View Full Version : President O'Bama Nobel Laureate...
InsaneApache
10-09-2009, 11:25
....pour quoi?
Rhyfelwyr
10-09-2009, 11:32
Not everyone is as refined in foreign languages as yourself. :stare:
CountArach
10-09-2009, 11:33
Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6280293/Analysis-Barack-Obama-wins-2009-Nobel-peace-prize.html)
Not really sure why to be honest...
Hasn't achieved anything conrete on Palestine-Israel, whilst not condemning Israel strongly for their invasion.
Pursuiing nuclear disarmament without... you know... disarming himself...
Continuing and perhaps escalating Afghanistan
Withdrawing from Iraq, but not totally
Surely there are far better people than this?
Oh and I realise that I am going to be agreeing with Conservatives on this one... yes I am confused too.
Furunculus
10-09-2009, 11:35
"for what reason?"
jolly good question.
obama hasn't done anything yet, so this only devalues the Peace Prize further, and gives Obama's critics a comedy stick to beat him with.
Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6280293/Analysis-Barack-Obama-wins-2009-Nobel-peace-prize.html)
Not really sure why to be honest...
Hasn't achieved anything conrete on Palestine-Israel, whilst not condemning Israel strongly for their invasion.
Pursuiing nuclear disarmament without... you know... disarming himself...
Continuing and perhaps escalating Afghanistan
Withdrawing from Iraq, but not totally
Surely there are far better people than this?
Oh and I realise that I am going to be agreeing with Conservatives on this one... yes I am confused too.
Obama has improved the diplomatic relationship with
Russia
The muslim world
Europe
Iran
He got the nobel prize for those achievments. This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace. Something the former administration did not realize.
He did not start the two wars that you are talking about. Starting wars is easy y'know.
Nuclear disarmament is a long process. You can't think that the 3 weeks since the UN meeting is enough time y'know.
CountArach
10-09-2009, 11:40
Obama has improved the diplomatic relationship with
Russia
The muslim world
Europe
Iran
He got the nobel prize for those achievments. This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace. Something the former administration did not realize.
He did not start the two wars that you are talking about. Starting wars is easy y'know.
Nuclear disarmament is a long process. You can't think that the 3 weeks since the UN meeting is enough time y'know.
If he achieves... hell... even two of the things on the list I posted then I would support him getting it. He hasn't, so he doesn't deserve it - at this time.
The Stranger
10-09-2009, 11:49
Obama has improved the diplomatic relationship with
Russia
The muslim world
Europe
Iran
He got the nobel prize for those achievments. This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace. Something the former administration did not realize.
He did not start the two wars that you are talking about. Starting wars is easy y'know.
Nuclear disarmament is a long process. You can't think that the 3 weeks since the UN meeting is enough time y'know.
he didnt get it yet right? hes just nominated, if im correct. it would be weird if he would win...
InsaneApache
10-09-2009, 11:52
he didnt get it yet right? hes just nominated, if im correct. it would be weird if he would win...
US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm
:book:
he didnt get it yet right? hes just nominated, if im correct. it would be weird if he would win...
No he won.
@Count. Have you listend to the speech in Cairo and are you aware on the efect it had on the relationship between the muslim world and the USA?
edit: As far as I know, the peace nobel prize is awared for the endavor, not the results. And you can't argue that Obama is not trying to improve the worlds situation.
Banquo's Ghost
10-09-2009, 12:04
Quite extraordinary. :no:
The Nobel Peace committee has long bounced between respectability and sheer political fawning (with occasional visits to La-la Land) but this is weird even by their standards.
Good intentions are the road to Hell, not to a Peace prize. If President Obama wants to show class and his commitment to change, he'll refuse the award. In his shoes, I'd be too embarrassed to show up.
Furunculus
10-09-2009, 12:06
This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace.
never have i seen a more glorious example of hubris.
tho as yet i am not sure whether it belongs to a bunch to scandinavains for thinking they know best on matters of world governance, or to you for ascribing such divine judgement to those same scandinavians.
It still seems weird even to me, if it's just about effort you could just as well give it to me, I'm really thinking about world peace often and haven't hurt any muslims.
And what Banquo just said.
Furunculus
10-09-2009, 12:08
i have "yes we can" tatooed on my manly parts, and i bought a dish-dash when i was last on holiday in foreign parts, can i have one too?
InsaneApache
10-09-2009, 12:11
No you can't. :laugh4:
My initial thought is that this is ridiculous. At a later time, maybe..
never have i seen a more glorious example of hubris.
tho as yet i am not sure whether it belongs to a bunch to scandinavains for thinking they know best on matters of world governance, or to you for ascribing such divine judgement to those same scandinavians.
(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding
Anyway. It's quite funny that you use words like hubris concerning my post, yet also remarking sarcasm like "divine judgement". If I am presumptuous, then so are you.
Tellos Athenaios
10-09-2009, 12:13
Russia
The muslim world
Europe
Iran
He got the nobel prize for those achievments. This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace. Something the former administration did not realize.
So essentially he gets a Nobel Prize for doing his job and he has not actually achieved too much of that. I really do think that while it is admirable work he's done and all; it is not really Nobel Prize material: not yet. Nobel Prizes should go to continuous & sustained efforts, for perseverance in the face of difficulty and to exceptional breakthroughs in the field of endeavour. So far Obama has done a lot but it is mostly symbolic and certainly not a continuous & sustained effort (he's been in office for less than a year); though it is certainly better than the rile-up-the-rest-of-the-world-and-do-not-care attitude that the previous administration was so successful at.
So essentially he gets a Nobel Prize for doing his job and he has not actually achieved too much of that.
In a nutshell: He does his work a lot better then his predecessor
I really do think that while it is admirable work he's done and all; it is not really Nobel Prize material: not yet. Nobel Prizes should go to continuous & sustained efforts, for perseverance in the face of difficulty and to exceptional breakthroughs in the field of endeavour.
From the NY times:
As to whether the prize was given too early in Mr. Obama’s presidency, he said: “We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.”
The prize committee said it wanted to enhance Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts so far rather than anticipate events in the future.
So far Obama has done a lot but it is mostly symbolic and certainly not a continuous & sustained effort (he's been in office for less than a year);
Sometimes a symbol is all it takes. Thes speech of Cairo cannot be downplayed.
though it is certainly better than the rile-up-the-rest-of-the-world-and-do-not-care attitude that the previous administration was so successful at.
So?
CountArach
10-09-2009, 12:22
@Count. Have you listend to the speech in Cairo and are you aware on the efect it had on the relationship between the muslim world and the USA?
Yes... so what? He still perpetuates the status quo on the Israel-Palestine situation.
edit: As far as I know, the peace nobel prize is awared for the endavor, not the results. And you can't argue that Obama is not trying to improve the worlds situation.
I'm not arguing that he isn't trying, but thousands of other people are working towards it as well. He is simply in a high-profile position and has a penchant for oratory.
Fixiwee - would you say that ramping up activity in Afghanistan, thus conducting an action that will harm relations with the Muslim world, is a move that is becoming of a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?
