Why I say that he is not entitled to his opinion? If "Everyone’s entitled to his opinion" just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. One is only entitled to what he can argue for [a]. Milan Ivkošić is not arguing, he is attaching labels, the labels of his liking regardless of the real data and journalist’s norms. For instance, he claims that the Michael Jackson idolization is due to US atheistic wasteland. He should be aware that there are higher percentage of true believers among US population than in Croatia. The 86% Catholic affiliation in Croatia is actually a political (nationalistic if not chauvinistic) statement rather than theistic. Milan Ivkošić should now better than use Michael Jackson for his atheistic witch-hunt.

But the "gem" of his column is the attack on Darwin. He is really after the evolution, the most dangerous anti-religious idea, but an argumentative attack on evolution is well beyond his horizons, so he tries to discredit Darwin by announcing there are some racial and supremacist statements in the Darwin’s writings. I don’t know, maybe the statements exist, probably when taken out of contents, but what about the most dangerous idea, Darwin’s or not (only) Darwin’s?