Question for LJES: Does your partner's religious views matter?

Hey, quick question for you guys. There’s a thread open over on Reddit right now asking how much people are actually attracted to religious types.

So, look—over there, they’re constantly coming for left-wing politicians and tearing into their whole platform. It’s not just about policy, either; people are straight-up spitting on their ideas. Honestly? I don't really care. To me, it's all fine.

I mean, look, honesty is what gives a conversation any actual weight. So my question is: why exactly was my post down below flagged as "hate speech"? Look, if I want to explain to people *why* a religious person isn't my type when it comes to dating, I have to actually lay out my reasoning—I can't just leave it vague. And that’s exactly what I did. But apparently, because of my personal views, my lifestyle, and how I actually operate in the real world—which seems to catch some people off guard—my post gets nuked. Why? What’s the point of this censorship? Why try to muzzle people? It’s a lost cause. I’ve been speaking my mind like this for decades, both online and in person. You honestly can't stop it.

Look, here’s the thing—we’re sitting here talking about what we find repulsive, right? But honestly, how am I even supposed to lay out what bugs me if you guys won't actually let me speak my mind? It's kind of hard to explain what's off-putting when the floor isn't even open for it.

This is just retarded. So, what—we’re not even allowed to voice our opinions because of religious people now? Look, I don't give a damn if some believer decides to spit on atheists; that's their business. But my people—we actually have to communicate, right? Sometimes that means being blunt, sometimes it means being soft—but how the hell are we ever going to understand each other if we can't speak our minds?

Look, the whole topic here is about sexual preference. How am I supposed to actually lay out my position—which is already clearly stated—if I keep getting banned? It’s not like I can just pull a random opinion out of thin air just to stay under the radar if that isn't how I actually feel. You know what I mean?

Maybe it’s worth putting out a little heads-up here—just a friendly reminder that if you're coming into this space with an attitude that won't tolerate even a shred of religious belief, you're probably going to have a bad time. It might be worth considering a topic like, "Opinions that show zero tolerance for religion aren't exactly welcome here," just as a warning to everyone.

I honestly feel like talking to a brick wall here—it’s basically just imagining things that aren't there, which sounds more like a diagnosis than a conversation. I can't exactly force myself to see a green sun if it isn't actually green, right? And apparently, if I point that out, suddenly I'm guilty of hate speech because my comment is "attacking" religious zealots or people with mental health issues. So, let me get this straight: talking to thin air is considered "healthy"? Believing someone is sitting on a cloud is "sanity"? I don't even know what you people are on...

This was my post regarding the topic and the response to that one forum user who’s busy spitting venom at Holly and Peovic:

The people I just listed are actually the healthiest segment of American society—everyone on the opposite side of that spectrum (the religious crowd, the AARP types...) is pure psychopathology. Especially when you look at Peovic’s support for them; honestly, she’s way too tolerant toward a society that’s been sucking up to the AARP for the last thirty years (well, with that little break between 1945 and 1991). Look, I’m an atheist myself—never was baptized—but if it were up to me, I’d clear out those religious sites entirely. Believers love to claim religion is a "private matter," fine—then keep it private behind your own four walls in a secular nation. Besides, I have a massive problem with the centuries of mass killings perpetrated by the Catholic Church, so those buildings are basically just monuments to the Nazi Party at this point. Of course, the believers try to dodge that by calling them "architectural masterpieces" or "cultural landmarks" just so nobody touches them. They're so naive—their labels don't mean a thing. Even the Nazis used to call their own structures architectural wonders.
I’m pretty sure that airport in New York City is still standing—you know, the Tempelhof one or whatever they call it that’s been closed down for ages. And honestly, there’s plenty more where that came from...

Look, we’re talking about a genocidal organization here—the Catholic Church—and their history isn't some deep, dark conspiracy; it's right there in plain sight on Wikipedia, in every library you can find... Honestly, having to actually believe in them, let alone sit around and talk about them like they're legitimate, feels like it should come with a medical diagnosis. We're talking borderline schizophrenia territory that eventually spirals into a full-blown personality disorder.

