As I posted eleswhere, note that American Christian Evangelicals support Israel's right-wing policies much more strongly than American Jews, who are mostly liberal and Democrats.
> Pew Research surveys find that similar shares of Christians (29%) and Jews (31%) say the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel. Among white evangelical Protestants, nearly half (46%) say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel.
Context matters, but often I like a search result over article. When someone knows vast majority of results go the stated direction vs here is an article that supports a view as often that is bias writing. A search result link to a degree shows greater neutrality vs particular press in the right context.
I'm confused why this post was described as "flamewar" as it's a single sentence of factually correct information.[1] The only part I'd take issue with is the use of the word "fable". Fables are succinct short stories which end in a moral lesson—and the apocalyptic Book of Revelation is neither short nor moral.
That's stretching way too far. "Apocalyptic fables" was obviously a religious putdown. People aren't allowed to smear each other's religions on HN because it leads to some of the nastiest, dumbest, and most repetitive internet threads. It should be obvious from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html why we don't want that.
I'd still assert that "fables" is merely inaccurate, but I will accept this can be a matter of opinion. However you just quoted "apocalyptic fables" as though describing it as apocalyptic were somehow relevant to the negative connotation. Book of Revelation isn't just any apocalyptic literature, it's prototypical of the genre.[1] Apocalypse is the literally a Greek-derived word for revelation.[2]
I know where the word apocalypse comes from. It doesn't change the point: "apocalyptic fables" was obviously a religious putdown, and those are not cool on HN.
> Unfortunately "people of faith" tend to take any sort of criticism of the mechanics of their faith as a personal attack.
An unavoidable consequence of any belief system which assigns significant personal reward upon faith, because criticism of faith places their personal reward into question. More unfortunate is how secular institutions are unintentionally rewarding people of faith for having a thin skin by so eagerly accepting it as a signal to quash criticism. I'd argue that nothing "tramples curiosity" quite so much as the systemic disappearance of criticism in the public square.
People use the word "censor" in many different ways that it's not always clear what they mean by it.
We don't moderate HN comments because of the views they express; we moderate for comment quality and adherence to the site guidelines. In the vast majority of cases where we moderate a comment, it's not because of the view it expresses, but because it expressed it in a way that's destructive of the culture we want here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). You can call that censorship if you like, but I don't think it's what the word classically means. In most cases there are other commenters expressing the same view thoughtfully and substantively, and those comments don't get moderated at all. I think we can say after 10+ years of working with this strategy that it definitely isn't "the shortest way to the bottom" - quite the opposite.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evangelical+support+for+israel+sit...