www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

A do nothing prize for a done nothing president, in a way it seems a fitting pair.

Kissinger got one too... the prize has been a joke for a long time.

"What has Obama done to deserve this prize? The jury put store on his hope for a nuclear arms-free world, forgetting his role in perpetuating his battalions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his decision to install new military bases in Colombia," Chavez wrote in a column.

"For the first time, we are witnessing an award with the nominee having done nothing to deserve it: rewarding someone for a wish that is very far from becoming reality."

I have to admit that the Soviet/ Russian national anthem, as music, is probably my favorite national anthem in the world. Granted, the US anthem is pretty great, but it just doesn't have the same sweeping, majestic, goose-stepping grandeur.

As for Glenn Beck... well, I've said it before- the people who compared Bush to various fascist dictators look pretty dumb now.The people who compare Obama to Stalin/Mao/Hitler are going to look similar when he's out of office.

As one priest has written on his blog: "A friend of mine and I had lunch the other day. He told me that Obama had to go. I said it didn't matter. He said that the country was descending into a Nanny State, and that we were being turned into a socialistic society. I said he should have noticed this a long time ago, when the last twenty Administrations were in power."

http://janotec.typepad.com/terrace/2009/09/yet.html

Im sure the Prophets when they denounced the rulers of Israel were being "uncharitable".
Stephanos I
I would rather think of them as people who were willing to expose the truth!

It is very difficult to avoid certain conclusions that are "uncharitable" to those who disagree without filling in false hopes and false dreams as premises. The fallaciousness of the promised "hope" is obvious with a study of economic and political history.

Most of the words that comes out of President Obama's mouth lack meaning and are but a clanging cymbal.

Mr. Obama's naivety was on full display two weeks ago in Copenhagen. He spent more energy pitching Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics than he spent talking with McChrystal. He spent more time with frivolities than with serious matters then. It is naive of Obama to project an image that he neglects our national security. That discourages our troops and encourages our enemies--who (like the Taliban) will be convinced that we lack the spirit to crush them.

This nomination will only serve to encourage Obama's naivety. It makes me sick.

Terry

Father, I'm pretty sure that last Prophet to walk this earth not uncharitable. In fact I'm pretty sure that we consider him to be the source "from whom all good things come." (Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayer III)

You miss the importance of the quotes, they signify that the prophets were accused of being uncharitable. Jesus Christ would not have been persecuted if He were "charitable" in that nobody left in disagreement. He had a way of piercing to the heart of the matter, which was not charitable to the Pharisees and Sadducees who would rather have disillusioned themselves in pride and arrogance than see the light of Truth that Jesus illuminated.

St. John the Baptist lost his head for being "uncharitable", and so have many saints.

We're not prophets though.

How would you suggest disagreement be handled, if not through argument?

Argument/debate/discussion is one thing, uncharitable comments and labeling is something completely different. I am ok with disagreement and the discussion that flows from, I cannot accept the labels, slander and the like. We can disagree without becoming personal or malicious.

This thread has now run into 5 pages, and I still haven't figured out what evokes such an extreme reaction against Obama.

Alexandr (Slavipodvizhnik) has at least presented some explanations, for which I am grateful; although neither he, nor anyone else, has dealt with certain significant points head on (for example, the constant refrain that socialism equals Marxism - which it doesn't).

There may be any number of things about Obama that conservatives don't like, but really... suggesting that he needs to be 'exposed' by 'prophets' when surely it is just a matter of coming from a different political perspective, seems extreme. Most Western democracies have centre-right and centre-left representation in their assemblies. But what I hear in this conversation is complete derision for the centre-left in terms that go beyond the normal, rational position of the centre-right.

Obama is a politician. Politicians come and go. One may hope he goes quickly, or one may hope he goes only after he has accomplished some of what he wants to accomplish, but to suggest that Obama is a scourge on America and all that it stands for sounds way over the top. As I said before, not because I am a Bush-hater, but because I have profound philosophical problems with neo-conservatism, I might just as easily have said that the last regime was a scourge on America and the rest of the world. Which presumably shouldn't fit with the fact that I would declare myself unabashedly to be an orthodox, Catholic Christian with an inherently traditional worldview.

At least I always thought I was something of a traditionalist. Until now. I have even risked more than words on the internet to defend what I'm sure most of us on here hold dear (not that I assume others haven't!).

But I have to say according to the view of some on here, it really does seem that, unless a person is willing to call one, single politician's - that is, Obama's - attempt at bringing about social change in favour of what looks like pretty standard centre-left fare a Marxist betrayal of the Western (and particularly American) way, then he or she must be not only anathema, but a possible Marxist subversive.

Well, I had never thought of myself that way, but I certainly can't identify with the kind of suspicion and even vitriol for Obama that I am hearing. So perhaps I am.

I note with some sadness a polarizing trend in U.S. politics which leads to bouts of hysterical extremism on both sides of the aisle. To some Democrats, Mr. Bush was/is the devil incarnate. Now, in revenge, some Republicans denounce Mr. Obama as the antichrist. I had always thought of Americans as being rather down-to-earth, practical, sensible people. Perhaps I was wrong.

Shlomo Slavophile,

The reason that I am upset with this selection is that he really has not done anything yet. To me this seems to be a patonizing actions by Europeans.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

You're right, Yuhannon, I agree the award is ridiculous, and it must be rather embarrassing to the President.

I think the award is typical of Thorbjørn Jagland [en.wikipedia.org], who in Norway has long been considered an amiable, but somewhat ridiculous figure. After all, how do you think you get to be chair of the Norwegian Nobel committee? It's a job reserved for failed politicians and/or opinionated academics. Mr. Jagland belongs to the first category (he only completed a one-year university course in economics).

Wikipedia sums up his premiership rather succinctly: