Hi there BANJO PATERSON...

You claim inter alia '...despite my highly regrettable personal shortcomings, my own marriage managed to survive...'? I think that statement is essentially inaccurate B.J.? Furthermore I suggest you're selling yourself rather short. Remember it takes two hands to clap. All unions need to be worked, by both partners, otherwise they invariable fail and fail irretrievably.

I recall this bloke I'd locked-up once, asked me very sarcastically '...what would you do you 'fu...'in' smart arse...'? What I'd do if my Missus was giving me verbal hell and assaulting me? Walk away. That's all a bloke can do. If the female spouse has utterly 'lost it', all the reasoning, all the 'wrist holding' to prevent her from hitting you in the world, doesn't work! Next best thing is to absent yourself from the situation and allow her to at least cool down. There's no other option, none whatsoever.

And never argue with your wife with a 'belly full of piss', that's the most likely time a bloke will end up 'losing it' and assaulting his spouse.

The very moment you hit your spouse, however moderately - you've now crossed that very crucial, but vitally important line. You've lost the respect she had for you, lost control, and commenced that irreversible slippery slope to marital perdition.

I don't care how coarse or how forbearing, or elegantly dignified a woman may be. By physically assaulting her, despite what it is they may say, in terms of forgiveness. Believe me, emotionally deep down, she'll not forgive you and never will. That's regardless whether or not they're prepared to stay with you, married or otherwise.

.

Dear leoj, Shockadelic and o sung wu,

.

I read your posts with interest and thank you for expressing your reactions, opinions and sentiments which I perceive as different from mine on a number of points, not just in form but also in content.

I have been a close observer of the numerous terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated in France over the past few years, and my impression is that the motivation of the perpetrators has little or nothing to do with what you or I would normally consider to be religious faith.

Also, as I indicated in my previous posts, I have no personal experience of domestic violence and rely on what I understand to be reputable sources for information. Again, I am grateful to you for sharing your knowledge and perceptions with me.

As for the personal shortcomings I mentioned in my own marriage, I’m afraid they were very real. I have not always been the most faithful of husbands but that belongs to the distant past. It’s all behind me now, and has been for many years.

My wife and I are two complementary halves. We have long united in a fusional relationship and become one and the same person.

.

Banjo Paterson,

What you are saying is that you don't have to respond to any opposing evidence or facts and in fact none are relevant, because it is your personal opinions?

My assessment is informed by such incontrovertible facts as the video reports of the 'no-go' Islamic zones in France and elsewhere in Europe and the assessments in the media and not usually by the media, but by authorities the media are prepared to back as experts, or as elected representatives.

To sum up, there is for the greatest majority, almost all?, Muslims an unbridgeable chasm between the political-religious Islam, notably Sharia law, and SECULAR France (or secular Britain, or secular Sweden and so on). No-one can sugar-coat the reality of the social problems in France and the rest of Europe as a result of the toxic political system, fundamentalist Islam (again is it all of the Islam that must have Sharia law, which would include so-called moderates as well?) and obnoxious traditions and cultural values of those thousands of Muslim men who have invaded Europe to take advantage of greener fields and social welfare? They trash what they sought.

Next, I would say with a far greater confidence based on the source, namely Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali - compared with your good self and the ABC's experts such as activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied (as in, Islam is feminist!) - that Islam is in urgent need of reformation and the Muslims who are trying to do that should be supported not undermined by apologists for Islam.

Next, I will leave to one side your unquestioning support of the highly contestable sloppy 'research' behind those numbers used to belt all men over the head with claimed women hate and control of women through 'patriarchy' - that are the shaky basis for the generalised DV program in Australia that relay should be targeting known problem areas. However, where you put up links and opinion it is usually expected that you might be prepared to examine them, rather than fall back on the 'my opinion' default.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for comments and for sharing personal aspects
of your life. I wish you, your wife, and your family
every possible happiness.

While searching the web for the connection between religion
and violence I came across the following:

http://www.nieuwwiji.nl/english/karen-armstrong-nothing-islam-violent-christianity/

I thought it may be of interest.

I looked up the book, "Fields of Blood: Religion and the history
of violence," by Karen Armstrong in our library's catalogue
and found that we have several copies of it. They're all
currently out on loan. I've reserved a copy and will let you
know what I think of it later. It does sound interesting.

The summary given in the libray's catalogue states -

"It is the most persistent myth of our time: religion is the
cause of all violence. But history suggests otherwise.
Karen Armstrong, one of the foremost scholars of religion, speaks
out to disprove the link between religion and bloodshed..."

Sounds intriguing.

cont'd ...

Dear Banjo Paterson,

My apologies for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://www.nieuwwij.nl/english/karen-armstrong-nothing-islam-violent-christianity/

"Karen Armstrong in our library's catalogue"

But not Aayaan Hirsi Ali?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446863/ayaan-hirsi-ali-islam-treatment-women-predicting-evolution

What makes Karen Armstrong a preferable source to Aayaan Hirsi Ali?

"Karen Armstrong, long famous for her description of Muhammad as the consummate “peacemaker” who “brought together the warring tribes of Arabia,” has assumed the mantle, yet again, not of the Prophet, but of the Prophet’s defender. In an article in The Guardian she retells in her inimitable fashion the story of European Christendom’s relations with Islam and with Muslims. In her retelling, the Muslims are innocent victims, and more than innocent victims, likened again and again to the Jews. They are also the only people who provided, in that bright shining moment of European history known as Islamic Spain, the only real tolerance and humanity to be found anywhere in Europe before the modern era. It is a tough job, but Karen Armstrong proves equal to the task. And her real theme is not history, but that Europeans should feel ashamed themselves for showing any signs of wariness or suspicion about the millions of Muslims who now live in Europe, having come among the indigenous Infidels to settle, but not to settle down.
....
..Karen Armstrong is not innocent, and manages to do a great deal of harm, careless or premeditated harm, to history. Too many people read that she has written a few books, and assume, on the basis of nothing, that “she must know what she is talking about” – and some of the nonsense sticks. And perhaps an enraged professor or two bothers to dismiss her, but mostly – this is how the vast public, in debased democracies, learns its history today."

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Karen_Armstrong:_The_Coherence_of_Her_Incoherence/