeking explanation of religion and holy literature in a scientific way. This emancipation of people was not acceptable to church and efforts were made to curb it. But it could not withstand the arguments and logic put forth by the people and to meet their unquenchable thirst for emancipation. Church restrained people from giving new explanation to holy books but the intellectuals argued that it will help spreading the religion with more vigour and it will also help in disseminating message of Messiah to distant areas. This argument proved to be true but it also threatened the supremacy of church.


People started expressing doubts on competency of both Jesus and Bible. Bible was composed after many years of departure of Jesus. It was compiled by putting together the memories of different people. It was not easy for the common-man to understand the secrets of what Jesus said, as thinking of Jesus was advance by thousands of years. People, based on their understanding, nature and liking, narrated the teachings of Jesus Christ; thus changing their meaning partially or totally .Man has got a liking for miracles, so Jesus was projected as a man of miracles. Experience of his Soul was not taken as the essence of his life; rather his Messiah being and his miracles were given importance. It is not that Jewish Religion was devoid of spiritual wealth at that time. Rabbi's cult was overflowing with divinity at that time which had a reflection of old Arabic spiritualism. But like Upanishads, knowledge this knowledge was also not with in the reach of common-man and he was fearful of his exploitation by priests and Jewish religious ceremonies which were the burden on common. As Mahatma Buddha shared his knowledge with the people in their own language and by approaching them at their doorstep, Jesus also became adorable to the people in a short span. His teachings, which suited their needs, entered their hearts with in no time He had a large following of poor, grieved and destitute. This was the reason why path of miracles was adopted. Today also, for award and recognition of a Saint his miracles are counted and there is no yardstick to measure his spiritual enrichment.


Science does not recognize miracles. The happenings beyond our sight and understanding become a miracle for us, therefore, old Dharmas (religions) which propagate superstition do not appeal to modern man. The meaning and definition of religion has taken a different shape just like the definition of an atheist. Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), a scientist of France once declared that there are fifty thousand atheists in Paris alone .When a verification of this statement was made, it became evident that all of them have faith in God but because of having some doubts about the teachings of Christianity, they all were presumed to be atheists. Yester years atheists are now counted in theists' class.


Science opened the door for new knowledge. Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Ludwig, David Hume, Laplace, Diderot and many other great personalities denied accepting the existence of God. This gave rise to a new discussion which encouraged people to raise queries, causing instability to basic structure of Christian religion.


Is God so cruel that He handed over his own son Jesus to tyrant people? Is God so coward that He could not protect his own son? Is He so tyrant that he took lives of so many people for protection of religion? Lacks of Jews were killed and due to their enmity Protestant, Catholic and Puritan Christians took toll of so many lives just to prove the superiority of Jesus and their religion over others. Was God ignorant of Adam's sin ? If He was having its Knowledge why He allowed this sin to happen and thus made total humanity a party to it? Why His Angel Michael was shown so difficult way, which resulted in so many killings, religious crusades and enmity? Path of Adam's liberation could have been easy, why it was not adopted? Is He not more intelligent than man? Is He not gigantic than man? If He is so incomplete, infirm, killer and cruel then how His existence as a blissful God be accepted? Was Jesus' birth possible with out physical contact of man with maiden Merry? The trinity (God or Father, son and holy spirit) principle has always agitated east and west church.


Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) in the twentieth century was of the view to negate the very existence of God because acceptance of his being diffuses human liberty. According to Morris Ponty (1908-61), if we admit God as a doer of every thing then nothing is left to be achieved by man. Camus (1913-60) went to the extent of saying that people should be bold enough to deny the being of God so that they could love human being .Acceptance of God's existence reduces our creativity; even if He assists us in resolving our problems then also He decreases our share in our accomplishments and also our wonders. Logical positivists, linguistic philosophy and other related institutions' intellectuals proclaimed that there is no entity like God. Whom we can't see in our life, we can't experience in our deeds, we can't prove with our senses; what is the meaning of being such an entity (God) of false promises. Another section of the people advocated that Dharama (religion) is a necessity of life; without it every thing shall shatter, distinction of good and bad shall diminish, man will become selfish and it will give rise to individualism and disintegrate the society. Anarchy shall be created. Atheist rulers shall become more brutal. Individual's liberty will get curtailed. Man, who lives in dreams, will lead a life of restraints. Today's dreams are reality of tomorrow. What seems to be a dream and impossible to happen today is a reality tomorrow. Therefore, man's wings shall be chopped. He dreams and flies high on the assumption that religion and God are limitless and never ending .If optimism and imagination die, life shall become devoid of joy. Human life finds its foundation on hopes; therefore, a super hope is also a necessity. Man carves a picture of superman in his mind and finding such a super-man in this world is difficult, so he always endeavors to progress and to attain perfection.


In this respect Marxist philosopher, Ernst Bloch (1884-1977) opines that thought of God to human being is natural; total humanity peeps into future. We feel imperfection and voidness in our life. Unlike animals we are never complacent and always demand for more and more .We always endeavour to improve upon ourselves and aspire for further progress to acquire capability to put a step forward .As a small child toddles and wants to grow into a bigger child ,the same way life progresses. Our all dreams and desires remain always aiming at acquiring which we do not possess. Religion philosophy also follows this principle; whereas it is a path where all has to be shunned or forgotten; but here also the thought of not now, not now continues to elude. Socialism also takes this utopia along with on its path; however Karl Marx has negated faith in any Super power .But Dharma (religion) certainly exists where there is a ray of hope. Bloch has perceived existence of an ideal God who has his abode in man and not somewhere far away.