Ser Clegane
10-09-2009, 12:28
If President Obama wants to show class and his commitment to change, he'll refuse the award. In his shoes, I'd be too embarrassed to show up.
It would probably have been a good idea to already decline when the nomination became public, this would have helped to avoid this odd situation.
At the risk of being repetitive - this is indeed a very odd decision.
It actually even robs Obama of the chance to receive this honor for potential tangible achievements a couple of years down the road which would be much more satisfying.
A gesture to show that he is on the right track? Nice - but a complete waste IMHO. He receives enough praise already - and no matter whether this praise is justified or not, at this point it seems completely unnecessary to throw in a Nobel prize to hammer the point home.
I am rather disappointed...
silly to say the least but stranger things have happened
Tellos Athenaios
10-09-2009, 12:45
Sometimes a symbol is all it takes. Thes speech of Cairo cannot be downplayed.
Yes but my point is that is a symbol from a man who's been in an office from which we expect symbols like that on a regular basis; also a man who's promised lots of stuff but so far has yet to deliver much of that too -- when there are so many other and at the moment certainly more deserving candidates with a much more inspiring track record?
As it stands it's a bit of a waste of a Nobel Prize moment, really.
CountArach summed it up nicely:
I'm not arguing that he isn't trying, but thousands of other people are working towards it as well. He is simply in a high-profile position and has a penchant for oratory.
Furunculus
10-09-2009, 13:09
This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace.never have i seen a more glorious example of hubris.
tho as yet i am not sure whether it belongs to a bunch to scandinavains for thinking they know best on matters of world governance, or to you for ascribing such divine judgement to those same scandinavians.(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding
Anyway. It's quite funny that you use words like hubris concerning my post, yet also remarking sarcasm like "divine judgement". If I am presumptuous, then so are you.
nothing merely your assumption that some random scandinavians are qualified to sit in judgement on success not yet gained.
again, it is not i that ascribes such wonderful foresight to the nobel muppets, but you.
They should create a new Nobel Prize category: "For Being Barack Obama." Then they can subsequently award it to him every year for the rest of his life.
nothing merely your assumption that some random scandinavians are qualified to sit in judgement on success not yet gained.
again, it is not i that ascribes such wonderful foresight to the nobel muppets, but you.
You have only made a joke out of my statement yet. Please tell me what is wrong about diplomacy, the will to talk to each other and rewarding a man for the intentions? If you are trying to derail my statement ad absurdum I fail to understand the reason behind it.
Leave it to the Norwegians (http://www.little-gamers.com/2009/10/09/leave-it-to-the-norweigans/)
:dizzy2:
I was convinced this was another Onion article, until I clicked the link. I realize they've given the NPP to some offbeat characters such as Yasser Arfafat and Henry Kissinger, but this one really takes the odd cake.
KukriKhan
10-09-2009, 14:36
One more tick-mark on the "To-Do" list of Things to Accomplish Before being Selected Simultaneous Secretary General of The United Nations and NATO, after this part-time gig as POTUS.
Don Corleone
10-09-2009, 14:37
I think it was rather shrewd by the Nobel committee. Jump on Obama's recent acquiesences to Russia (blocking deployment of the missile shield) and Iran (will not prevent them from developing nuclear weaponry) and reward these in such a high profile, verifiable manner as to prevent the President from ever acting out of accord with their wishes in the future when he becomes more mature in his term (and when presidents stop playing world diplomat and start playing to the home crowd again to get reelected).
What's that? You want to prevent Venezuela from invading Costa Rica? But we gave you the Peace Prize.... you have to just verbally condemn it, you can't actually DO anything about it....
Vladimir
10-09-2009, 14:49
Handicapped by success then?
Aemilius Paulus
10-09-2009, 14:55
Heh, I am so relieved to see Backroomers take such a thoughtful stance... Most other people I spoke to are indignant and hostile to my attempts to explain how Obama does not, or does not yet deserve the prize... So I gave up...
My only questioni s, why is it that the news seemed so relatively quiet about it? Most people I spoke were nto even aware of Obama's trophy.
Maybe it would be better seen as an encouragement, rather than a reward. He now has to justify being awarded it.
In related news, check out Neo-Con websites for some seriously funny :daisy:.
E.g.http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_news:ecd7de44dd7cd89b4a0859bbce0c1615/In-a-surprise-Obama-wins-Nobel-Peace-Prize-AP;_ylt=AlSAhfCJ7S45y29jCn18fv5zfNdF
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Strike For The South
10-09-2009, 15:12
Guys he derseves cause hes black! He's the desdcent of sharecroppers! His family wallowed under opression in the Jim Crow south!
Sasaki Kojiro
10-09-2009, 15:15
:laugh4:
Aemilius Paulus
10-09-2009, 15:16
Guys he derseves cause hes black! He's the desdcent of sharecroppers! His family wallowed under opression in the Jim Crow south!
How true, most of his appeal rest on the colour of his skin... Would Obama be chosen as a candidate if not because of his colour? Heck no. He would not have rose so high in the first place, before he got nominated either, if he was white. But that is politics - so nothing to grumble about here. It is not as if the business of politics even pretends to be fair and balanced (God, how FOX butchered that slogan... just like "maverick" and Sarah Palin)
Guys he derseves cause hes black! He's the desdcent of sharecroppers! His family wallowed under opression in the Jim Crow south!
Actually, his family didn't, since his father was Kenyan, and his mother was white.
KukriKhan
10-09-2009, 15:31
Actually, his family didn't, since his father was Kenyan, and his mother was white.
Actually... umm - we know.
I wonder who the other 204 nominees were.
Strike For The South
10-09-2009, 15:32
Actually, his family didn't, since his father was Kenyan, and his mother was white.
Pfft. He looks black therefore he is black. You crackers don't understand what he's been through.
Banquo's Ghost
10-09-2009, 15:54
How true, most of his appeal rest on the colour of his skin... Would Obama be chosen as a candidate if not because of his colour? Heck no. He would not have rose so high in the first place, before he got nominated either, if he was white. But that is politics - so nothing to grumble about here. It is not as if the business of politics even pretends to be fair and balanced (God, how FOX butchered that slogan... just like "maverick" and Sarah Palin)
Yes, I think he would have been chosen, regardless. He is very bright, a fine orator and spoke movingly to the spirit of the times. The great compliment to the American electorate from his election was that race didn't play too much a part in it, either positive or negative.
Not to mention that the Clinton campaign bungled quite a lot out of sheer arrogance - as did McCain.
He was an inspirational candidate for an electorate that wanted to hear some good things about their future. Now he's a president that needs to deliver. This is the same for anyone - aspiration is always more fun than practice.
Now, I might not disagree if you argued that he got the Peace prize because of his colour. That is the kind of empty-handed, paternalistic gesture at which we Europeans are terrifically good.
Aemilius Paulus
10-09-2009, 16:03
Yes, I think he would have been chosen, regardless. He is very bright, a fine orator and spoke movingly to the spirit of the times. The great compliment to the American electorate from his election was that race didn't play too much a part in it, either positive or negative.
