Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


President Obama: Nobel Peace Prize

posted by Scot McKnight

We pride ourselves on civility at this blog, but I had to remove a comment or two because they went over the top. Please treat the President and others with civility. Thanks. By the way, I weighed in in the comments on how I see this award.


LincObama.jpg

What are your thoughts?
Why?  The committee: “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” 

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said.

“His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population,” it said.




Advertisement
Comments read comments(65)
post a comment
Tim

posted October 9, 2009 at 8:55 am


I would have no issue whatsoever with this if he had done something of substance to deserve it. As it is right now, there is no peace within Congress, and even some factions within the Democratic party. But he did talk a good game leading up to the close of nominations (11 days after he took office).
I’m not a right-winger going off. Just an independent observer.



report abuse
 

Dr Mike

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:00 am


This really comes as no surprise.
While I do not wish to diminish (but only put in perspective) what is seen as a great honor by many, I think it is important to remember that this is essentially a European award and is given to people who exemplify and promote European values and philosophy. President Obama is basically European in his approach.
I sincerely am not disparaging Europeans; nevertheless, the American worldview is not (yet, at least, and hopefully will never be) the European worldview nor is either the Christian worldview. This is an award of the world given to those men and women that the board admires.
Let’s see if Obama wins the Templeton Award. If and when that happens, I’ll be surprised.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:05 am


There is no substance yet to justify such an award, and certainly not for the reasons given in the citation. And I say this as one who is mostly, but not uniformly, a supporter of the president.



report abuse
 

dopderbeck

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:08 am


I agree with RJS. Seems ridiculous to me (and I also admire Obama).



report abuse
 

Scott Eaton

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:22 am


The selection of President Obama to win the Nobel Prize has rendered this award irrelevant and meaningless. What has the President accomplished? This seems very premature.
By the way, did anyone see the Saturday Night Live skit with the “president”? Apparently they don’t think he’s accomplished anything either. I’m not sure what the Nobel people are thinking.



report abuse
 

Barb

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:23 am


I found the news very surprising and I also don’t know what it was based on. I too, am an Obama supporter. I fear that this “award” will work to his detriment here in the USA.



report abuse
 

stephen

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:27 am


I am a supporter of Obama (on most things), and I think his approach to international diplomacy may some day yield fruit that would be worthy of the Nobel Peace prize. I am encouraged by his reaching out to the Muslim world. I thought his speech in Cairo was great. The frosty relationship between the US and Russia seems to be thawing.
But this award is premature.
Kind of like awarding an Oscar to a movie that just started filming.
It gives him something to live up to, I guess.



report abuse
 

CTM

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:36 am


Far far too soon. The proof is in the pudding for such an honour — not in the intent.



report abuse
 

Joe James

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:37 am


I try not to react with certitudes so soon. But I do have some questions.
Does the Nobel Peace Prize require that people carry through their vision of peace in the world? Isn’t the award for those who have invested their life work to peace?
Does this cheapen the respect of the award? For example, Martin Luther King Jr. clearly deserved the award. Does this premature presentation to Obama cheapen that for Dr. King?



report abuse
 

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:53 am


At the risk of being the lone wolf on this one, I understand and (to a degree) affirm the reasoning of the committee in this award. While it is far too premature in respect to his actual political accomplishments, I think the committee is basing this off the inspirational factor of Obama’s budding leadership.
I have been amazed at how wide spread that inspiration has reached and how much actual change it is encouraging. Even here, in an inner city in Canada, young people have been actively inspired to change by his example, not the least of which the otherwise demoralized African immigrant community.
Is this enough to merit the award? Perhaps it is a stretch, but a quick glance at the history of this award shows that others have received it for the same level of impact (or less).
Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci



report abuse
 

Rog

posted October 9, 2009 at 9:57 am


Can President Obama (further) delay the decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan until after his Nobel acceptance speech?
Was any other Nobel ever awarded for giving hope rather than actual accomplishment (not that hope alone is not important)?
Has anyone ever refused a Nobel they felt they didn’t deserve?