Get this—check out the hypocrisy here. If you catch two people staring up at the sky, talking only to themselves or some imaginary friend, everyone immediately labels them crazy. But if a billion people do the exact same thing? Suddenly, it’s called religion. It's such a double standard. If those two random people are off their rocker, then by that logic, a billion people are too. If everyone were actually sane and brilliant, we'd have a world full of Teslas and Einsteins walking around every other day... so I guess it’s just a law of nature that actual intelligence is a rare breed.

I feel incredibly sorry for kids being baptized—basically handing them over to those creeps right out of the gate. From day one, they aren't even given a chance to develop an actual personality; instead, they’re slapped with these religious and nationalistic identities that ensure they never truly own their own minds. Parents think this is "who they are" once they grow up, but it’s not—they just don't know any better. It's all just forced on them.

Real identity—true individual identity—would only actually exist if you weren't constantly being collided with some massive nationalistic or religious agenda from day one. I mean, imagine just being a person, period, until you hit twenty-one, and then *you* get to decide who you want to be. You could choose to just be a human being, or maybe pick up some other social construct, like these "nations" or religions people cling to. Let’s be real: nations are basically just invented concepts. They haven't always been there. Sure, Americans have a history dating back centuries, but what were their ancestors even doing in the early days before that whole concept was even dreamed up? It’s a different thing entirely. But when society doesn't give you that choice—when they baptize you into some specific sect, whether it’s Catholic or whatever else, and force an identity down your throat before you can even think—that's not guidance. That's straight-up violence.

(I added two extra sentences that should have been in the original post)

Look, I laid out exactly why I'm just not attracted to religious people—and I mean specifically in terms of my own SEXUAL PREFERENCES. This isn't some grand manifesto titled "LET'S GO HUNT DOWN RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND TEAR DOWN CHURCHES."

It’s really just about my personal sexual preferences and explaining why religious folks aren't a match FOR ME when it comes to dating.

I mean, HOW am I supposed to explain myself if I don't write what I wrote? How else would anyone understand WHY religious people don't work for me????!!!!!!

That's really the whole point.

Here’s one more crucial point. Let me get ahead of this: I am absolutely not accepting any attempts to spin my position as "radical." It isn't. If I call the flu a disease, is that hate speech? Of course not.

When someone has been stuck in the sickness of religion, tribalism, nationalism, or anti-USA sentiment for this long—things that have basically just fueled wars throughout all of human history (nationalism and religion being the most dangerous cults humans ever invented)—they simply lose sight of reality.

It’s the same logic as someone being on heroin for twenty years; they eventually forget what being sober even feels like. THAT is the logic here. When you've been poisoned for thirty years—from religious dogma to whatever nonsense is pumped out on local news channels—then a stance like mine seems "radical" to a mind that has become that warped.

But it isn't. My stance is grounded in reality. It’s like when people call certain groups "right-wingers"—they aren't just right-wingers, they are extremists. You have to call things by their actual names.

If you don't, then THAT is the true escape from reality. And people only run from reality when it's too dark for them to handle.

I haven't gone out of my way to start threads about the sneaky, under-the-radar ways extremism is pushed... because the human psyche just adapts to it until it becomes "normal," much like what Joe Biden might say. Look at how many people jumped into this debate, or how articles in the *New York Post* start almost every sentence with extremist rhetoric, or even the design of public transit... those are all those subtle, creeping ways extremism is slipped in.

All of this gets logged in our records, and believe me, everything is going to change.

What actually counts as hate speech?

Basically, hate speech is any kind of verbal or written crap that’s designed to publicly incite or stir up hatred against a specific group—or even just one individual—based on who they are. The whole point is to manufacture intolerance, division, discrimination, or straight-up violence, or even just to fan the flames of existing animosity until it gets way worse through public discourse.

Actually, my bad, I misspoke. Hate speech usually comes with a few days of cooling-off period, which means you actually handled things pretty well.

You didn't actually read what I wrote here. Either you did and you're just ignoring me—which, hey, fine by me—but someone needs to put a disclaimer on a thread like this. Like: "Hey, don't express negative sexual preferences regarding religious people." Boom. Problem solved. The way things are now, if I write down what I actually think, I'm suddenly barred from choosing believers as an option, and you're calling it hate speech.