That is true, but notice I said that it was unlikely he would ahve risen to Senatorship in the first place, without his colour. What do you think? Being black in Chicago matters.
They should create a new Nobel Prize category: "For Being Barack Obama." Then they can subsequently award it to him every year for the rest of his life.
sums it up, people should stop doing this his job is hard enough without such pressure. Might even hurt their cause elevating him to high, give the man some time.
Beats handing it to a terrorist, I guess, but wth? :inquisitive:
The deadline for nominations was Feb 1. So he was nominated on the strength of 11 days in office. And since then he has been all talk about hope and change, but has pretty much kept the course of the previous administration. What a joke the NPP has become. :no:
Ironside
10-09-2009, 16:26
Now, I might not disagree if you argued that he got the Peace prize because of his colour. That is the kind of empty-handed, paternalistic gesture at which we Europeans are terrifically good.
Only if they proclaimed it openly as reducing racial tensions. He's not the first black to get the price and the colour of the peace price wnners seems to have mattered little before.
I get the feeling that some of the choises (like this year) are only there to attract attention, maybe because that committee only gives out one of the prices. Compare with last year with a reasonable winner, how many remember him?
Aemilius Paulus
10-09-2009, 16:37
What a joke the NPP has become. :no:
Well, to be fair, it was always the weakest prize... Often times it was awarded to famous, but perhaps not as much deserving individuals.
Agent Miles
10-09-2009, 16:45
Reagan ended the Cold War without firing a shot and Obama gets the NPP for good intentions. Just another example of the "Audacity of Hype".
Aemilius Paulus
10-09-2009, 16:58
Reagan ended the Cold War without firing a shot and Obama gets the NPP for good intentions. Just another example of the "Audacity of Hype".
Yep. But you forgot Reagan was a Republican war-hawk who spent untold billions on weaponry. How could those commies in the Nobel Prize Committee select him? :laugh4::no:
Very sad, because indeed, it was he who gave the final kick that brought down USSR. The Brezhnev economic stagnation crippled out industrial capacity and when the new arms race began, USSR could not take it.
However, at the same time, if not for that imbecile, naive fool of Gorbachev, USSR would have largely remained. He should have went the Chinese way - retaining the totalitarian rule but with capitalism. But he wanted both capitalism and democracy...
Now that I think about it, I usually gave Regan more credit than he deserved (think of the fact that it was he who started the large US national debt), but definitely, the bloke deserved some sort of a prize for his efforts.
Reagan ended the Cold War without firing a shot and Obama gets the NPP for good intentions. Just another example of the "Audacity of Hype".
Well, in fairness the Soviets kinda did it to themselves. There's been a lot of documentation coming out lately ... I mean, Reagan was on the right side of history, but he did not personally dismantle the Soviet Union, or play the key role in its collapse. That would be Gorbachev.
Anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread. Honestly, I think this is a net loss for Obama. Much better to get this sort of thing after you've done something.
AP, a senator is a state-wide office, so being black would have harmed Obama as much in downstate as it helped in in Chi-town. Note that the current mayor-for-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Daley) is white. You could (and should) make the argument that Obama would never have become a state legislator if he hadn't been black. That's fair.
Louis VI the Fat
10-09-2009, 17:10
I would've given the prize to Bush for ending Saddam's tyrannical regime.
Am I serious? Well, surely more serious than the Nobel comittee. What a joke this.
Ah well. They have been known to give the Peace Prize to peculiar candidates. Like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat and mother Teresa.
KukriKhan
10-09-2009, 17:39
Do they (the NPP selection team) ever reveal who came in 2nd, or runner-up?
HoreTore
10-09-2009, 17:52
If he achieves... hell... even two of the things on the list I posted then I would support him getting it. He hasn't, so he doesn't deserve it - at this time.
A common misconception about the peace prize is that it's given based on what someone has already done; while in fact it's actually given just as much on the basis on what soeone might do in the future.
The peace prize is at its best when it works like a kick in the behind. It's not something you go into retirement with, it's a tool you're given to make your future work easier.
Do they (the NPP selection team) ever reveal who came in 2nd, or runner-up?
No.
Aemilius Paulus
10-09-2009, 17:55
I would rather have sources on that HoreTore... And not jsut from some random blogger...
InsaneApache
10-09-2009, 17:56
I heard that Pol Pot and Hitler were the runners up.
A common misconception about the peace prize is that it's given based on what someone has already done; while in fact it's actually given just as much on the basis on what soeone might do in the future.
Was just watching the news, they were showing what people from New York thought about it, asking questions from pedestrians and stuff. A guy said the exact same thing....the very same words nearly.
Well, if that is the case then I think they need to rethink when do they give away a Nobel prize....it's normally given when people actually do something....not for planning to do something.
On the other hand, if it's just for the Cario speech as everyone here is assuming.....then again....well....I don't know, compare it with when they gave the prize to the Lama or Mother Teresa, this seems kind of weak and pointless.
InsaneApache
10-09-2009, 18:02
Eureka! All is revealed....
Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm
:laugh4:
Fisherking
10-09-2009, 18:10
I think the Nobel Committee has been imbibing that great Norwegian invention, LSD.
Or was it just a choice between him and Rush Limbaugh?
Denmark is off the hook, something is rotten in Norway.
:clock:
HoreTore
10-09-2009, 18:10
I would rather have sources on that HoreTore... And not jsut from some random blogger...
Sources? Try Aftenposten, Dagbladet, VG, NRK and TV2 for the last....oh I don't know, 5 years or so?
Was just watching the news, they were showing what people from New York thought about it, asking questions from pedestrians and stuff. A guy said the exact same thing....the very same words nearly.
Well, if that is the case then I think they need to rethink when do they give away a Nobel prize....it's normally given when people actually do something....not for planning to do something.
On the other hand, if it's just for the Cario speech as everyone here is assuming.....then again....well....I don't know, compare it with when they gave the prize to the Lama or Mother Teresa, this seems kind of weak and pointless.
I don't agree.
The nobel prize would lose its points if its only given to those who have already done their job. The entire point of the peace prize is to get people to do something.
Oh, and Jagland said that Obama got the prize for "strengthening international diplomacy and human relations".
....And not so shockingly, Mrs. Siv Jensen is "shocked"...I think this is the 12903895438577493 time that woman is shocked....
EDIT: Jagland is interviewed on NRK right now. He just confirmed everything I've said :beam:
EDIT2: Jan Egeland, head of NUPI, also agrees....
Hooahguy
10-09-2009, 18:15
pity its not April fools.
he does not deserve that award. at least not yet.
The nobel prize would lose its points if its only given to those who have already done their job. The entire point of the peace prize is to get people to do something.
um, NO.
so by that reasoning we should give the prize to everyone, because then they would be inspired to do some good towards mankind.
what if some dumb words by him causes a war, or makes something go badly wrong. guess those folks over at the Nobel peace prize association would look pretty dumb.
but once again, you cant expect them to not bow at the alter to obama, right?
Aemilius Paulus
10-09-2009, 18:27
Sources? Try Aftenposten, Dagbladet, VG, NRK and TV2 for the last....oh I don't know, 5 years or so?
Alright, I agree then.
Crazed Rabbit
10-09-2009, 18:30
A common misconception about the peace prize is that it's given based on what someone has already done.
Why, because that's how Alfred Nobel wanted it to be done?
Giving it to someone because of what they might achieve is just plain stupid. Why not give me the award, or any other random person?
Awards are meant for people who have accomplished something. Giving them to people because of what they might do is meaningless.
CR
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2009, 18:55
Congratulations to President Obama. While fully 10% of all individual award winners have been citizens of the United States, making us a fairly common recipient country for this award, a seated President has only been given the award three times (Wilson as the key broker at Versailles in 1919 and Teddy Roosevelt for his work in concluding the Russo-Japanes war in 1904/05).
A list of winners (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/).
In large part, I agree with Don Corleone's analysis. As Horetore rightly notes, the award can be and has been awarded based on future expectations. The Nobel Committee undoubtedly views the Obama administration atttitude as being so fundamentally different from that of his immediate predecessor -- as evidenced by the Obama administration's draw-down in Iraq, shift away from missile defense in favor of easing tensions with the Russians, the gradual return of the "War on Terror" towards a "law enforcement" approach, his willingness to utilize the UN as a forum for peace efforts and the implication that unilateral action will be less likely, and the fact that he made no overtures/threats/hints that the US would use force in Honduras -- that they wish to reward and encourage such behavior.
Upcoming decisions facing the Obama administration include:
1. deciding whether to significantly ramp up troop involvement in Afghanistan or begin a drawn-down/withdrawal there as well (I deem it likely that most of the committee are of the view that Afghanistan will not stabilize and that the presence of NATO troops only begets a higher level of violence for no difference in end-result and that the presence of U.S. forces in Pakistan is engendering a civil war with the Pashtun opposing the current regime and the U.S., and that a withdrawal will allow Pakistan to return to normal, thus minimizing the chance of a nuclear exchange.)
2. deciding whether to increase pressure on the Conservative government in Israel to stop its constant resort to violence in coping with the Palestinians and other neighbors (I deem it likely that the committee views Israel's current efforts as too aggressive by half and that Israel's refusal to deal with Hamas on a political level is the biggest stumbling block preventing an agreement).
3. deciding what to do with the detainees at Guantanemo Bay and whether they should be released, put under the aegis of civilian rather than military justice, or placed in the U.S. Federal prison population [this is part of the shift in forcus away from "warring" against terrorism -- which is what the terrorists want for recruiting purposes -- toward "policing" the crimes that individual terrorists commit while strengthening passive barriers to terrorist success and working politically to minimize the causes of such extremism].
All three such decisions involve Obama facing significant domestic opposition should he choose the approach which I view is the preferred choice of those on the committee. In addition to rewarding Obama for what he has already done differently, the Prize also serves to reinforce and to provide evidence of political support for his continuing the efforts in this vein. Given the cachet of the Nobel Prize, it DOES exert some political influence and this is a fairly clear means of forwarding the coimmittee's preferred agenda.
In addition, Obama is very much not George W. Bush. Given the oft-expressed opinions most of Europe West of the Elbe held for "Dubya," that fact alone may have been enough to prompt the committee's actions.
HoreTore
10-09-2009, 18:59
Why, because that's how Alfred Nobel wanted it to be done?
Giving it to someone because of what they might achieve is just plain stupid. Why not give me the award, or any other random person?
Awards are meant for people who have accomplished something. Giving them to people because of what they might do is meaningless.
CR
No.
Reducing the peace prize to a mere award for some accomplishment is the exact opposite of what Alfred Nobel wanted it to be.
He wanted it to promote peace, not as a reward for achieving peace. The prize is leverage. Always has been, always will. Take the prizes given to Israel and Palestine after the Oslo deal, for example. It wasn't a reward for "achieving peace", it was a statement that read "good start, now stay focused and finish the job!"
Just like the prize to Obama is. He's started out well, and the nobel committee would love to see him finish the job. The peace prize is a reminder and an encouragement to that.
And that's exactly what Nobel wanted it to do.
I see National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODIzNzJmOGQ0NGI4OTNlZjliOGVjMGY1OTBmMjY0OTA=) is having its usual measured, thoughtful response:
The award is a symbolic statement of opposition to American exceptionalism, American might, American capitalism, American self-determinism, and American pursuit of America's interests in the world. That is why Obama could win it based on only ten days in office — merely by capturing the White House and the levers of power, he stands to do more for the Left's "knock America off its pedestal" program than any figure in history.
OMG it's the end of 'Merica!
The situation is weird enough without the usual suspects piling on in their predictable way.
Crazed Rabbit
10-09-2009, 19:02
A zing from the Taliban; (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm)
At the other end of the spectrum, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told the Reuters news agency the award was ridiculous.
"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he said.
CR
Fisherking
10-09-2009, 19:03
If what they did is basically elect him “Most Likely to Succeed” It will very likely have the reverse effect.
It only gives his enemies, foreign and domestic, something to harangue and rally around. There are many who will blame him for excepting an award without doing anything, rather than the shear stupidity of the committee for giving it to him.
I am sticking by my assertion that these jokers are on drugs...
HoreTore
10-09-2009, 19:08
This (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/) might be relevant to the discussion...
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
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. 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.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012
Good analysis on the matter, Seamus Fermanagh.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2009, 19:21
Good analysis on the matter, Seamus Fermanagh.
Thank you. I personally think the committee are a bunch of pacifist idealists who don't get it, but holding that opinion doesn't justify poor analysis.
Agent Miles
10-09-2009, 19:39
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/lundestad-review/index.html
When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses."
Obama was nominated for the NPP in Feruary, when about the most and best work he had "done" was dance with his wife at the post-inauguration parties. Most of the credit may go to the Cairo speech:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-speech-in-cairo-vid_n_211215.html
Which didn't even happen until June and has one whole paragragh about Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
That doesn't change much. Would he not have done things like for instance the cairo speech he wouldn't have got the prize. Let's not forget that he was only nominated among 200 others back in february.
Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012
By 2012 he will probably have to run as a Republican.
pity its not April fools.
he does not deserve that award. at least not yet.
um, NO.
so by that reasoning we should give the prize to everyone, because then they would be inspired to do some good towards mankind.
what if some dumb words by him causes a war, or makes something go badly wrong. guess those folks over at the Nobel peace prize association would look pretty dumb.
but once again, you cant expect them to not bow at the alter to obama, right?
*Sigh* :no:
Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012
YES :2thumbsup:
HoreTore
10-09-2009, 20:46
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/lundestad-review/index.html
When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses."
Obama was nominated for the NPP in Feruary, when about the most and best work he had "done" was dance with his wife at the post-inauguration parties. Most of the credit may go to the Cairo speech:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-speech-in-cairo-vid_n_211215.html
Which didn't even happen until June and has one whole paragragh about Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
He was nominated in february? What does that have to do with anything?
The decision wasn't made in february, nor was it made on accomplishments made within february. The final decision, IIRC, was made yesterday. And it was based on anything done up until yesterday.