Modern Christian visions of a God who always remains within the reach of man but he should not be limited to a corporal form. His presence in the world should not be restrained by limitations of humanly imperfections, forms, colours, cast, creed, time, space and land; who is away from hatred and He should give a message of love and affection. This is the reason why west has admitted Hindu Dharma's principle of Brahman-atma (God-Soul), teachings of Buddhism and yogic actions have gained acceptance in western world. Man is turning towards such mystic religions which do not bind him in numerous religious practices, rather it takes care of his liberty as an individual .He does not want to become a slave of others' whims and fancies, rather he opts to become a master of self. He does not want to be allured by the awards offered to him in the kingdom of God, rather he should be an inseparable and indispensable spirit of God. He should taste the bliss and Ananda of God in the present life only.


Karen Armstrong in his book 'A history of God' states, "Hindu religion does not render much importance to gods & goddesses". Position of Guru (spiritual master) has been given priority over all the deities. This highlights importance of a man in society. Hindu and Buddhisms do not deny the existence of gods and goddesses. They say, if propagated, this theory may devastate humanity. These religions have carved a higher throne for Brahman and Nirwan (salvation) than Deities. Upanishads which were scripted about two thousand five hundred yeas ago, numbering around two hundred two, speak of only one message , "There is also something beyond Deities which is very fascinating, very blissful, it can neither be spoken nor heard, yet it is inner soul (centre) of all matter or living being". Describing the superiority of Brahman the author quotes Chhandogya Upanishad, "Shretaketu, son of Uddalaka studied Vedas and Shastras for twelve years. After gaining complete knowledge in the company of his guru when he returned, his father asked him a question regarding Brahman but Shretaketu could not reply. His father then asked him to bring water in a large pot and told to drop some salt in to it. Son obeyed. His father again asked him to come back the next morning. When he came next morning his father asked him to taste the water from different corners and tell its taste. Son replied, "Taste is same at all the points, it does not taste differently." Then his father told him, "Brahman is Omnipresent in this universe just like salt is in this water". Saint Kabir Says :


"As sesame (Til) contains oil and stone has fire,


Your beloved (God) abodes in you, if you can awake".


Mahatma Buddha Says: "Taste me or bite me from any part of my body, you will find the same flavour i.e., compassion and only compassion. This is Nirwan (Salvation).This can't be given any name like Atma or Pramatma (Soul or God). This can only be lived or experienced .To attain this experience, one has to pass through yogic Dhayan (concentration) and practice which enables the yogi to know his own self .He gains his universal form, like a small drop attains body of sea after completing its journey ; it attains a bigger self after loosing its entity to a larger existence. Will of the almighty now becomes his own will .Once some one asked Mahatma Buddha -where Buddha lives after Nirwan? He replied: the question is Irrelevant and it does not have any pertinence .It is just, like a burning lamp extinguishes and some one enquires where the flame goes. Exactly the same way when Buddha is no more, no desire remains to be fulfilled; question of sorrows and bliss does not arise. Buddha lives for others and this is Bodhisattva and any person can attain this state by making conscious effort.


All the religions of this world have their origin in mind; they find their birth in sentiments which has been called 'Alam-al-mithal' in Suhrawardi sect of Islam. This is a world of imaginations, full of forms and figures; which have to be crossed to reach the God. It is an invisible world which does not have any limit, which can't be experienced through wisdom and knowledge. It is habitat of deities and angels or good and bad streams of life. All the religions have risen from this centre of spirit. Power of this mandal (spiritual segment) words in accordance to our desires and longing and become visionary in Dhayan (concentration) and dreams. Power of this mandal pushes the person, who is slave of mind and desires, in the world of illusions and hallucination. Deities gift Ridhi-Sidhi (miracle powers) but these block his progress on the path leading to God. If the Sadhak (devotee) is a holy soul then these powers help him in his efforts to move ahead. It is a centre of all Satoguni (Divine}, Tamoguni (Dark and demonic) and Rajoguni (sensual passions) powers. If a person is Tamoguni; dark forces shall come in his vision; It Rajoguni then forces of love, hatred and pleasure and if Satoguni, angels and deities shall be visible to him. Desire behind one's deeds decides its fruits, as one desires as the results obtained. These natural powers extend help in the direction of one's desires. It is said that Hazrat Muhammed experienced Alam-al-mithal in his dream one night when Angel Gabriel gave him a ride from Arabia to Jerusalem on a flying horse .On his return journey he met ABrahman, Moses and Jesus. Then both Gabriel and Hazrat commenced their journey, through difficult terrains, to Seven Heavens. Ruler of every Heaven was an ambassador of God. Judaism also recognizes that Moses reached into the lap of God after traversing seven Heavens, who was a source of eternal Noor (light) .Saint Paul says, "His friend, who belonged to Messiah, was stopped at third Heaven. There, he heard various sounds that can't be described in man's Language".


Rabbis saints of Jews religion say, "One needs Guru's blessings to cross the mystic world; who, from time to time, protects and cautions against dangers to come in the divine journey". Guru is also not an ultimate destination in this journey; He is also a mile stone only. A devotee realizes enlightenment must have cleared his soul of all the selfish thoughts, forms or structures or pleasant visions of gods and angels. His limited perceptions and imprints on his subconscious mind also must have been shown the exit door. He starts bathing in the glow of physical, vital and mental conscience transformed into super conscience now. His spirit becomes a continuous spring of light; he feels so enchanted that he is no more interested in material comforts in front of beauty and love of God. He sees only one universal power at every point of time and space. He feels God only, in every atom or particle. He even loses his own identity to God and dedicates his entire life to the cause of God .Now every worldly matter, rules and principles, which propagate hatred amongst people, become irrelevant for him. Love and compassion become priority of his life. Whenever any problem erupted in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, these mystics helped and provided firmness to the foundation of the religion. Rabbis and Kabala sects of Jewish religion, Suhrawardi and Sufi sects of Islam religion contributed to strengthen the roots of the religion from time to time. These mystics played a bigger and special role in recognizing Jesus as Messiah and in affording a wider and acceptable definition of the principle of trinity.


After three centuries of crucifixion of Jesus, when it was being discussed and argued in the parliament of Nyssa whether Jesus Christ was a Messiah in reality? If he was, then what was his position in the kingdom of God, is he a synonym to God or inferior to him? Then assistants of Arius and Bishop Alexander projected their conclusions. These arguments were going on with the consent of Emperor Constantine. In the view of Arius, Jesus was an ordinary man .He was claiming that Jesus became parallel to God only Became of his sacrifice, thus paving a way for others to follow. Had Jesus been of God's nature he would have not been of any use to the mankind; it would have not been possible for us to follow his teachings and tenets of life because man can never be of equal status to God. Because of this fact God gifted him with a position of equality with Him as an award for his sacrifice; Jesus has been given a status of Logos (Word). We can also acquire a share in this status only through sacrifice.


Contrary to this, Athanasius argued that Jesus was of God's nature and he was not born with man's nature. He was Logos by nature .That Logos which was the source of whole universe and which was present before the creation and shall exist even after its dissolution. This Logos is inseparable part of ours and so is of whole creation, so that we may also acquire His nature and become an integral part of His higher nature.


It is explicit that Arius wanted to promote Jesus as an impersonal God. He wanted to fix him an inheritor of God, as a person who resembles us by nature and is one amongst us, where as Athanasius wanted to establish him in a universal form of God where Jesus should be worshiped as Logos, impersonal God and not as an ordinary man. He should be worshiped as Logos (Word); the creator of this universe, who dwells in the heart of every person in the form of a spark which never dies. Jesus as a person is bound to have an end but Logos never dies. Logos-Jesus appeared as Jesus in the world just to show us a path to enable us to imbibe in the higher nature (Parashakti) of God and enabling us to become one with God and as a benefactor for mankind; after which he retuned to his original Being and shall remain amongst us for ever as Logos is immortal. Common man and literate section of the society was more convinced with the view of Arius because he was talking of a Jesus of their own. He was talking of personal -Jesus. But the Council adopted the resolution of Athanasius because he advocated for a wider form of Messiah, who is responsible for creation, sustenance and dissolution of universe. Saint Paul and Saint John also recognized this form of Jesus. " Word (Logos) existed prior to creation, Word was with God, Word was God and this Word created the whole universe", this quotation was accepted as foundation of Bible and Christian religion. THIS WORD, DESCRIBED AS ANAHAD-NAAD (EATERNAL WORD) IN UPNISHADAS, FORMS THE BASIS OF SURAT-SHABD (SOUL-GOD) YOGA. THIS WORD IS THE GIST (ESSENCE), A CENTRAL PRINCIPLE OF RADHA SOAMI YOGA. In search of this word, a devotee enters into his self by adopting mediation and demolishes his self into the unending, infinite, eternal, limitless and blissful form of God.


Athanasius's God -Jesus and Logos-Jesus was not an individual -Jesus, He was God of a mystic's vision who was having its base beyond all boundaries of mind (Alam-al-mithal). He was God of a Sufi (Muslim Faquir ), Kabir, Nanak, Maulana Rumi, Khusro, Rabia Basri, Sri Aurobindo, Ravidas, Socrates, Rabbis, Kabala Saints and Upanishads. He was a God of profound love and deep compassion. This form of God was beyond the imagination of common man. This was the reason why the principle of such kind of God always kept the mind of Christianity in turmoil internally. The differences between the church of east and west never subsided because of this reason. Eastern Church was always inclined towards Athanasius's mystic God where as western church favoured Arius's individual-Jesus (Personal God). As and when intellect level arose, Arius's God emerged stronger but when some mystic appeared on the scene, Athanasius's God became prominent. But with the rise of renaissance and scientific period, death of mysticism was happened and Arius's individual-Jesus attained the focus of masses and became more and more individual. It completely adopted Semitic and anthropomorphic form of God. More attention was given to linguistic meaning of words of Bible. Meaning and message hidden in the words and between the lines got ignored and its meaningful explanation of mystics was considered as a sin. Acquiring knowledge of secret education and mysticism became a crime. Bible In one hand and sword and bread in the other hand became a movement of the time. Finally it resulted into declaration of death of God by some intellectuals.


Arius and his two confident companions did not accord their consent to the decision of Council of Nyssa and they did not put their signatures on it. Even after the decision of Council in favour of Athanasius, the church fathers kept encouraging Arius's principle. Slowly and slowly Arius and his companions got successful in obtaining recognition of their principle by the emperor. During this period Athanasius was tortured and was ousted from the country five times. With the acceptance of Arius's principle of individual-Jesus, questions about principle of trinity (father, son and Holy Spirit) and specially regarding the position of Son in the kingdom once again erupted. These questions are automatically resolved through Athanasius's principle.


Antony, a saint of desert, known as father of Christian monasticism (Ashram System) favoured Athanasius's principle. Antony lived an unprecedented disciplined life in the desert of Egypt. He struggled continuously for twenty years with devil forces in his Meditation tomb. It is said that when he came out of the tomb his body did not show any sign of advanced age; like Jesus he adored Logos. He went fighting up to the abode of devil and came out of the tomb after defeating him. Athanasius in his book 'Life of Antony' attempted to show that any person can become one with Logos by adopting path of mortification (Tapasya), celibacy and meditation (Dhayan) and he can have sight of God's eternal and Logos form as Antony could do. This can become a reality only and only through meditation and continuous practice (Abhyas). Necessity of such experience was also felt by other Christian seers and sages such as Clement, Origen, Denys etc.