report abuse
 

William Birch

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:01 am


This is typical of the Obama worship that has been gaining ever since he came into prominence. I wish him well, and I have prayed for him and his family. I’m just a little perplexed at all of the premature accolades. Let the man actually accomplish some things before exposing your worship of his worthiness.



report abuse
 

Kansas Bob

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:02 am


.
Great acknowledgment for our nation. Kudos to the prez.



report abuse
 

Vada

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:07 am


The only thing pathetic here is this christian site allowing these surveys. I come to this site for spiritual reading and daily up lift. These types of questions and survey were not posted when George Bush got the USA in the hole and mess we are in. Yet
we now have a President of color. Which the world respect as a human being who is a peace maker. It easy for people to sit on their hands and speak badly of others. You all seem to miss the point here. President Obama has JESUS on his side. No words, surveys or promoted distractions will destroy him. Because the lord JESUS has rise him to greatness. I say congrats President Obama on your a ward. May JESUS continue to lift you higher. The people that put you in office still believe in and love you. You are a child of GOD!



report abuse
 

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:14 am


I realized my last comment left my position a bit unclear. What I meant to say is that I don’t think it is surprising and the reasons are ones that I can affirm. HOWEVER, I was not suggesting that I thought those reasons were adequate, only that the reasons given have merit in and of themselves.
My reason for saying this is that, even if he does not deserve this, many of the response about I am hearing opposing it are equally unwarranted. In the end, the President may regret the award in the end. Whatever happens, this should not be an excuse people on either side of this issue exaggerate or deny reality in favour of their biases. That, sadly, has already started to happen.
Peace,
Jamie



report abuse
 

:mic

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:22 am


Did the Nobel committee also wish to respond to the SNL skit?
(Even though SNL was right . . .)



report abuse
 

Vaughn Treco

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:25 am


It seems peculiar to me that the Nobel committee would award it’s peace prize to a person who has neither actually been successful at securing peace in any single region of the world, nor taken the lead in the negotiations necessary for such peace. Effort, even extraordinary effort, seems an inadequate basis for awarding an international prize of such stature. President Obama has only taken his first steps in the arena of international diplomacy. Awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize is premature at best. I pray that President Obama’s actual future record with regard to “international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” will not become an embarrassment to the Nobel committee.



report abuse
 

Clay Knick

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:26 am


This cheapens the meaning of the award. It is way, way too soon.



report abuse
 

Jon

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:30 am


I second Jamie’s suggestion to look at past recipients. To award Obama now does seem premature at least, but (in my mind at least) the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t have nearly the weight or luster it used to. The now disgraced Kofi Annan won in 2001. And Al Gore won in 2007 for climate change work, which is tangentially related to world peace at best.
No offense to Obama, and I certainly hope he accomplishes much for world peace, but to me the real story is how much of a non-story this award is now.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted October 9, 2009 at 10:43 am


I posted this just before Kris and I left the home for a few errands, but I want to weigh in myself a bit:
America has much to learn from this decision. The response that this is premature, while clearly true at some levels, misses the point I believe. What I see in this response is a European thumbs up to a change of direction in American international and global relations. The premature point comes in here: Obama has merely pointed in the direction he wants to go, and he has been around the world a bit to indicate his direction, but he has not yet achieved substantial changes.
But what I’d like to point out is that I have heard from so many European Christian friends that there is a relief with Obama’s election. Whatever many think of that relief, the fact is that global relations matter and if we burn our bridges we may not find a way back home when we need and want cooperation with Europeans.
Perhaps what Obama’s administration will do for the USA is give an opportunity to rethink our global relations. I think Europe would like to see the USA reconsider what it has been doing. This is how I see the Nobel Peace Prize decision.



report abuse
 

Kim

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:06 am


I don’t think Obama is deserving of winning such an award. While he has some “good ideas”, much has yet to be accomplished. I heard he was nominated two weeks into his Presidency…seriously??? IF that is true, I feel this was based more on his ideas and smoothly-delivered speeches. If it’s more on what Scot just stated, then I could see it, but I still think it should come AFTER good “stuff” has been done. I’m not an Obama supporter for some personal reasons but do respect him as our country’s leader; however, I don’t think any recent US President would be deserving of this prestigious award, including him.



