Hacker News Reader

Comment by quattrofan | Hacker News Reader

Great article and well written, the thing that struck me the most was the references to god, he was killed for "god and country", well Osama thought he was doing his gods work, whose god is right?

Religion is such a giant fail.

View on HN

From my knowledge of history, the winners god's is always right, just as history is written by the victor. That latter part includes the former, and goes far beyond what we usually acknowledge. It's not only that the victor's reasons for a war are considered just over the loser's. The values of the victor, his cultural framework, are used to judge the loser's and the rest of the world's. And history is written from his viewpoint. It's a meta victory.

That's an overgeneralization. The Old Testament is littered with examples of the Israelites failing in battle because God was not with them at that particular time. But He was still their Jehovah.

Beowulf was defeated by the dragon, but that doesn't mean that actually ever happened...

Anyway, Judaism still strongly exists today, despite any hiccups it had, as opposed to other things like Baalism or whatever. They are therefore the "victor".

Maybe some people falsely believe they are doing God's work when, in fact, they aren't.

"Some"?

All is a kind of some.

You should clarify this. It might sound like you are saying that "some of the people who say they do Gods work are not", instead of the correct "some people believe they are doing god's work. they are not."

Only some people in this world think they are doing that, but they are of course all incorrect.

Edit: ?

That has always sounded to me like a simple ritualistic/habitual intonation, rather than an honest appeal to the Lord in Heaven.

I could be wrong.

Sun is called Sol in Spanish, do you think there are two suns?

well, both sides claim to protect their own land and people from invasive other. I don't think there is any religion/ideology that discourage things like "defending property and people".

There is a strain of Christianity called Anabaptist that are pacifist, and do not believe in using violence or coersion.

And Quakers, as well as some historical sect that no longer exist, as well as a number of non-christian eastern religions. But I think that the grandparent's point is fair: most religious and non-religious worldviews allow at least for violence in self and national defense.

... And have the freedom to practice their religion because there are people willing to defend their right to do so, on their behalf.

Not true. They practiced it when they were being slaughtered, too.

"I don't think there is any religion/ideology that discourage things like "defending property and people".

Pacifism?

Thanks. Though I need to look it up whether it really teaches to not defend one's right and how it works in reality.

What about "turn the other cheek", "love your enemy" and stuff like that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com