People were still bewildered to know whether there is only one God? Is Jesus God? At this time three great personalities of Cappadocia in eastern Turkey came with a reply to these questions. They had a vast experience of practical spiritual knowledge .Their reply could satisfy church of east only and differences' with western church remained unresolved .For church of west, sin of Adam, his descending from Heaven and deliverance from this sin still remained points of focus. Church of West always kept giving priority to the thought that man's birth is a result of Adam's sin and he can't attain a status of God and he is not capable of becoming an integral part of God; he can never gain the purity of God. Adam committed this sin and we can only pray and repent before Jesus (Individual God) for the sins we have committed. There is no other alternative to get rid of this sin. Equating ourselves with God or understanding the self equal to God is an unpardonable crime. People against this thinking were seen with hatred in the Christian religion and they were punished. Search of God through meditation or yogic actions was considered an action of devil and attracted criticism. Church of west was always against searching God into the inner self by the people as did by Saint Augustine because it could become a danger to the institution of church if they have a sight of luminous and eternal Jesus within their soul. Had people experienced God within their self church would have been deprived of issuing directive in respect of God. Their main objective was to keep people weak and superstitious so that they could be exploited in the name of religion. Today's Vatican Church is a part to this endeavour, which completely disapproves of Word-Jesus and Dhayan (meditation) and yoga.


Three great mystics of Cappadocia named Basil, Gregory of Nisa and Gregory of Nazianzus said, "Truth can't be expressed in words, it can only be viewed with the eyes of soul (spirit) by practicing meditation. The essence of God can be known through dogma and Kerygma. Kerygma is the outer from of religion, it is the philosophy which can be explained in words in the churches but dogma is inner spirit of the religion which can only be experienced and the hints of its being can only be obtained in the form of signs. Dogma is not a thing which can be discussed or made to understand and can be effectuated through rituals and ceremonies. They explained it by quoting Plato and Aristotle and stressed that experience of spirit is not possible through the gates of wisdom. These three were under the influence of spiritualism of Greece. Eastern Orthodox Church seems to be influenced by philosophers of Greece and their Knowledge. They advocated for bearing silence to understand secrecies of religion.


Western church believed in oral description of God; its subject was Kerygma and not dogma. Gregory of Nyssa told that any description of God can only be a shadow, a false comparison. It doesn't reveal the secret of God .We should not develop any conception of God rather we should have faith in it. We should look beyond all kind of knowledge and observe complete silence. This was experienced by Hazrat Moses on mountains of Sinai. When he happened to approach God, instead of finding God there, he was surrounded by a cloud of deep darkness. Indian sage Patanjali termed this experience as Dharammegha Samadhi or clouds' religion. Swami Vivakananda called it cloud of virtue. Basil quoting Saint Philo said that God is essence (ousia) the glimpse of which is out of the reach of intellect and he can only be known through his outer expression (energeia). Athanasius had also told Arius that ousia (essence ) of God is beyond human understanding, his hypostasis (outer face) can only be described in words. Essence of a thing represents its inner substance and hypostasis is that which is visible by our eyes. Therefore, only one element resides in Trinity (Father, Son and Holy spirit). When God wants to reveal his Self to people, his outer face is visible. God can't be given a name, He has three faces; Father who is inaccessible and a source of unlimited light, Son who is in the form of Word (Logos) and creator of whole universe, Holy spirit which is embedded consciousness of the universe, Father is the creator of this universe, He flows outward or inward through the Son and Holy spirit beholds it. This principle of trinity has been called Supermind, Overmind and all-pervading Spirit by Sri Aurobindo. When spiritual experience becomes so ripened that we feel the presence of God within ourselves and all around, this state exhibits presence of Holy spirit. When this spirit takes the form of matter it is called Aparashakti (illusionary power) and on attaining the form of Supermind it becomes Parashakti (supreme Force).


Experience of the saints of Cappadocia exhibits much similarity to primitive Indian divine experience. Describing the experience of trinity in nutshell Gregory of Nazianzas says, "When I feel experience of one, I am filled with the splendor (light) of all the three; when I discriminate between them, I again contract in to one and when I live anyone of these, I find all these three amalgamated unity and my eyes and body becomes full of light.


In eighteenth century real understanding of God diminished, Bible's literary meaning remained prime source of understanding spiritualism. True sense of words became redundant .Eastern church's dogma (essence) died and domination of church of west got established. Dhayan (meditation) and mysticism were declared an illusion. A competition to prove God's existence through proof and wisdom was set on His search on the strength of mind and reasoning got started. As a consequent, many intellectuals declined to recognize the very existence of God during nineteenth and twentieth centuries.


Many mystics of Christianity expressed that we can't have a vision of eternal form of Essence of God, it has got the nature of darkness. It has been called 'Mool Prakriti' (Basic nature) in Indian Sankhaya and yoga philosophies, which comprises of Sat, Raj and Tama. These three elements are in equal proportion in Mool Prakriti. Therefore, movement of all the constituents of nature comes to a halt, because, if there is no movement of energy it appears dark. This Mool Prakriti, when undertakes task of creation these three constituents start disturbing their proportions which causes tension and waves in it. When we meditate, its Sat element appears in the form of light at the place of third eye between the eyebrows. Therefore, we can see outer form of nature and not its Mool Prakriti because it is dark. When yogi (devotee) realizes this original form of nature, his spirit acquires knowledge of qualities (constituents) of nature and becomes free of all limitations as he does not fall prey to the weaknesses of lower nature. This experience has been termed as Asamprajyat (beyond all knowledge), Nirvikalp (without alternative) or Nirbeej (seedless) Samadhi (blissful state of spirit). Adwait philosophy also describes this state of consciousness as Nirgun Brahman (absolute God), a result of Vivek (discriminative power) and intuition.