report abuse
 

Gary Feister

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:19 am


To grant Obama the same award and status that was duly given to Mother Teresa is truly cheapening the award. Nothing against Obama, but he does not deserve this award. He hasn’t done anything worthy of it. Bill Clinton deserves this award before Obama. I didn’t vote for either of them, but Clinton’s Global Initiative shows him doing more for world peace and the betterment of the world than Obama.



report abuse
 

Mark Baker-Wright

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:29 am


Thanks, Scot, for your perspective. Now that I’ve gotten past the knee-jerk Obama-hate and have actually had a chance to read the news reports about this decision, I find myself agreeing mostly with Jamie Arpin-Ricci. I can understand what they’re trying to accomplish with this choice, and support that so far as it goes, even while scratching my head a bit. I can also agree with what a person on a totally different message board said (I’m paraphrasing): “Being the anti-Bush shouldn’t be enough.”
But based on my limited knowledge of previous Nobel Peace Prize winners (and I’d actually like to see a more thorough analysis of that list in light of this decision), I’d certainly not go so far as to say that this choice proves that the Prize has “lost” credibility. In fact, it doesn’t seem too far off from other awards in the past. Perhaps people think the Prize means something other than what the Nobel committee itself does?



report abuse
 

Bob Smallman

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:32 am


Surely a premature award but heartening in the sense that the US is being seen as moving in the direction of peace.



report abuse
 

Bill Crawford

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:43 am


Although President Obama has the potential to live up to the award, I think granting it to him is very much a conscious yet unspoken repudiation of his predecessor.



report abuse
 

Andrew Arndt

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:45 am


Agreed w/ Gary. I think this cheapens the award and is clearly a political gesture designed to strengthen the President’s position around the world. What is truly stunning is that the committee is quite up front about the fact that this political. If they want to use the award that way, fine; but one feels as though actual accomplishments (and not just goodwill) should matter.
But in the end, perhaps we shouldn’t take too seriously a “peace” award that even Gandhi couldn’t win.



report abuse
 

Rakhi

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:45 am


I was certainly astounded, given the work of many other people which has actually led to the accomplishment of peace in areas of the world. Hope is a noble thing, but perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of an award for Peace. I am cautious in saying too much, because I also think it is quite easy to sit here and spew opinions on something that we really have no control over or intimate knowledge about. I do hope that his presidency does in fact bring peace to warring factions both within our nation and in the world, but agree with all others who have said this was premature.
To Vada…yes, this is a site for spiritual uplifting and discussion, and thus, I think this is the perfect place to introduce the idea that peace may mean different things to different people, and question whether the actions of the man warrant what has been seen as a prestigious award. The greater question for me, of course, is have his actions led to the furthering the peace of Christ. I would contend that they have not as of yet. I also think it is hardly our place, however, to decide that Jesus is “on Obama’s side” or anyone else’s – one’s criticism or skepticism of his actions does not imply that one is devaluing the man. He is a child of God, but we too, are our brother’s keeper…



report abuse
 

Rick

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:46 am


Scot-
“I think Europe would like to see the USA reconsider what it has been doing. This is how I see the Nobel Peace Prize decision.”
If attempting to drive future US foreign policy is the goal, then it does cheapen the award.



report abuse
 

dopderbeck

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:47 am


Scot (#20) — I hear you. Still, I know this is cynical, but I wonder about the extent to which this award wasn’t so much about Obama as it was about Europe flipping the bird to George Bush? I’m not trying to defend Bush II’s approach to foreign policy, but still, the Nobel Peace Prize just for being “not Bush?” A nice beefsteak dinner and a case of Bordeaux, maybe, but the Nobel Prize?



report abuse
 

H

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:49 am


Agree with Jamie Arpin-Ricci
I was awfully tired of being an American Bully in the International Playground. I’m ready for American to Play Well With Others and keep our mouths shut sometimes.