EDIT: Anyway, the prize is decided by norwegian social democrats, with their norwegian social democratic agenda. That means you right-wingers will never get it :smash:
Congratulations to President Obama. While fully 10% of all individual award winners have been citizens of the United States, making us a fairly common recipient country for this award, a seated President has only been given the award three times (Wilson as the key broker at Versailles in 1919 and Teddy Roosevelt for his work in concluding the Russo-Japanes war in 1904/05).
A list of winners (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/).
In large part, I agree with Don Corleone's analysis. As Horetore rightly notes, the award can be and has been awarded based on future expectations. The Nobel Committee undoubtedly views the Obama administration atttitude as being so fundamentally different from that of his immediate predecessor -- as evidenced by the Obama administration's draw-down in Iraq, shift away from missile defense in favor of easing tensions with the Russians, the gradual return of the "War on Terror" towards a "law enforcement" approach, his willingness to utilize the UN as a forum for peace efforts and the implication that unilateral action will be less likely, and the fact that he made no overtures/threats/hints that the US would use force in Honduras -- that they wish to reward and encourage such behavior.
Upcoming decisions facing the Obama administration include:
1. deciding whether to significantly ramp up troop involvement in Afghanistan or begin a drawn-down/withdrawal there as well (I deem it likely that most of the committee are of the view that Afghanistan will not stabilize and that the presence of NATO troops only begets a higher level of violence for no difference in end-result and that the presence of U.S. forces in Pakistan is engendering a civil war with the Pashtun opposing the current regime and the U.S., and that a withdrawal will allow Pakistan to return to normal, thus minimizing the chance of a nuclear exchange.)
2. deciding whether to increase pressure on the Conservative government in Israel to stop its constant resort to violence in coping with the Palestinians and other neighbors (I deem it likely that the committee views Israel's current efforts as too aggressive by half and that Israel's refusal to deal with Hamas on a political level is the biggest stumbling block preventing an agreement).
3. deciding what to do with the detainees at Guantanemo Bay and whether they should be released, put under the aegis of civilian rather than military justice, or placed in the U.S. Federal prison population [this is part of the shift in forcus away from "warring" against terrorism -- which is what the terrorists want for recruiting purposes -- toward "policing" the crimes that individual terrorists commit while strengthening passive barriers to terrorist success and working politically to minimize the causes of such extremism].
All three such decisions involve Obama facing significant domestic opposition should he choose the approach which I view is the preferred choice of those on the committee. In addition to rewarding Obama for what he has already done differently, the Prize also serves to reinforce and to provide evidence of political support for his continuing the efforts in this vein. Given the cachet of the Nobel Prize, it DOES exert some political influence and this is a fairly clear means of forwarding the coimmittee's preferred agenda.
In addition, Obama is very much not George W. Bush. Given the oft-expressed opinions most of Europe West of the Elbe held for "Dubya," that fact alone may have been enough to prompt the committee's actions.
Good read, although I'd disagree with the merits one must possess to receive the award.
HoreTore
10-09-2009, 21:06
Good read, although I'd disagree with the merits one must possess to receive the award.
Why?
If the prize isn't going to push an agenda, if it shouldn't try changing the world, then what's the point of having it?
I mean, we already have His Majesty the King's lifetime achievement medal, what would we need a peace prize for?
Why?:inquisitive:
Ok, achievement is not necessary to get the price: See Kissinger and Le Duc To for peace in Vietnam just before North finished the job in taking Saigon, or the late Ahtisaari for his “negotiation” in the Kosovo affairs. There is no need for success.
“if not for that imbecile, naive fool of Gorbachev, USSR would have largely remained.” Well, Eltsin and his coup gave the coup de grace.
Probably the only thing Eltsin succeeded, and to sell Russia to the apparatchiks of course…
Crazed Rabbit
10-09-2009, 22:32
Hasn't it been the Republican presidents of late that have actually accomplished all the nuclear disarming treaties?
CR
Kadagar_AV
10-09-2009, 22:51
May I start off by saying that it is the crazy norwegians who handles the peace prize. It's not part of the "proper" swedish Nobel prize. Back in Nobel's day, Sweden used to own Norway (we still do, but in a way other meaning of the word).
Now, about Obama and the peace prize... Ridiculous... :juggle2:
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is on a whole different scale of good compared to Bush. But still???
What has he actually done? :no:
If he actually accomplished something, it would be WAY better to give him the prize then... For soooo many reasons, most of them stated already.
A zing from the Taliban; (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm)
CR
They're the ones to talk about violence and killing civilians... :sweatdrop:
Also this (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/09/obama_transcript_reaction_to_winning_the_nobel_prize_98649.html) might be relevant to the discussion:
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
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 this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I 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.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
So, was he trying to summarize this thread?
Why?
If the prize isn't going to push an agenda, if it shouldn't try changing the world, then what's the point of having it?
I mean, we already have His Majesty the King's lifetime achievement medal, what would we need a peace prize for?
I'd rather have it awarded based on results.
ICantSpellDawg
10-10-2009, 01:38
Totally awesome.
All the pros and cons beside, I think everyone agrees that this NPP started an interessting discussion about Obama and the peace/war process. And in that specific sense the prize is already an success. People are talking/discussing peace and that is only a good thing.
Just wait until we start bashing eachother's heads in. :laugh4:
I agree with Ice though, the reward should be given for achieving a certain result, and as I have shown, even Obama shares that view...
CountArach
10-10-2009, 03:10
Best line so far - coming from the State Department (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/10/snarking_it_up_at_foggy_bottom.php):
Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.
Proletariat
10-10-2009, 06:09
Why the hell is this on the front page of google news? It's a gay reward no one ever cares about. Miss Universe is a bigger deal. Talk about a slow news day :dizzy2:
used to be something before it became strictly political sadly, it has been hijacked it no longer means anything. Way to go leftieloonies, keep a professional distance for a change. Now obama I can even understand because of his exceptional ability to read what's in front of him, but Al Gore?
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 07:09
I'd rather have it awarded based on results.
It already is - and it's called "His Majesty the King's achievement medal".
But that wasn't the one Obama got, so it would have to be something else then, now wouldn't it?
Why the hell is this on the front page of google news? It's a gay reward no one ever cares about. Miss Universe is a bigger deal. Talk about a slow news day :dizzy2:
Hey, besides the times Norway is rated the best country in the world by all credible sources, this is our one time in the spotlight. Stop ruining it!
Anyway, read an interview with the head of the committee, Torbjørn Jagland, in the morning paper (http://dt.no/apps/pbcs.dll/forside) just now, in which he specified even more why obama got it.
He said that Obama had been on the cards along with a dozen others all the time, but it was 2 recent events that singled him out and eventually earned him the prize - canceling the missile shield and his UN thingy about nuclear disarmament.
Oh, and I just realized I haven't stated my own opinion on here... My opinion is that some guy in Kongo should've gotten the prize. Perhaps someone working with the centers for rape victims in eastern Kongo. But I'm used to never seeing my "favourite" getting the prize, so I little problem with Obama getting it. The only negative thing is, of course, Afghanistan, it pains me to see someone who engages in war get the prize.... But hey, he's doing more positive stuff, so what the hey.