Gregory of Nyssa called it a cloud of darkness and Hazrat Moses had also experienced this on the mountain of Sinai and Greece Christian Denys, in sixth century also called it dense cloud of darkness where nothing is visible. Afterwards, when Pope Gregory-the great came, he told that God has kept total knowledge concealed in the womb of large cloud of darkness and fog and He himself is also hiding in this inaccessible cloud. Maximus and Meister Eckhart, mystics of thirteenth and fourteenth century called God as an experience of darkness, such a darkness which can't be termed as devoid of light; rather gives a reflection of strange light. Sri Aurobindo called experience of such darkness as Nirvikalp Samadhi where the intensity of light becomes so intense and dense that its movement comes to a halt and it gives impression of darkness. He called it luminosity of superconscient light. Buddha called it putting off a lamp. Other Christian saints called it dark night of soul. Bohme called it dark secret.


In the opinion of these mystics anything visible is God's outer face or form; it doesn't represent it's inner Reality. Some Christian Philosophers describe God's Luminous form as follows: In the words of Symeon in tenth Century:


O Light that none can name, for it is altogether nameless.


O Light with many names, for it is at work in all things,


How do you mingle thyself with grass?


How, while continuing unchanged, altogether inaccessible,


Do you preserve the nature of the grass unconsumed?


Symeon stated that this whole universe is safely reserved in the form of seed in the luminous womb of God. This luminosity remains present in every creature and in its ever changing nature and contrary to this there is also an entity which always remains stable, Agamya and Agochar (not accessible and visible). As per their statement, Saint Paul and Saint John affirmed having attained complete soul unity with Jesus Christ. They made it clear that this unity with Jesus doesn't mean being one with his physical body, rather with his luminous and formless being which is unified and inseparable from the soul. Saint John says, "Souls which identify themselves with Jesus become one with God (Father) also. Saint Augustine calls this luminosity of God a force of transformation of soul. Saint Bernard realized descent of God's light into his soul which stationed him in supreme consciousness. Saint Binjan described divinity as live form of light. Desert's Saint John Cassian says, "Regular meditation fixes soul in divinity". George fox said, "All holy books come out of inner light, inner light is the only source of all knowledge". This thought remained a cause of contention between mystics and the church for a longer period. George Fox, James Naylor preachers of Quaker's sect and their followers gave a message that all the men and women can establish their direct contact with divinity .Every Human being is having a source of light with in his self. This source can be searched by and equal opportunity without any kind of discrimination and by any person belonging to higher or lower class or caste. Anyone can practise it and attain Mukti (salvation) during his ensuing life time. Dionysius says, "God who abodes in super conscient darkness is having aura of light around him. Hindu saints call it Jyoti-Swaroop Brahman (luminous Divine). Attainment of Param-Jyoti (Supreme Light) is called realization of Samprajyat, Savikalp or Sabeej Samadhi i.e., all knowledge, all alternates and all seeds of Karmas (actions and works) in balanced state of consciousness.


In Islam, Allah has been called 'Noor' (light); Hazrat Muhammad appeared from Noor of Allah and Imam, Maulvi and Sheikh took birth from the noor of Hazrat. It has been written in Koran that both Heaven and Earth are the creations of light (24:35). Hazrat Muhammad found Allah in the form of Noor in his last experience (53:13-17). Alike Greece sages, the seers of Suhrawardi sect of Islam have also realized God as the experience of light. Guru has been called Sheikh-al-Ishraq i.e., a master enlightened with the Noor of Allah. Support of Qutb (living and charged Guru) is necessary to experience this Noor. Suhrawardi philosophy is also known as Ishraqi philosophy. Ishraq means noor and noor is ommipresent, every thing in this world is because of Noor. Allah in Pak (pure) form is noor of Noors. Every mandal (sphere) of the universe down the ladder is illuminated because of illumination of upper sphere. In Other words, every downward sphere is based upon upper more illuminated sphere. In this way, traveling downwards a spectrum of regions of lesser light got established and after reaching at a certain point, due to overshadowing of one sphere by another upper sphere, shadow came into existence; which is responsible for this whole creation and darkness was thus created. When a yogi or Sheikh experiences a flood of light within his self, Vivek (wisdom) takes birth in him which is known as Hiqmat-al-Ishraq (Wisdom of illumination). Kabala sect of Jew religion also recognizes upsurge of this universe out of light. According to this sect when God desired to create the universe, a flame like gamut of rays resembling to smoke emitted from this aura, the colour of which was neither white nor black, red, green, or any identifiable colour. This mass of rays or light created the universe.


Some mystics crossed all the limits of experience. In 6th century, Denys, who was a Christian of Greece and a successor of Cappadocian fathers, narrated his experience in the book 'The Divine Names' without declaring his identity to avoid any difficulty in publication of his book. Like priest Basil, he took the difference between dogma and Kerygma very seriously. He told that it is not a matter of ordinary experience; it can only be imbibed by a person who has been baptized by a Guru and who is away from any conception and mental shrewdness. God can't be given any shape nor can his experience be described in any language or through mental capability. Knowing secret of his experience is also not possible through study or analysis of scriptures. Calling God a 'God' or 'Supreme being' will also be a dishonesty because He is an experience of sunya (Nothingness). He can't be given any name or identity. If we really want to understand God then we shall have to negate every knowledge and understanding taking its origin from intelligence. We shall have to say that He is God and also non-God. He possesses qualities of both good and evil, He is knowledge as well as ignorance. To know and experience this being, we shall have to demolish all the conceptions which we have made about God. We shall have to rein our every thought of mind so that it does not form any frame with regard to God's colour or shape or develop any concept. Only by doing so we can have an experience of essence of Theoria or Dogma of God and we can become one with him and we can have experience of mount Sinai of Moses. Denys spoke of his experience which resembled to that of Buddha and even more than this, proving the contents of Upanishads or Gita. He said, "God is inner soul of this visible world, which is completely realistic, Nirgun (having no quality) as well as Nirakar Prajya (having no shape of knowledge) i.e., beyond any quality or shape or name. This experience of Denys resembles entirely with that of Indian sages described about ten centuries ago. In 3rd century, mystic Plotinus also spoke of an experience resembling to Greece and Indian Rishis. Plotinus desired to come to India for having spiritual knowledge but due to certain reasons he could not do so. This Indian knowledge and experience traveled to Greece through Pythagoras which was later followed by Socrates, Plato and other stoic monks.