report abuse
 

Tyler

posted October 9, 2009 at 11:51 am


A friend of a friend’s comment on the news: “By way of comparison, MLK won [the Nobel Peace Prize] in 1964. At that point he had been crusading for nearly a decade, including the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Birmingham, Selma, and the March on DC. That’s an actual record of accomplishment. Being nominated 11 days after the inaugural seems to be rushing things a bit.”



report abuse
 

Jjoe

posted October 9, 2009 at 12:08 pm


I’m a supporter of Obama (or was; I’m growing more disillusioned every day), but what has he done to deserve this — besides getting elected?
It’s hard to see any upside for Obama at all from this and he needs to find a way to gracefully refuse it.



report abuse
 

Peter

posted October 9, 2009 at 12:21 pm


I must admit that I was very disappointed to learn of this obviously politically motivated granting of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, particularly when it was pointed out that the nomination was submitted 11 days after his inauguration. I see little that he has done as working toward world peace, the encouragement that people feel from his message of hope and change notwithstanding. There are dangerous people out there and his approach to dealing with them is not likely to make anyone anywhere actually safer (is it good to feel safer when you’re actually not? I wonder). Should we continue to inspire hope in people while we change our minds about protecting them (missile intercepts in Eastern Europe) or while tyrants (Iran) continue their efforts to build a nuclear arsenal? What has been done to make anyone in Israel feel safer while her enemies arm to the teeth? How does the Nobel Committee (or President Obama) respond to concerns that he has shown evidence of bigotry (Cambridge police officer; “typical white person”)? I did not support him as candidate for presidency and he’s done little that really surprises me.



report abuse
 

David

posted October 9, 2009 at 12:47 pm


Quite frankly, Obama’s receiving the Nobel cheapens the award, especially in view of all of the former recipients. It seems to have been awarded in hope of accomplishments rather than in real accomplishment. Hopefully he will come to deserve the award.



report abuse
 

Kate

posted October 9, 2009 at 12:57 pm


I was also surprised to see the prize being given for “promise” rather than achievement, but apparently this is not unprecedented in the history of this award (as Mark B-W suggests).
As a European I would say that Scot’s analysis is spot-on. As someone living in Africa/Middle East, I would inclue these too. The amount of hope inspired by Obama that he might bring America into the global community could in itself be seen as deserving of a prize. No, not that he’s just “Not Bush” (big sighs of relief around the world, it’s true)but because he actully seems to be offering a new way of relating to the rest of the world.
Well, congratulations to you all for your president’s honour, and I do indeed pray he goes on to achieve some of what he is promising!



report abuse
 

tscott

posted October 9, 2009 at 12:57 pm


I wasn’t going to post on this topic, because I have no interest other than the fact that Norman Borlaug was a past winner.
But while sitting at the desktop I turned to my wife and said “Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.” She responded with zero hesitation “For what?”.



report abuse
 

John H

posted October 9, 2009 at 1:14 pm


There is no way that President Obama deserved the prize, especially if you look at some of the other short list finalists.
However, for a Christian apologist, it does give me a worldly example when we talk about faith – confident expectation in an unseen future – and grace – unmerited favor.
We have seen both the Nobel Prize committees faith in President Obama’s unseen future; and their unmerited favor to him.



report abuse
 

rebeccat

posted October 9, 2009 at 1:17 pm


re Scot’s point about this being a gesture of Europe’s hope that America has turned a page: if this is the case, then perhaps it would have been better to offer the award to the American people at large rather than to the president. The message would have been clearer and less politically poisonous.
While I didn’t support Obama in the election, I honestly want to see him succeed. I think that our country would be greatly helped if the government could accomplish some of his goals like consumer reform in banking and reforming health insurance. I’ve also been pleased with the much lighter touch he’s used on the international stage. However, by giving this award to Obama before anything other than his election had been accomplished, I think the Nobel committee is making it less likely that Obama will be able to accomplish anything. It will only increase opposition to anything he wants to do and cause people who see America as a bulwark against European ideology to dig their heals in even further. I think it is a very unfortunate move all around. I’m not sure what the consequence would be in Europe, but I can’t help but wonder if it wouldn’t be better if Obama graciously thanked the committee for their vote of confidence and support, but turned the prize down at this time.



report abuse
 

kent

posted October 9, 2009 at 1:26 pm


If they are giving this because they have seen and are relieved at the change in our policies toward the world’s countries, that is one thing and frankly pre-mature since we are not sure what the long term established polices are going to be because they are still unfolding. But what of those who have served with long records and through difficult or horrendous circumstances? How can we look at this award as being anything other than reactionary and politically motivated? No one else was worthy? No one else has moved peace on this planet over time and at great sacrifice? Seriously.



report abuse
 

Rachel H. Evans

posted October 9, 2009 at 1:29 pm


I think the prize was the committee’s way of saying that the people of Europe are deeply encouraged by America’s choice in President Obama and that they appreciate the change in tone/ direction/ policy that he represents.
In fact, considering the timing of the nomination, I think headlines should read: “Congratulations, American voters! You won the Nobel Peace Prize!”
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., this is very bad for Obama politically. Not only does it raise the bar and increase the pressure for him to deliver, it provides ammunition for those who claim he suffers from a “Messiah complex.” You could tell from his speech that he is aware of this.
Poor guy. How much do you want to bet that, upon hearing the news, he whispered to Michelle, “Oh crap”?



report abuse
 

alaina

posted October 9, 2009 at 1:42 pm


the question is asked, “what has he accomplished?”
perhaps that is the wrong question. accomplish? can one accomplish peace?
even prior to his presidency, obama, lived his life in a peaceable way. he sought to and did in many ways transcend racial and socioeconomic barriers. he lives a life that inspires peace.
perhaps he isn’t the most deserving from some perspectives, but it doesn’t change the fact that he has created a climate of conversation in places impossible before. climate change is, after all, a slow process of unremarkable differences.



report abuse
 

Dec

posted October 9, 2009 at 1:46 pm


Was this a particularly bad year in terms of strong candidates for the prize? Perhaps it’s like the 2004 Academy Awards, when Crash was deemed to be the best of a mediocre lot. Given that people generally seem surprised by this decision, who SHOULD have won the prize?



report abuse
 

Mark Baker-Wright

posted October 9, 2009 at 1:54 pm


This bit was posted by a friend of mine, who claims it comes from the Nobel website (I confess I’ve not looked it up to verify):
“Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which recognize completed scientific or literary accomplishment, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace. As some such processes have failed to create lasting peace, some … Read MorePeace Prizes appear questionable in hindsight….”
She goes on to add “[A]pparently when Kissinger won two members (40% of the committee) resigned, but they were unanimous on Obama.”



report abuse
 

Mark Baker-Wright

posted October 9, 2009 at 1:56 pm


Apologies for the double-post, but a glitch got in the way of understanding that quote. Trying again.
This bit was posted by a friend of mine, who claims it comes from the Nobel website (I confess I’ve not looked it up to verify):
“Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which recognize completed scientific or literary accomplishment, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace. As some such processes have failed to create lasting peace, some Peace Prizes appear questionable in hindsight….”
She goes on to add “[A]pparently when Kissinger won two members (40% of the committee) resigned, but they were unanimous on Obama.”



report abuse
 

LooseGIADiamonds

posted October 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm


George W was such a great act to follow. I wonder if Obama would have gotten the peace prize had he come directly after Clinton? Well, he has cleaned up foreign relations and a $1.4 million prize is a very low price to pay for that. Actually, we aren’t even paying for it so it’s an even better deal!



report abuse
 

Tim Hallman

posted October 9, 2009 at 2:21 pm


When my wife announced the news, my first question was, “For what?” Apparently this scenario was repeated millions of times around the globe.
Having read several different accounts for “why”, I guess I have my answer.
I’m now forced to do some reconsideration for what our President represents to the world. Maybe the fact that he’s a black man elected in a predominantly white country reveals more about him and us than we realize. Maybe the world (aka Europe…) sees something in Obama’s efforts that we don’t.
It’d be interesting to find out what the other 200+ candidates had accomplished to merit their consideration for the vote.



