So AIBU or not

[Clandestino]

AIBU on thinking all those posters who were defending Rees-Mogg and his views are either deluded or sharing his backwards arch-conservative views that wouldn't go amiss in the Westboro Baptist Church?

www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/sep/06/pmqs-home-office-immigration-leak-reaction-politics-live?CMP=fb_gu

Sorry, wrong link:

www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/sep/06/jacob-rees-mogg-opposed-abortion-video?CMP=fb_gu

The guy is a bigoted arse hole. End of.

I am a Catholic and I have trouble listening/reading his views. I guess we know why his wife has so many kids! Probably doesn't believe in artificial contraception.

I think a lot of people think of JRM as the humorous, 19th century buffoon they watch on HIGNFY, forgetting that he holds strong conservative beliefs and can do a lot of damage if he got in to power.

Yanbu

I couldn't believe all those threads and posters defending him in the time of the elections. He looks and acts like a stuck up antiquity and his views are awful.

I disagree with most if not all of his views, but would absolutely defend his right to express those views when asked for them,....which he was,.asked!

The issue is religion and in this instance Catholicism.

He was spot on; the Bible and the Vatican are very clear about homosexuality and abortion.

People announcing that they're Christian but disagree with him are just deviating away from the Bible and Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani which includes "this is the word of the lord".

Pick a side. Common sense and science or religion and R-M.

He's dangerous. He makes Gove seem enlightened. Definitely not some kind of amiable joker - do people never learn?

I disagree with most if not all of his views, but would absolutely defend his right to express those views when asked for them,....which he was,.asked!

Nobody is saying he doesn't have a right to express his views. They are saying - as, by the same argument, they also have a perfect right to do - that they find those views abhorrent.

He has a right to hold his views, and we have a right to judge his character upon the views he chooses to hold.

You can be Catholic and not a cunt?

I am pro-choice, but I do firmly believe that if you are pro-life there can be no grey area. Either life begins at conception and is - as he put it - sacrosanct from that point, or it doesn't. You can't say "Oh I'm against abortion - EXCEPT for circumstances a, b, c and d. And sometimes e and f. And g, in certain situations." Which is why the American pro-life movement pisses me off so much, because it is patently a "pro-choice, but less choice, and we want to control women's bodies" movement, not true pro-life (I abhor the pro-life movement equally, fwiw).

I disagree with him, but he is being honest and open about a very unpopular and controversial position, and people complain enough about duplicitousness in politicians as it is. He is also notably expressing his personal opinion while being very clear that his personal view has no impact on anybody's rights. It is just an opinion. Or does he have form for trying to impose this belief on anybody (outside his marriage!!!)?

How can you square being a staunch monarchist (wikipedia) and a Catholic though? Surely there are some theological and political contradictions in there?

astoundedgoat - he is a politician and has the possibility and the platform to influence others. I firmly believe that this is something that shouldn't be neglected and his opinions shouldn't be marginalised. He seems to have a large following and is one of the candidates to replace Theresa May - wouldn't this be a reason to be wary? Look at how Donald Trump came to power. What makes you think that Britain wouldn't vote for him?

I can understand why people find homosexuality and abortion repulsive. If you have never been in a position to need either an abortion or homosexual sex both can seem off putting to say the least. I am sure that most homosexuals would feel the same way about heterosexual sex. As far as abortion goes I am sure that no one finds it palatable but sometimes it is less horrifying or painful than the alternative for everyone concerned. It's one thing to find that sonething is not to your taste and to choose not to do it yourself. It is something entirely different to use parliament to impose your tastes and morals on others. The first is called freedom, the second oppression.