During 13th and 14th centuries, European mystic Meister Eckhart (1260-1327) made it amply clear that wisdom is not sufficient to know God ,this is an experience beyond senses and does not fit into any frame made by us .He also told that God is an experience of nothingness. Father along with Son (Jesus) takes birth in the soul of man and not from Virgin Mary's Womb. Eckhart also says, calling God a 'God' is also a disrespect to Him, therefore, for God's shake we shall have to think beyond God itself and other conceptions about him; only then we can enjoy the experience of being one with him and can share his Ananda (bliss) .He further said, "My own existence should coincide with God's existence and I should feel Him with in myself, only then we can become inseparable spirit of God's kingdom". In Upanishads this experience has been dictated as aham-brahmasmi (I am God), ayam atma Brahman (This soul is God), Tatvamasi (You are God), Soham (I am like Him) etc. Eckhart's this secret principle of gnosis became a cause for displeasure of priests of Germany and he was declared a culprit and was tortured.


In 17th century, Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) having scientific approach advanced even ahead. Like Anselm and Rene Descartes, he told that we can't even think of non-being of God. This thinking itself confirms existence of God's kingdom. Where there is a thought, how we can deny non-existence of its thinker. A great thinker can only be a father of small thoughts, who helps us in carving these thoughts and making appropriate decisions. Descartes of France says, "I think therefore I am". Saint Anselm, who happened in 11th century, also said that this thinking of non-being of God itself proves the very existence of God .Spinoza found that truth can't be divided in to two parts, God and devil; there is only one spirit, God and devil both. Spinoza represented the dawn of new age of theism of atheists. It was followed by an era when existence of such God was denied which can't be acceptable to mind (intelligence) and is cruel and weak like Jesus and who is not capable of providing protection to self and his first son. Spinoza further explained that God is a rule or central principle, which is a sum total of all ruling systems at lower level .This central principle rules the total universe .His such thoughts sent tremors through whole Jewish religious section which resulted into his ousting from Synagogue (worship place of Jews) at an early age of twenty four. Religious people prayed in synagogue: May God keeps him in great agony in hell day and night, while awaking or sleeping, entering or exiting and at all places; and he may pass through wrath of God, God may never forgive him! God's anger may always keep burning him. Every punishment scribed in rule book of God may shower upon him and his name may be scraped from this world for ever. Some people describe Spinoza a great master for providing modernity to the religion and his path of secular salvation is followed by them. In 19th century Germany's Hegel gave a separate philosophy called Dialectic method (Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis).This theory was adopted by Karl Marx also for describing socialism. According to Hegel, Jewish religion is a most degraded religion because it propagated false conception of God since its inception; it projected God as oppressor, aggressive and cruel before the People. Jesus made every effort to dispel this notion of people about God but after his departure Christian religion also nurtured the old path and they also projected same picture of God. Hegel's view seems to be right because origin of all the three religions; Christian, Islam and Jewish is from the same source and all the three have less tolerance level. But in future, perhaps, this view of Hegel became a cause of slaughter of Jews when Hitler killed lakhs of Jews brutally to take revenge for their act to Jesus. They were thrown in the chambers of poisonous gas. They were slaughtered by searching one by one.


All the religions or philosophies that followed soul-searching or revealed deep secrets took mankind to greater heights. They don't see God in a particular man or within a limited sphere, rather they see him in each atom and in the ultimate experience they realize that man is also God's integral part, he is part of His eternity. Some found God in the form of light, some experienced His 'Ananda' in deep after the stage of light ; which is a zone of tranquility, quietness, stability, and calmness of super consciousness, infinite soul and mental peace ; finding depth of which is impossible. Only a few of them have experienced even more deepness of divine force, where in the tranquility of super conscience there is a consistent echo of God's silence. When this state of trance appears, our body and mind are filled with eternal music. Some call it Word, some Logos, Naad, Anahat, Udageet, Vaani, Akath Katha, Kalma, Awaje-mustkin etc.; Hazrat Muhammad says that some times Koran's Ayaten (subject matter) descended in him through the sound of a large bell and that was the most difficult experience for him. This description of sound of bell is also given in Rabbis sect of Jew religion and Christianity. Sound of whistles resembling to that of fast blowing air are also heard. Many Christian and Islam sages and Indian Rishis and saints have also talked of many cosmic sounds. Some of them like Mahatma Buddha said that giving any name to God's experience is not pertinent. This is an experience beyond both God and non-God and it can't be bounded. Only danger of this experience is that it can lead a person to atheism.


If we seek to establish true peace in this world, every one of us shall have to lift himself above the faith in impersonal image of God. Especially in Christian religion, Jesus is worshiped as an individual God, the results of which have not been encouraging. In Islam Allah is not worshiped as an individual but like Christians Islam also maintains supremacy of Koran and Hazrat's teachings. They categorically reject possibility of any experience or philosophy of God beyond this. Unlimited has been made limited and He is measured with words and wisdom of man, where as to understand God's divinity human wisdom and knowledge are very limited and equal to nothing. Man can presume God's stature according to his wisdom only. How he can go beyond the limits of his thinking? How a man having boundaries to his wisdom can make a guess regarding Eternal? It is just impossible.