report abuse
 

AHH

posted October 9, 2009 at 2:22 pm


I think Rachel #40 got it right; whether deserved or not this is endorsing a perceived change of tone and attitude.
I encounter many non-US scientists (mostly European) in my work. I think it is hard for many Americans to appreciate how horrified most Europeans were by the perceived international arrogance of the U.S. under GW Bush, and how relieved they are to see a more humble and collaborative (and less anti-intellectual) tone now.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted October 9, 2009 at 2:27 pm


Do you think Obama was awarded the Peace Prize now because of fears he will be assassinated? The award can’t be bestowed after someone dies, can it?



report abuse
 

Chaplain Mike

posted October 9, 2009 at 2:41 pm


It is premature for him to win such an award, but what is an award anyway? Perhaps we should use this occasion to pray that God will use him to make progress in bringing peace to our world, and thus truly earn the award.



report abuse
 

Scott Morizot

posted October 9, 2009 at 2:41 pm


I have to echo some of the voices above. With talk of “cheapening the prize” and such, the impression I get is that many simply may not understand the perspective of the Nobel Committee or the meaning they perceive in the award. And some of that may involve less of an understanding of a non-American perspective.
I’ve listened to the reactions of some of the still-living past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. I recommend doing that for some added perspective.



report abuse
 

Billy Usery

posted October 9, 2009 at 3:20 pm


I feel proud to be an American…especially a Chrisian American!



report abuse
 

Kate

posted October 9, 2009 at 3:24 pm


AHH (47)Yes, exactly



report abuse
 

TorreyS

posted October 9, 2009 at 3:52 pm


From my point of perspective, living in Norway, Scot McKnight’s comment below (see comment 20) is one of the most senseful and appropriate comment I have seen today on this decision by our Nobel prize committee. He has grasped the thought of many Europeans. Thanks.



report abuse
 

CTM

posted October 9, 2009 at 4:38 pm


Here is the President’s response. Sounds similar to Scot’s thoughts.



report abuse
 

Emily Wilkes

posted October 9, 2009 at 4:49 pm


While I feel that Barack Obama is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, I also think that Greg Mortenson deserves recognition. His work building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan helped to promote peace at a grass roots level. His story is inspirational and he will help educate hundreds of children by building schools.



report abuse
 

rebeccat

posted October 9, 2009 at 5:46 pm


Torrey (or any other European on the board),
Do you think there is there any concern or awareness by the Nobel committee or the rest of Europe about how damaging this could be to Obama here in the states? Obama is already facing enormous obstacles and opposition here and I really am concerned that this award has just gone a long way towards hampering his ability to get anything of substance done. It seems to me that the Nobel committee has made the same error that we Americans often made and failed to take the nationalism of those we wish to speak to or influence seriously. There is a good portion of America for whom a stamp of approval from Europeans on our choice for president will be like the proverbial red flag waved at a bull. If boosting Obama was the goal, I think that the Nobel committee has radically miscalculated.



report abuse
 

Travis Mamone

posted October 9, 2009 at 6:48 pm


While I applaud Obama’s efforts to end nuclear weapons and reach out to the Muslim world, I haven’t seen much fruition yet. Let’s face it: no one’s giving up their nukes yet, the Afghanistan war is going nowhere, and the last time I checked technically we’re still fighting in Iraq.
Now don’t think that I’m joining any Tea Party. I prefer to stay away from political parties and labels. [Instead of labels like "liberal," "conservative," or "libertarian," I prefer to call myself simply a "peacenik."] All I’m saying is don’t award the tree before it bears fruit. When Martin Luther King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his words had a tremendous affect on the Civil Rights movement. With Obama, right now it’s just words, just planting seeds. It’s too soon to tell whether or not those seeds will bear fruit.



report abuse
 

Dan H.

posted October 9, 2009 at 8:01 pm


Obama has, at least, offered Americans the chance to change the way that they interact with the rest of the world. I agree with the posters who suggested that the American people deserve the Peace prize because they voted for a candidate who expressed a desire to change the direction of the nation, but we shouldn’t forget that it was Obama who provided the American people with that opportunity. Even if Obama fails to accomplish many of his goals, I think he deserves some recognition for showing the rest of the world the American people are willing to embrace a presidential candidate who expressed a desire to work with the world in a more collaborative way.