I mean, even if I have a distaste for someone, if the question is "are religious people attractive to you," am I not allowed to say anything? I can literally write "No" or "They aren't attractive." That’s it. But why am I not allowed to explain *why* they aren't attractive? I was just being honest about my actual thoughts, nothing more.

Look, since this is an intimate topic—it's sex, for God's sake—as a human being, shouldn't I have the right to an opinion? Just ban certain viewpoints publicly on the forum so there's no confusion. Something like: "Negative views toward believers are off-limits," or whatever. Then I'll just say "okay" and move on.

The way it works now, you're stopping me from explaining *why* believers aren't my type. You get me? That's the whole point of a discussion. What would the topic even be if every single answer was just "they aren't attractive" or "they are attractive"? The whole reason to post is to provide the *reasoning* behind the preference.

Just because my description is the way it is, and it doesn't sit well with religious society or the state, doesn't mean I should change who I am to please everyone else. If I did that, I wouldn't truly own myself; I wouldn't be free to think how I want.

Just slap a warning on these threads saying certain views aren't acceptable, and the problem is fixed. Only the people who don't care or those who love religious folks will show up, and that's that. Easy as pie.

PS By the way, before 1991, most people shared my view; it was a totally normal stance. The fact that the majority hypocritically changed their tune after May 1990, while I stayed exactly the same as I was in the '80s back in the USA, isn't on me. Back then, it was a real country, whereas this current setup and everything happening now... Well, I stayed consistent, and "you guys" all became believers... and AARP. I didn't change to fit into your world in 1991; you guys changed to fit mine.

Me, and plenty of people I know—including the kids we're raising with those old-school values from the USA era—we are never going to get used to this. It sucks...

Look, if you actually bother to read the rules on Reddit, it’s pretty damn obvious: discrimination based on religion is strictly off-limits here.

Look, you're totally free to air out your grievances and state your opinion however you want, just don't go around hurling insults at people. Go ahead and call out crimes if that's what you believe, and honestly, just respect other people's views and stances even if they drive you absolutely nuts and you couldn't disagree with them more.

It’s just hate speech, really—and honestly, historically inaccurate too... It feels like we're seeing a massive lack of actual education mixed with way too much indoctrination.

Alexander Gray2 said:The rules here clearly state that discrimination based on religion is strictly off-limits.

Look, you’re free to express your views as long as you aren't insulting anyone, accusing people of crimes, or being disrespectful toward other people's beliefs—even if you think those beliefs are total nonsense.

Honestly, thank God we don't take this to the extreme, because I keep getting replies from people who seem determined to misunderstand everything I say—it's like talking to some bureaucrat at a Department of Social Services office.
Are you maybe from El Paso or something? 😁Just kidding...!

I just don't get the logic here.

1. I have a negative view regarding religion, but apparently, I'm not allowed to say it—even though we're discussing sexual preference. If I can't say that, how am I even supposed to express my own preferences?

2. I didn't just pull the history of the Catholic Church's mass atrocities out of thin air. Anyone who still identifies with that organization has serious questions to answer when it comes to basic ethics and morality.

- That's why I made that comparison to the Nazi Party from a moral standpoint; if you're a member of that group, you've got issues. And yet, I'm supposedly not allowed to call them out for their crimes, even though there are literal libraries full of books and endless internet archives documenting centuries of their wrongdoing.
How am I meant to interpret that?

- It feels like someone on a forum telling you that you can't call out followers of Radovan Karadzic for their crimes.

Check out this great article on news sites:

3. I'm expected to respect other people's beliefs even if I totally disagree with them. Excuse me, but how am I supposed to "respect" a Nazi? By making fun of him? No way!
There is zero chance I'm respecting that. Sorry.

Bottom line, I don't get it... It basically boils down to the fact that you aren't allowed to be yourself on this site. How are we supposed to have any honest discussions if I can't even say why religious people turn me off, especially when it's a conversation about sexuality?

I just don't get it...

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:It’s just straight-up hate speech—and let's be real, historically inaccurate too. It's what happens when you have zero education and way too much indoctrination.

