[happytoexplain]

Why do you think they are discriminating against Christians and not musicians? Giving the benefit of the doubt, it looks like the parent is just trying to make a point about the individual's lack of relevancy by specifically describing their best known properties. That the parent also does not like the person is a second statement.

[keepamovin]

What do you see about my statement that is questionable?

It should be obvious that they are discriminating: they are advocating that the article not be present because the author is someone who has a name and he’s a Christian, and the only reason that his article could be here are “awful”. Further, what do you see about that that is defensible?

[csydas]

I cannot see how you reach the conclusion of discrimination; the question is simply "why is this article from a person with no relation to the tech sphere on front page of HN?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Even for the broadest understanding of "interesting", nothing on the article or site really inspires curiosity or meets the intended standard.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781013

Since we know the algorithm for how something gets to front page, I just have a very hard time believing that so many people felt strongly about a completely contentless article that doesn't inspire genuine curiosity in the article's subject matter (it completely lacks citations, so I guess it's curiosity just to see if the article is BSing us or not...), is definitely off-topic, so I really question how this got to the front page for any amount of reasonable time. Especially since the article is from 2015...and a July 4th poem apparently now that I re-read it.

So again, maybe the context is more clear, but why is it on HN? How did it ever get to front page if it's very much so off-topic and just a love letter written, and not a very good one.

I will be honest, just like I was suspicious of the article, I'm suspicious on your insistence that it's discrimination; just reading the article, I had no idea the author was christian; knowing that now, the article makes a bit more sense, as based on my experience growing up christian, the focus on the suffering and how it's actually beautiful in a way is very much so in line with many sects of Christianity; someone must suffer for our freedom from sin is inherent to Christianity, and even as a kid, everything was oriented in how much you struggled to do something. I wouldn't tell any Christian they're wrong for their belief but having done that and tried other options, I think I could convince you the other options are pretty good, and even christian compliant depending on your reaching of the Bible RFC known as New Testament. Edit: forgot a section below:

But there is nothing in the article that indicates anything about the author or the purpose really of the article; to find that it's not even like a tech person or a philosopher or someone who does have something interesting to discuss as per HN rules is very confusing. The Christian musician part is confusing not because they are christian, but more to the fact "knowing that the person is not really of interest to on-topic items, why is this article here?"

The article was just really random, it's quite surprising to me and I'm presuming the parent at least that it made the front page, the focus on the article is a bit strange for me, there is no content that is interesting or curious. If it was a breakdown of how some of the early US government members handled their religious beliefs with their understanding of freedom with some discourse examples, would have loved to read this! It would be interesting, could test their logics and discourse myself and see if I find fault with the logic or conclusions, would be great to see which philosophies or areas of the Bible guided their philosophical design, etc.

But an old 4th of July love letter? Doesn't matter who wrote it, not interesting, just a repeat of what I already learned was non-sense long ago.

[keepamovin]

If you cannot see how I reach the conclusion, then you’re not equipped to reply to it —doesn’t that follow?

What you’re saying is just ideology, you don’t have any facts or sources to back it up. I get that you don’t like article, but that’s insufficient to make it untrue.

[csydas]

i mean you can explain)) i explained why i cannot reach that and my points are there)) so please explain

[keepamovin]

> i mean you can explain)) i explained why i cannot reach that and my points are there)) so please explain

Sure, I get it can be confusing from your point of view. But what you are saying is ideological and your reactions. You are not countering any point in article with facts or sources. That's it. Does that make sense to you?