report abuse
 

Jim Botts

posted October 9, 2009 at 8:11 pm


I guess the Nobel Prize will provide the lift that Obama has been desperate for ~ considering his sagging approval ratings, inability to deliver on promises of bipartisan accomplishments, and lack of effectiveness in building a core team that passes muster with everyday American values. All pomp, no circumstance!



report abuse
 

Brian Rice

posted October 9, 2009 at 8:11 pm


I am quite surprised. This is a very premature award. I am a partial supporter of Obama… I was a bigger supporter when I voted for him. But have been somewhat disappointed since then with a lot of charisma and rhetoric, but not a lot of substantial leadership.
Hmmm… he could only get about 16 votes for Chicago, but earned the prize as Primero Peace Maker?!?
What’s up with that?



report abuse
 

budcath

posted October 9, 2009 at 8:20 pm


I am on the Obama email list and got this today. How anyone can find fault with Obama is beyond me. It wasn’t his decision and this is a wonderful response.
This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I’d been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I’ve said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won’t all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it’s recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award — and the call to action that comes with it — does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we’ve begun together. I’m grateful that you’ve stood with me thus far, and I’m honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 9, 2009 at 8:27 pm


Interesting, the first post I read this morning on Jesus Creed is about the power of words. The second post seems to be questioning the Nobel commt. recognizing one of the world’s most gifted people with words. Words are important. Words carry meaning and they can make a huge impact. Perhaps Obama’s words about race, his words about responsibility, his words of respect and peace in Cairo . . . maybe they had an impact on the commt.
If every peacemaker was only recognized when there were results, then not many of us would ever win a prize.



report abuse
 

William Powell

posted October 11, 2009 at 7:16 am


“The Nobel Peace Prize” I just wonder if most people even know how this “prize” originated? Alfred Nobel, the inventor of nitroglycerin & dynamite! Hardly a peacefull substance. Im confused!



report abuse
 

pam w

posted October 11, 2009 at 1:50 pm


I have to say it is very sad to me that this will hurt him in the US because
we apparently have to be in opposition to Europe? Seriously???
I agree with many commenting from outside the US. My friends in the State Department
have described to me in amazing pictures the deterioration of our reputation internationally over the last few years.
We must own the power of our decisions domestcally to influence the rest of the world. The campaign
of Barack Hussein Obama, and his success at winning the Office is an amazing move towards peace to the rest of
the world. Americans chose the leadership of a black man with a Kenyan, Muslim father who was
proclaiming his intent to value conversation with the rest of the world. To those looking to the US for leadership in signifacant areas of Peace (and to me), what Obama acheived on Nov 4, was an amazing feat that will shift peoples mindsets towards interracting with ‘the other’. That is the first step towards peace in this Global village we inhabit.
Yes, there is a long way to go! I applaud the committee for recognizing the current trajectory. As some said, they have awarded this prize based on direction before and were disappointed. I pray the disappointment does not come in this case because of partisan politics that are working towards the failure of this President.



report abuse
 

Karl

posted October 12, 2009 at 9:51 am


I think Rachel H Evans and Scot and others are correct in their description of *why* Obama won the prize, capturing what the European sentiment is toward him and the hoped-for change that he represents in American foreign policy. I heard much the same from my sister-in-law, who was living in Amsterdam at the time of the elections.
But that descriptive correctness doesn’t change my mind at all regarding whether or not Obama has actually yet done anything deserving of an international award as prestigious as this. Do Europeans rightly feel encouraged and enthused by America’s election of Obama and Obama’s campaign and immediate post-election rhetoric? Yes. Does that in itself mean that he should receive the Nobel Prize for Peace before actually accomplishing anything substantive on the international stage beyond raising the hope that *maybe he will* accomplish something and even if he doesn’t, he’ll talk nicer and be easier to like than GWB? Um, no. I’d rather see some other recognition of their enthusiasm for Obama and what he stands for, and let the Nobel Prize remain a prestigious award recognizing actual accomplishment and/or lengthy devoted service to a cause.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.