Also, I'll let you silly foreigners in on a little secret: Norwegians have a serious diplomacy-fetish. Whenever someone says the word "dialogue", you get 4,8 million instant boners here. Yes, even the women get one. Don't ask. The committee is all norwegians, all nominated by elected norwegian politicians. Obama has been quite fond of dialogue.... You still wonder why he got it?
Banquo's Ghost
10-10-2009, 08:50
Hasn't it been the Republican presidents of late that have actually accomplished all the nuclear disarming treaties?
Very good point. Since nuclear disarmament seems to be a key aspiration of the NPP, one might have thought a balanced approach would have recognised this. But then HoreTore and others maintain the aspiration is enough - clearly actual results sully the vision.
Just wait until we start bashing eachother's heads in. :laugh4:
:laugh4:
And Al Gore? nah
Within the established parameters of the NPP, Al Gore is certainly an appropriate winner. One may not agree with his agenda politically, but the Committee does and recognised his undoubted contribution to that cause. He shared the prize with the IPCC, remember.
Obama hasn't even achieved that kind of contribution. I don't buy the arguments put forward to justify the award since previous winners have all had some sort of a track record or have got the prize just for doing their job (el Baradei or Kofi Annan, for example) as a representative of the organisation in which they are employed.
And I don't think it merits a trivial dismissal that Obama is still warmongering in Afghanistan and considering an even greater involvement. Set the reality of the dead and dying of that benighted place against some fluffy words (might I bring Guantanamo into the discussion - still operating despite the fine words?) and I note that the president has an awfully long way to go before being considered a man of peace.
I really fail to see how Al Gore deserves that price
CountArach
10-10-2009, 10:03
I really fail to see how Al Gore deserves that price
Many security experts believe that Climate Change poses the greatest threat to international security. As resources dwindle, crops fail, etc, etc then war is more likely to become a real threat. Given that the Nobel committee believes in man-made climate change (Whether it is real or not is not what is at issue here, so don't derail the thread) then it makes sense that raising awareness and organising to do something about it deserves recognition.
The Stranger
10-10-2009, 11:14
Obamamania!!! He doesn't even need the money...
Many security experts believe that Climate Change poses the greatest threat to international security. As resources dwindle, crops fail, etc, etc then war is more likely to become a real threat. Given that the Nobel committee believes in man-made climate change (Whether it is real or not is not what is at issue here, so don't derail the thread) then it makes sense that raising awareness and organising to do something about it deserves recognition.
That has it's own logic, ok not so rediculous if you put it like that.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-10-2009, 13:19
Many security experts believe that Climate Change poses the greatest threat to international security. As resources dwindle, crops fail, etc, etc then war is more likely to become a real threat. Given that the Nobel committee believes in man-made climate change (Whether it is real or not is not what is at issue here, so don't derail the thread) then it makes sense that raising awareness and organising to do something about it deserves recognition.
I remember that. While I have my concerns regarding the science behind global warming and humanity's being the key element of it, once you accept that point (and many, maybe most do) the logic behind last year's award did make sense.
If nuclear disarmament is the committee's hope, they're really in wolkenkukkuksheim [sp?]. The inevitable trend is -- and by the logic of self preservation MUST be -- towards an expansion of the number of nation-states with nuclear arms.
Turnig swords into ploughshares is a noble (nobel?) purpose and all that, but how often has history witnessed such?
rory_20_uk
10-10-2009, 13:52
Although the concepts might be nice, he's not managed to achieve much. Yes, it's early in his first term so no, he's not really had the time. Perhaps come the next prize he'd have solid evidence to deserve it, but as yet no.
~:smoking:
wolkenkukkuksheim [sp?].
Wolkenkuckucksheim. (I had to look up the exact spelling of Kuckuck myself :sweatdrop: )
One thing I do not really understand is how people see the continuation of Afghanistan as a war effort?
IMO if we leave, the Taliban will return and kill all the people who tried to make Afghanistan more modern/western, slaughter the opposition and enslave the people again, it will be quiet and out of the news but hardly peaceful, which is why I prefer the continuation of the mission, that way at least the worse people get killed and not the women who establish schools for girls.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 14:36
One thing I do not really understand is how people see the continuation of Afghanistan as a war effort?
IMO if we leave, the Taliban will return and kill all the people who tried to make Afghanistan more modern/western, slaughter the opposition and enslave the people again, it will be quiet and out of the news but hardly peaceful, which is why I prefer the continuation of the mission, that way at least the worse people get killed and not the women who establish schools for girls.
Irrelevant, a war is still a war. Trying to solve it through diplomacy is what will get you the peace prize. Remember that Nobel's aim was to dismantle every single standing army in the world.
One thing I do not really understand is how people see the continuation of Afghanistan as a war effort?
IMO if we leave, the Taliban will return and kill all the people who tried to make Afghanistan more modern/western, slaughter the opposition and enslave the people again, it will be quiet and out of the news but hardly peaceful, which is why I prefer the continuation of the mission, that way at least the worse people get killed and not the women who establish schools for girls.
:balloon2:
ICantSpellDawg
10-10-2009, 14:53
Just when the hilarious joke of the 2009 election was wearing off and we feared being left with a horrible void of despair at electing a big ball of hype - the joke continues! I love it.
As long as Euroweenies are there to cheer us up by giving us awards commemorating how dumb we are by showing how much dumber they are, the situation will never seem as bad as we know it is.
KukriKhan
10-10-2009, 15:00
One point Four million Bucks ($425K, after taxes). Any bets on what Mr. O will do with the prize money?
Charity? Cigarettes? Rose Garden Beer? Pay down the National Debt?
Fisherking
10-10-2009, 15:00
What can really be said of the peace prize?
The Swedish awarded prizes seldom have any controversy attached. It is a rigorous process of selection and so on.
The peace prize’s committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, so it is selected by politicians and made up one must assume of politicians. It is almost always of some controversy and promotes a political agenda.
Gandhi never received one. Despite being nominated many times.
It is pretty meaningless but manages to get Norway noticed once a year.
I suppose that is more important to the politicians than a wise choice.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 15:14
What can really be said of the peace prize?
The Swedish awarded prizes seldom have any controversy attached. It is a rigorous process of selection and so on.
That you haven't paid attention doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Try reading up on the litterature prize award this year.
The peace prize’s committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, so it is selected by politicians and made up one must assume of politicians. It is almost always of some controversy and promotes a political agenda.
Gandhi never received one. Despite being nominated many times.
It is pretty meaningless but manages to get Norway noticed once a year.
I suppose that is more important to the politicians than a wise choice.
Meaningless, you say? I beg to differ. The prize grameen bank got was a huge boost from it, and it enabled them to vastly expand their business, as the founder has said himself. Who had heard of microloans before they got the nobel prize? This applies for every winner, just check for yourself what they have to say about the prize, what it enabled them to do. None of them will say it was meaningless or irrelevant.
As for the prize always being controversial, well, it bloody well should! Big politics are controversial. Peace is very controversial. Of course the peace prize is going to be controversial. Heck, can you think of any such prize that isn't controversial? And yes, it promotes a political propaganda. That's the point.
No.
Reducing the peace prize to a mere award for some accomplishment is the exact opposite of what Alfred Nobel wanted it to be.
He wanted it to promote peace, not as a reward for achieving peace. The prize is leverage. Always has been, always will. Take the prizes given to Israel and Palestine after the Oslo deal, for example. It wasn't a reward for "achieving peace", it was a statement that read "good start, now stay focused and finish the job!"
Just like the prize to Obama is. He's started out well, and the nobel committee would love to see him finish the job. The peace prize is a reminder and an encouragement to that.
And that's exactly what Nobel wanted it to do.
No.
(I don't know what Alfred intended it for so I'm not going to research or argue that point.)
Intentions are nothing. Hollow. Empty. Intentions don't help people, feed people, start wars, or bring about change. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Action is everything. Deeds are proof. Helping someone up who fell down, cooking someone a meal, or pulling a trigger are actions that cause change.
It doesn't matter that a person intended to finish that project for work on time. Because he or she didn't, the company lost that business opportunity and is now worse off. It doesn't make a whit of difference if a person intends on picking up their child on time from daycare. If they don't, then you have a poster case of gross negligence and child neglect.
I don't give STFS's right testicle what Obama's intent is for the overall world peace situation. He may really want world peace and rainbows and ponies. Accomplishing that is something else entirely.
My understanding of the Nobel prizes are that they are awarded for tangible action. Louis pointed out a few oddities, but that doesn't change my understanding. If what you say is true, and it's really just something that can also be given to spur someone on, then it's significantly cheapened it and the entire process in my view (and many others it sounds like).
Intent is nothing. Action is everything. Period.
What can really be said of the peace prize?
The Swedish awarded prizes seldom have any controversy attached. It is a rigorous process of selection and so on.
The prices for physics, chemistry and physiology are hardly going to create controversy anywhere but within scientific communities. The Nobel prize in literature obviosly has a potential to stir controversy since books can harbour political content; but nothing tops the peace prize which is an entirely political prize. Otherwise you believe in saints, it is almost a given that this price should be controversial to some level.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 15:57
My understanding of the Nobel prizes are that they are awarded for tangible action. Louis pointed out a few oddities, but that doesn't change my understanding. If what you say is true, and it's really just something that can also be given to spur someone on, then it's significantly cheapened it and the entire process in my view (and many others it sounds like).
Intent is nothing. Action is everything. Period.
Then go make your own prize, you don't share Nobel's vision. Like it or not, it was his right to do whatever he wanted with his money, he choose to make this prize. Whether or not you(or anyone else) support it, is quite irrelevant.
Nobel wanted a world without war. He created the peace prize as a means to that end. Of course the prize itself should further peace, and not just be a reward for accomplishments.
Hosakawa Tito
10-10-2009, 15:59
It's more like a reward for not being Dubya. The Western International community is so relieved that Bush is out of the picture that they're caught up in the Obama hype. Time will tell if it lasts.
It already is - and it's called "His Majesty the King's achievement medal".
But that wasn't the one Obama got, so it would have to be something else then, now wouldn't it?
Oh in that case, I see no purpose for the award. I more or less follow Whacker's logic on this one.
LittleGrizzly
10-10-2009, 16:29
Well there seems to be at least one advantage to taking over from the previous idiot... you seem like a genuis compared....
Or previous warmonger... you seem like a peace activist compared...
He has started off some peaceful or at least peace encouraging ideas... (or adopting said ideas) so if the award is about encouragment to keep down the right path then it does kind of make sense...
That being said what matters more to the peace commitee, effort made towards peace of actual chances said person could bring about the peace...
Im sure theres hundreds or thousands of people who put more effort into making the world peaceful than Obama, but how many people who want to make the world peaceful have anywhere near as much power as Obama...
That tireless peace campaigner may have put her life towards peace, but Obama with a simple signature can bring the world far closer to peace than the campaigner could do in several lifetimes...
I have to agree the award being an encouragment for people who seem pro-peace to continue thier work seems a bit silly...that being said if it would work or help on any level to make the world more peaceful im happy for it to look silly...
Then go make your own prize, you don't share Nobel's vision. Like it or not, it was his right to do whatever he wanted with his money, he choose to make this prize. Whether or not you(or anyone else) support it, is quite irrelevant.
Nobel wanted a world without war. He created the peace prize as a means to that end.
Then if this really is the case, it's a big huge joke. Whether I or anyone else supports is entirely relevant. A well-off person can easily create a foundation and a system for recognizing accomplishments, but if people view it as a joke or a farce, what good is it? Before you try to pull something out of your hat on that one, look at what exactly is going on by giving Obama this award. People are heavily questioning both the actual awarding and the award itself now. I will say this much, your words have given me enough incentive now to go research this and the process. As you say, if it does also cover intent and not action only, then that's one more person who now could care less.
Of course the prize itself should further peace, and not just be a reward for accomplishments.Your logic fails. Nothing BUT accomplishments and deeds will bring about peace. Here's another analogy for you. This is like awarding a child a gold star for their intent to go read a book and write a book report, instead of actually rewarding them for performing the actions.
Write this down. Intent is nothing. Action is everything.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 16:50
Then if this really is the case, it's a big huge joke. Whether I or anyone else supports is entirely relevant. A well-off person can easily create a foundation and a system for recognizing accomplishments, but if people view it as a joke or a farce, what good is it? Before you try to pull something out of your hat on that one, look at what exactly is going on by giving Obama this award. People are heavily questioning both the actual awarding and the award itself now. I will say this much, your words have given me enough incentive now to go research this and the process. As you say, if it does also cover intent and not action only, then that's one more person who now could care less.
Thing is, Whacker, people do care about it. This thread is proof of that, isn't it? So.... Logic Fail.
Your logic fails. Nothing BUT accomplishments and deeds will bring about peace. Here's another analogy for you. This is like awarding a child a gold star for their intent to go read a book and write a book report, instead of actually rewarding them for performing the actions.
Again, this prize isn't about this. The peace prize is created to further peace in the world, how many times do I have to say that? It is not a reward for achieving peace. There are other awards for that.
The peace prize has never been about rewarding someone. It has always been a political tool to further an agenda. That was its intent.
Write this down. Intent is nothing. Action is everything.
I will most certainly not.
Again, this prize isn't about this. The peace prize is created to further peace in the world, how many times do I have to say that? It is not a reward for achieving peace. There are other awards for that.
According to the NPP's homepage, you appear to be wrong...
[...] As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.html
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 17:26
According to the NPP's homepage, you appear to be wrong...
As you should know, Viking, Nobel's thoughts were a bit more detailed than what he wrote in his will.
His vision was a world without war. His contribution to that end was the peace prize. So.... How can it be anything other than a tool for creating peace? Do you really think Nobel wanted it to be a passive reward for someone, instead of an active tool to further his agenda?
