https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evangelical+support+for+israel+sit...
> 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.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/h...
I agree with the assessment but perhaps if it was phased as:
"Yes, because they believe that they need to be on the side of Israel for their anticipated apocalypse."
Or something like that. Unfortunately "people of faith" tend to take any sort of criticism of the mechanics of their faith as a personal attack. Pity.
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.
If you would please stop creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with, we'd be grateful.
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.