A person can not guess about God as described by Jalaluddin Rumi in his selected small stories. One such story goes as follows - "One day Hazrat Moses happened to hear a voice coming from earth. That voice was of a shepherd boy who was completely engrossed in his prayer to God with his closed eyes and folded hands, 'O' God I wish to help you! You might be clothed in dirty dress, I wish to clean your clothes, I wish to wash your feet before you sleep so that you may have a sound sleep with out any disturbance. I wish to love you, I don't know If anybody loves you or not". He was expressing his emotions by saying so. Hazrat Moses was astonished with his foolishness and made him conscious of his bad behavior to God. Hazrat reprimanded him that you are talking in such a crude language to God who is creator of this whole world and of all the heavens; He is not your relative to whom you can talk like this. Hearing this shepherd boy was full of repentance and went to the desert in agony. God was annoyed with Moses for this all and told him that he has not done a right thing. I don't deal in words, I weigh the love and thirst of my beloved, could you not see the vigour of love in his heart, you heard his words only.


This story carries two good messages. First, every person evaluates God on the ability of his wisdom only; he establishes His picture in the frame of his mind. Someone asked a little girl what first will you do if God happens to come to you? The girl instantly replied, "I shall offer him the tasty lump of soil and lot of toys", It means that every body fixes God's image based on his taste, his nature and wisdom and behaves accordingly during his life time. Second message is that God does not admire or recognize wisdom; rather He adores love and thirst for Him. There can be different levels of knowledge in every man and religion where as soul of love always remains the same. God inhabits every heart and He inherits love, therefore, Sufi Saint Bulle Shah exclaims:


"Demolish Temple or demolish Mosque,


Demolish what so ever you can;


But never demolish any heart,


It is abode of God."


Love is the greatest treasure of humanity. The day God is accepted in the form of love that day man could be able to live in peace and harmony in this world. Sitting in the non-living leaves of Gita, Bible and Koran the dead God shall disappear that day. Jesus is living God, sleeping in human heart when awakened. He shall upsurge and shower the wealth of His love upon mankind. Jesus claims, "God's kingdom is with in you". So searching Him in Temple, Masque, Church or Gurudwara is a futile exercise. Rafi Sauda says:


"What if Quaba dismantles,


It is not a heart,


That can't be rebuilt".


Looking upon behavior of today's religion some one says, "Fighting in the name of religion is hamaqat (a thing of laughing) and fighting for hamaqat is religion.


This battle in the name of religion shall continue till we do not reject individual's God or God that fits into the structure made by our wisdom and we do not start worshipping omnipresent God who is showering love on every particle and existence. He is not a God manifested in one individual. He takes birth in soul, called Virgin Mary by Christian Saints who is sinless in its enlightened form. Such soul is absolutely innocent like a child and in such a pure soul birth of light of intuition and gnosis is Jesus' resurrection. By calling Jesus a son of Virgin Mary we do transfer our sin upon mother Mary. We project our battle with lust (sex) in the name of religion to satisfy our desire and exploit the people through propagation of superstition. Misuse of sex is a sin but it becomes a boon if used as a power.


Individual God takes shape out of our passion and thoughts. This is a result of Alam-a-mithal. In all the three religions; Christian, Islam and Jew, personal God or scriptures are in the centre of method of worship. Hindu religion is also not away this ritual but this religion allows freedom to a person to adopt another stream. He can embrace his own opinion. It clearly exhibits that this religion is more open and provides congenial environment for emancipation of soul or salvation. Spiritual knowledge of Hindu Shastras (scriptures) does not project individual God as the ultimate aim, rather they harbour a God who is Nirlep (sinless), Nirgun (virtue less) and Nirankar (incorporeal and shapeless), even then He possesses every shape and virtue of the universe. He creates the universe through his Viraat Swaroop (gigantic form), bears total Suksma (invisible) existence in this Hirnyagrabha (golden womb) form which is center of all mystic powers, Ridhi - Sidhis (miracles) and a bowl of all treasures . This is mental world of all the imaginary powers, a sheet of Swarg - Narak (Heaven - Hell). It is abode of all the gods - goddesses and angels, who delude a seeker, give food to his weaknesses. A seeker having lust for sex gets glimpse of beautiful fairies ; if greedy , offered treasures and his material desires start getting fulfilled , if aggressive, all the powers of aggression come forward and if he is a Satoguni (virtuous}, a God of goodness or angel fulfills his desires. It is a house of Kalptaru or Kalpvriksh (Divine tree) or Kamadhenu (Divine cow) which satisfy all the desires of the seeker.


This God is known as Aksar-Brahman, Surya-Brahman or Aksara-Purusha (Word-God or supramental Logos) because this God is creator of total suksama (invisible and subtle) knowledge. Above Hirnyagrabh there is indescribable form of divinity, a god of Sushupti, who is the master of super conscient darkness, deep ecstasy and love. Total physical and suksama world exists in its seed form here .It stays here in its kaaran (causal) form. After passing through this stage, a person returns to dreams (imaginary world) and awakening state (physical world) and commences his routine life again after gaining freshness and revival of his energy, same way the universe rests in Susupti after doom's day and again takes to the task of creation. Susupti is a centre of complete tranquility, an experience of sunya (voidless void), it is limitless. This is known as soul's dark night or dark mystery which a mystic experiences after traversing the suksama (invisible) world. It is a state where he sheds all conceptions, wisdom and pre-notions of religion. All the spiritual figures, Shastras, worship places and to the extent that all the God messengers and Avtars or Prophet loose their identity and become one with this level of divinity. This form of God is distinct from other two outer identities. It is Dogma (essence), source of both Kerygma and Trinity.


Above these three stages of spirit: physical, subtle and causal, there is fourth sphere of consciousness called Turiatit stage which is a fusion of physical, vital, mental, psychic and spiritual consciousness. This is the abode of Purushottama (Supreme Being). There is a possibility of rebirth of the seeds lying in the darkness of Sushupti but after being one with Sat Purusha (Supreme Being), all the seeds , all the samskaras (perceptions and impressions on the consciousness) burn into ashes; There is no reason for their recycle. Spirit, Paraprakriti (power of God) or Radha, like a thread, treads all the four forms of Sat Purusa or God and accomplishes all the tasks by becoming power of Purusha (God). When Prakriti works in the form of Purushottama it is called Paramaya (mystery and beyond all illusions), Paraprakriti or Parashakti (Divine power) and when it descends downwards it degenerates into dwaitwad (two fold division), traitwad (three fold) and sahasarwad (Thousand fold divisions) and on reaching the outer part it gets lost in darkness of ignorance and forgets its identity. This form of Prakriti is known as Aparamaya (mother of all illusionary powers) or Aparaprakriti or Aparashakti. This is the reason why soul forgets its prime aim and its abode of divinity from where it has descended in this mutable and perishable world.


Individual God is a generation of the world of imaginations which gets its strength from emotions and thoughts of mind. This form of God is a moderate form, a middle link, a mile stone which needs to be by-passed because this form of God is half truth and half truth creates confusion, illusion and hatred. Christian religion is most wounded religion because it advocates worship of crucified form of Jesus. Each nail piercing the body of Jesus perturbs the devotee and it creates turmoil in the minds of its followers. As a result of which a Christian is not a satisfied man; a craving to fulfill always creeps in his mind. History says that he always finds the ways of aggression and domination. History of Christianity is full of wars an struggle. This is due to the imprinted and embedded impressions housing somewhere on his psyche. He never experiences peace and it is not going to be so in future also. Mukti (salvation) is a matter of far away, as for attaining Mukti complete tranquility of mind and wisdom is required. Dissatisfaction has to be transformed into satisfaction and it can only be possible when we start worshiping Jesus Christ as a sea of love and compassion and not as a crucified and wounded Jesus. Every Christian shall have to rethink otherwise Jesus' wounded body shall continue to wound him also like Margaret Mary. Margaret Mary had got blessings of Jesus Christ, she is assumed to be blessed. In 1682 she narrates the dream of her meeting with Jesus in following words; when she had a glimpse of Jesus, his body was profusely bleeding and He was having wounds on his body. He exclaimed in his screamed voice; "Shall some one have a pity on me and help me? Shall some one become my associate in this boundless sorrow? Cruel and sinful people have made me so.


Till the screams of Jesus reaches to the last Christian, how Christianity can embrace Mukti (Salvation). Till even a single Christian or any person in this world is wounded how Jesus Christ can attain salvation? Jesus Christ's Mukti is possible only when total humanity shall dispel hatred and embrace affection. Dream of Heaven on earth shall become a reality only when all the religions shall be viewed through the same mirror, they shall be treated at par; their cultural and spiritual identity shall be preserved, their valuable treasures shall be conserved. Virtues of other religion shall be adored and adopted and evils of own religion shall be shunned, only then problems of religious terrorism and communalism can be shown the exit. Jesus Christ is not the name of individual spirit; rather He is a spirit of wisdom and enlightened humanity and non-identifiable (impersonal) consciousness of universe.


Till the wounded and bleeding consciousness keeps anyone agitated in any form, he shall not be able to abandon religion-bounded enmity and hatred. He can't come out of the state of Alam-al-mithal and upto the time it happens; there is no possibility of kingdom of God on Earth. Everyone residing on globe will have to think such limiting aspects and blind folded superstitions prevailing in ones own religion for the establishment of 'Heaven on Earth' in Reality. Religion of common God i.e., impersonal God as emphasized by the mystics of different religions can help overcoming these limitations as they share common experience of spiritualism and religion. Adoration and worship of personal God or scriptures can be the milestones in the journey towards Self realization. A common path of 'Love' for every creature and the surroundings can lead the humanity towards the goal of peace, tranquility and freedom. True love doesn't differentiate between a person of one religion and the other. It is a binding, uniting and gliding force which is moving and revolving the whole universe on the wheels of Time and Space. It is recognized by all the living and non-living spheres of life. Animals, plants, birds do not recognize our religion, its rituals or any personal deity. They are not influenced by the presence of temple, mosque, church or gurudwara. Neither they respond to the aphorisms of our scriptures, nor do they, at all, exhibit respect to our worship places. They only respond to the incense of love and nurturing spirit of a person.


Only that religion can be the religion of God which attracts all of its inhabitants (living or non-living) without any disparity and that is the religion of Love and compassion (Dharam-e-Seena; religion of heart). True love has no limits and boundaries; therefore it can reach the limitless and inaccessible. It never puts the shackles of bondage in the feet of his beloved but always sets him free; hence, it can be the most potent means of delivering the ulterior goal of freedom. No knowledge is required to learn the basics of love as it is the quintessence of each and every atom and creature. Thus, love is the only cosmic religion which is recognized by the whole universe and its inhabitants. It becomes supreme Bliss when we adopt the path self-giving which is the result of true love.


Hence, path of love (self-giving) and the adoration and craving of impersonal God are the key treasures which can lead the humanity in the making of 'Heaven on Earth'. Without making use of these treasures, the dream will remain a utopia and conjecture.



Radhasoami
www.radhasoamitaradham.com

All of us|6.7.08 @ 7:58PM|#

Thank you for sharing. Please sit down.

|6.8.08 @ 2:42AM|#

Holy shit. What did we do to deserve that?

|6.10.08 @ 10:26PM|#

Oh fuck, somebody immanentized the eschaton all over the place.