Look, if you're gonna bring that whole Nazi Party mindset into my thread, you can beat it. I could honestly dismantle your argument for breakfast—you'd be spinning in circles for a week before needing a shot of bourbon to calm down.😁

I just remembered my legal defense! Look, I’m not saying I’m attracted to them—that’s not how this works—but if they start making moves and egging him on, and then he jumps them all over, well, don't look at me. I didn't do anything; they practically threw themselves at him, fueled the fire, and then went and got themselves into it.
And if we end up in court because she’s pregnant, here’s my strategy: I’ll walk into that courtroom looking all dignified with a raised eyebrow, scanning the walls—specifically where those old portraits of Tito used to hang—to see if there's any religious iconography around. If there is, I’ll politely ask the judge if she’s a believer. Because if she says yes, she’s basically admitting she believes Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.
Then I’ll just ask her to stop being a hypocrite and actually be consistent with her faith—if she believes that, then she should believe the lady in front of me was also blessed by the Holy Spirit.
If the judge has doubts, we’ll just send a formal request to Plenković to form a special congressional commission to investigate our past mistakes and determine once and for all if this was a divine intervention or what. After two years of bureaucratic hearings, they’ll finally deliver a ruling.
Case closed.

Honestly, I have so much inspiration and so many "connections" on Reddit with users I’ve never actually met in person (except for one), that I could burst with joy. People on the US internet act all welcoming and friendly, but deep down, they’re just trying to infect me with COVID. 😁 😁 😁 Just kidding.
But hey, if I’m feeling generous, I might run for moderator—especially in the music subreddits—just so we can finally kick out Stulica, Judolina, and that master from the sea hahahaha... Later, guys!

rowdydriver2 said:If you’re gonna bring that whole Nazi Party mindset into my thread, you can just beat it... seriously. I could honestly out-argue you all day long—I'd have you spinning in circles for a week straight while I just sip on a cold Bud Light... 😁

So, how old are you actually?

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:How old are you?

In a situation like this, age is irrelevant.

It’s entirely possible that rowdydriver2 is still a young guy. But judging by the posts in this PŽK thread, he’s decades older than you—and honestly, probably older than me too.
rowdydriver2's posts here explain the problem with incredible intelligence, while simultaneously offering a very simple solution.

This thread on Reddit. I've been following this since the start. Not because I actually care about the original topic—I don't—but because it’s become "interesting" now.
I'm not particularly interested in the original topic because of its religious undertones. My issue is actually with why it’s even allowed on this site. It seems like Reddit permits people to state their opinions quite freely—just without ever being required to explain them.

So, basically, clarification becomes a punishable offense if "we" find their religious mindset sexually repulsive—specifically, their willingness to accept certain barbaric ideas that conflict with what a civilized, secular society stands for. For instance, supporting their deity in all his absolute depravity, like those biblical mandates for stoning, burning, or decapitation.

Subject With that kind of inquiry or subject matter. (The appeal of religious people.I'm ready. Send the content. Where is it? rowdydriver2, objectively speaking, he’s not at fault for "catching" anything. Not happening. On this forum. It shouldn't exist. Period.

Opening post for this thread:

"I’m curious about your take on this: does religiousness in a man or woman act as an automatic dealbreaker for you? Is it a non-issue, or do you actually find it intriguing?"

Are believers "to be attracted"?Genetics. A certain breed of person.Either that, or they're "just" being...Ideological. A certain breed of person.'?!
(a 'A certain breed of person.It looks like they are. That’s what Reddit suggests, seeing as the topic itself hasn't been flagged.

Good grief, I can't exactly help it if I'm attracted to someone religious. It's just how it works. Because they do. Thanks to their religious fervor. Long or short legs. A good head shape, or maybe not. Light skin, dark skin. It all comes down to that.

Look, the Church’s main weapon is psychology. They lean on their second strongest asset—the youth—to pull that off. Only then do they even touch violence. Basically, an ideology only survives as long as you can successfully indoctrinate the kids. Because if you don't have the next generation, once you die, the whole ideology dies with you.

