Sure he can and he did but people will comment on those comments surely that's fair? I mean he's calling women murderers basically but you're defending his right not to have that opinion questioned, Really?

Agree with Jakey and Marsh on this.

Also, we may disagree but sanctity of human life for Catholics is unconditional so the church's view on abortion follows from that

I have no time, patience or understanding for someone that condemns women for following through on their freedom to choose, yet not only fails to condemn, but continues to protect and enable people who actively commit heinous crimes by using their power to manipulate vulnerable people, I personally despise the idea of all religion, but hold no prejudice towards anyone that holds whatever religion they wish, I do however have contempt for people who use their religion to excuse covering up disgusting crimes.

Change the religion, and you get a lot of Tommy Robinson's in this thread.

I don't mind, I'm for you having your opinion. I just think it shows up double standards.

What double standards.
The only one I see is within the Catholic Church itself. All conception is life. Well who cares for these children when the parents aren't able to. Should we go back to the days of religious orphanages where nuns and priests can abuse the kids with their power?

Tommy speaks up about young girls being groomed and raped on mass, homosexuals being thrown of buildings to their deaths, young girls having their genitals mutilated. For that, he is hated.

Nobody here is using hate rhetoric to prop up their point though. I am not asking for Catholics to be categorically wiped out from my society... or sent away. I'm saying those that are accountable need to be held accountable. I would say the same for any person in any religion. We are talking specifically about the Pope here, and his people in power in. I don't see the two situations as being parallel

The difference is, Robinson hatefully targets only one religion and uses rhetoric which incites hatred towards that set of people, nobody in this thread has attacked a religion or anybody for being religious, there’s a major difference and you know it.

Define inciting hatred?

Is calling somebody who isn't a bigot, a bigot, inciting hatred? I mean, being called a bigot isn't a nice thing, is it?

My rugby team are my religion, if you speak negatively about my rugby team, are you inciting hatred?

Sports =/= religion
Sports =/= race

Sport is more real than man in the sky.

Can we try not to get this closed pleased, it’s one of the only SD threads where it’s actually looked like I know what I’m talking about :laugh:

Nothing has been said that would or should have the thread closed. We're debating. I've got nothing more to say. I said my opinion and you replied to me, so I engaged in debate with you.

Tommy Robinson's problem has never been in speaking about about the troubling aspects of religion, or the actions of certain groups though. The problem is that he uses those things to vilify ALL members of that religion (and more).

Just not true, he has many Muslim friends and alies.

It would take a lot for me to believe that the people you describe "in his camp" aren't planted propaganda.

Nah, he grew up with them, went to school with them, goes to the football with them. Crazy notion in a multicultural town like Luton eh?

I mean, he had to socialise with some Muslims, wasn’t he locked up with some?

They were likely to be the radical ones that want to kill him.

Where did I say that?

In this thread when people questioned his authority to preach what is and isn't a crime or what does and does not deserve speaking out about to his followers. If you're going to brand a group if people criminals whilst hiding a group if actual criminals then you should expect a bit of backlash, don't you think?

There's a difference between questioning an opinion and shouting "Pedo priests!" at every opinion he offers.

Because until he takes a proper stance on those atrocities within his own organisation his opinion on what is and is not "criminal" is comedic, if it wasn't so horrific.

..yeah this last part really is where the attention should be fully focused I feel...although there is obviously a correlation between the law makers and his words in that any pregnancy is excused as a ‘gift from God’ or Gods work to justify the male control....and that’s the fundamental issue with so much still in existence in religion which is still being used to justify by some law makers as if it were a one size fits all matter...

The thing is, this is another example where experience seems pretty important in having a fully rounded opinion.

As awful as this is going to sound, I was really against the idea of abortion (though I'd never have wanted it to be illegal) until I had children :umm2:. Now just to quickly say, that's not because I don't want the ones I have!

I'm now 100% Pro choice and 100% woman's choice. The reason for this, is that I don't think people fully comprehend the physical and psychological effect that even a PLANNED pregnancy has on a woman's body until they directly experience one. Obviously I appreciate that it's still something I'll never completely understand but even having experienced it as best supporting actor completely changed my perspective on it. It's spoken of so flippantly in the abortion debate - especially by men, but also especially by anyone who has no real experience of what a 9 month pregnancy and birth entails.

So the pope, who pregnancy could not be LESS relevant for personally, really has a very limited scope for commenting on this even if you take the blatant hypocrisy out of the equation.

Also what's with the idea that you can't say "I'm not interested in what this guy has to offer" based on past actions?? Is that how it works now? I mean sure everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to "have their opinion taken seriously" when they're being a laughable hypocrite :think:.