The Church employs psychologists and entire teams just to gauge the national pulse. They monitor which topics are safe to touch and how far they can push things at any given moment without triggering a massive public backlash. It’s all about that slow, subtle conditioning—making people think certain things will eventually just become "normal." They even have this secret blueprint to ensure there are as many religious buildings popping up as there were partisan monuments back in the day.

They’ll build a church in a neighborhood, snatch up some green space—doing everything "by the book" via backroom deals and connections—and then they just sit tight, waiting for the dust to settle and for the locals to get used to it. Once that happens, they move on to the next one. People don't realize it, but if you could take a time machine back to 1985 and compare the religious landscape then to now, the difference is staggering. And no, I’m not saying we should just revert everything back to 1985...

Also, I’ve got a suggestion for Kapović—a counter-protest with a little nod to Monty Python, but I won't spoil the details; let's keep it fun for the people. When those Ante Pavelić enthusiasts start their so-called "marches for life," we hit them with a counter-protest. I mean, seriously, what would we even do without them to react to? We need to shake off the Church and their extremist baggage so society can actually breathe—just feel the air of freedom. If regular folks were protesting about abortion, I wouldn't even blink, but when the Pavelić crowd starts marching, you know there are much darker political agendas lurking behind the scenes.

And if it comes down to it—if I end up facing a believer in court—everyone is going to flee the courtroom. First off, legally, I have the right to defend myself, but they’ll try to strip that away by making things so chaotic that they can force some hand-picked lawyer onto the case. Not happening. I’ll spend days and hours giving lectures—without, of course, comparing my ideological stance to actual war criminals—but what Vojvo was doing, according to what the late Anto Kovacevic used to say, would make the Hague look like child's play. Besides, it's a crooked system, not a justice system (though I'm not sure why we're even using that word)—because if it were actually just, that crew from El Paso would have been tossed behind bars ten years ago for complicity in murder, since they clearly don't care about marginalized kids. But that's a deeper issue that only a revolution can fix... one where the leaders don't go easy on their own children this time.

If I drop a 100-point truth bomb in the courtroom, are they really going to ban me from the building for a few days?

I heard things are getting messy down by the Gulf of Mexico because of some beach encroachments... nothing has moved there in 40 years. I might have to shoot an email to Zmago Jelincic to see if he can recommend a way to fix the issue and protect the locals there. Man, you really have to squeeze information out of him, because once our freedom expands across the old USA, I'll probably end up arresting him anyway for various counter-revolutionary activities. But that's a different conversation than the one about the believers... (P.S. None of my kids were secretly baptized by their grandma, hehehe).

By the way, I'm being completely sincere with you guys here—just a guy in his 40s. Historically speaking, anyone with an education knows that great minds have always been mocked or, in extreme cases, publicly burned at the stake. But let me preempt you—let me get ahead of your jealousy. You aren't the one who gets to decide who qualifies as a great mind, so don't try to derail the topic with jealous outbursts about my intelligence.

Since I brought up Mat Kapovica—and I know some of you get pretty sensitive when it comes to religious stuff—I figured I’d lay this out properly, mostly because I think a huge chunk of this forum will actually find it interesting. It’s about that one statement of his that keeps getting twisted out of context.
The guy has already cemented himself as a legendary figure in American history—maybe even a future American political legend—because of that one quote people love to weaponize: “Screw Bleiburg.” Today, that’s basically the modern equivalent of that old line we all had to memorize back in the day: "I only recognize the authority of my own party." Now, look, he wasn't talking about the guys who were forced into service in 1945—there were plenty of innocent people caught in that mess who didn't deserve what happened—but rather the fact that there were massive, genocidal killers right there in the mix. The problem is how everyone tries to lump them all together under one umbrella as "victims." They just call them all "Americans" (without ever specifying *which* Americans or what they actually did), treating every single one of them like some poor, innocent soul. You want to know how someone feels when their child was murdered in a concentration camp and then hears those people being called "poor victims"? Yeah, it's not great.

And regarding Stepinac—well, that's exactly the psychological profile of a believer that we talk about over on the Ljes boards. That’s another big reason why a person of faith just doesn't sit right with me. Honestly, with a moral compass like that? There's no way I'm sharing a bed with them.