Pathway to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 17:30
Pathway to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.
Fortunately, we're all atheist social democrats, so religious mumbo-jumbo doesn't concern us ~;)
That is actually being ignorant and not understanding the meaning behind the saying. It is more philosphorical than religious.
As you should know, Viking, Nobel's thoughts were a bit more detailed than what he wrote in his will.
His vision was a world without war. His contribution to that end was the peace prize. So.... How can it be anything other than a tool for creating peace? Do you really think Nobel wanted it to be a passive reward for someone, instead of an active tool to further his agenda?
At the same time, I doubt he wrote that passage without really meaning it. 'Cause...if it is used as tool; some kind of prod; then the award is going to become disrespected and eventually useless. You cannot ignore that it is commonly known as an achievers prize, and that this is one of the reasons why it has been relatively respected to this date.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 18:47
At the same time, I doubt he wrote that passage without really meaning it. 'Cause...if it is used as tool; some kind of prod; then the award is going to become disrespected and eventually useless. You cannot ignore that it is commonly known as an achievers prize, and that this is one of the reasons why it has been relatively respected to this date.
Are you sure we live in the same country? Because.... Here it's been viewed as a political tool more than an award for a long time.... Haven't you noticed that when there are discussions about who to give the prize to, it's a discussion of "which area deserves some focus this year" much more than "who's done some good"?
Irrelevant, a war is still a war. Trying to solve it through diplomacy is what will get you the peace prize. Remember that Nobel's aim was to dismantle every single standing army in the world.
So you think if we talk to the taliban they won't slaughter women who establish schools for girls or was it that what you refer to as irrelevant? :inquisitive:
Are you sure we live in the same country? Because.... Here it's been viewed as a political tool more than an award for a long time.... Haven't you noticed that when there are discussions about who to give the prize to, it's a discussion of "which area deserves some focus this year" much more than "who's done some good"?
It is a tool for peace, but if those who receive the awards hardly have done anything; it will eventually become a worthless prize since achieving it means close to nil. The tool will loose its power.
Obama has done something though; so upon thinking more about this award and comparing it to previous ones (the 2004 laureate got it for planting trees); and what it should take in general to get this award...the awarding makes more sense.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 19:25
So you think if we talk to the taliban they won't slaughter women who establish schools for girls or was it that what you refer to as irrelevant? :inquisitive:
Whether you like it or not, war is to opposite to peace. Violence is the opposite of non-violence.
Only those in the latter category are eligible for the peace prize.
Whether you like it or not, war is to opposite to peace. Violence is the opposite of non-violence.
Only those in the latter category are eligible for the peace prize.
I'd disagree. Violence can certainly bring a long lasting peace much more than dialogue can in certain situations. I would think Europe and WWII would be a good example of this.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 20:01
I'd disagree. Violence can certainly bring a long lasting peace much more than dialogue can in certain situations. I would think Europe and WWII would be a good example of this.
If you disagree, you're free to make your own prize ~;)
It's not a discussion about what is "right" or "wrong", it's a discussion of what Alfred Nobel intended.
If you disagree, you're free to make your own prize ~;)
It's not a discussion about what is "right" or "wrong", it's a discussion of what Alfred Nobel intended.
Viking's post and what I've read so far consistently read as your personal interpretations being wrong. Do tell, what makes you an expert on Alfred Noble's intentions and mindset?
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 21:07
Viking's post and what I've read so far consistently read as your personal interpretations being wrong. Do tell, what makes you an expert on Alfred Noble's intentions and mindset?
Alright, what is it you've read of Alfred Nobel that isn't consistent with my claim that he wanted a world without war and that he created the peace prize as his contribution to that end?
Aemilius Paulus
10-10-2009, 21:24
it's a discussion of what Alfred Nobel intended.
And that is where I left the discussion, because it is quite pointless by now. No one is right or wrong, both sides have merit. This is no longer a debatable issue. Who knows what Nobel intended?
Given what I know of him, it is my opinion he cared more about the actual process of making the world more peaceful, and the results of that process as opposed to merely handing out elitist prizes so that the recipients can be snobby about it and bathe in their arrogance and self-pride. He would not mind the prize used as it was recently.
However, there is no guarantee Obama will do much. In fact, I have suspicions that he will not accomplish any significant deeds that would contribute to world peace. To eradicate all atomics on this accursed planet would require on single governemnt. As long as there are rivals, there will be secret stockpiles. And fanatic nutjobs like Kim-Jong Il or Ahmadinezhad taking advantage of the other power's weakness. And nationalistic, ego-addled tyrants like Putin.
Can you imagine Russia give up its atomics? I don't think so. Can you imagine US doing so when Russia did not? Hell no. Even if Russia did supposedly dump its stockpiles, only a US made of liberals would approve destroying the US share of fission and fusion warheads.
So honestly, giving prizes before the accomplishment, while seemingly being a progressive actions, is more preposterous to me. Somewhat indicative of the instant gratification culture of today perhaps. Maybe. Sort of... The point of a prize is to encourage individuals to work hard to achieve it, and when they do, the prize will be warded. The Nobel Prize Committee could have instead (possibly) let Obama know that they would consider him in the next ceremony if he actually lifts his rump and does something.
Giving an award beforehand is overtly risky, and it most certainly devalues it. What's next? Should this set a precedent? Should we give scholarships to students beforehand, to encourage them to work harder and get the good grades? Really? Politicians are no more good at keeping their promises than teenagers are at not slacking off and procrastinating. Both are notorious for their propensity to take the wrong road.
But honestly, who cares about what I say? We will never know how Nobel wanted his award to be given out.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 21:41
Who knows what Nobel intended? We will never know how Nobel wanted his award to be given out.
1. A lot of people.
2. Yes we do.
It's not like Nobel kept his mouth shut his entire life and then surprised everybody with a crazy will. The ideology and intentions of Nobel is well known and documented. All it takes to find out is to read a bio.
Aemilius Paulus
10-10-2009, 21:43
1. A lot of people.
2. Yes we do.
Ahh, then I am so relieved to see the consensus over in exactly which situations in which the awarding of the prize is justified... Yes, indeed, it is wonderful to see people agree, is it not so?
If you disagree, you're free to make your own prize ~;)
It's not a discussion about what is "right" or "wrong", it's a discussion of what Alfred Nobel intended.
That wasn't in reference to the prize. I was disagreeing with what Alfred Nobel "intended" or "thought".
Azathoth
10-11-2009, 06:55
Yesterday morning, beloved Nike shill Tiger Woods was awarded the Nobel Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation in golf,” which was an incredible surprise for him to receive so early on in his career, except it’s pretty late in his career, so maybe it was just a surprise because no one knew the award existed. Woods said he was “surprised and deeply humbled,” putting to rest speculation that he might turn down the honor no one knew existed. The announcement was made early Friday morning and Woods said he would accept the prize as a “call to golf more.”
“To be honest,” Woods said, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize I just found out about now; men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of golfing more.”
The announcement shocked many in the US as well as abroad, specifically in Afghanistan. Although many Afghans in the countryside have never even heard of the Nobel prizes, those among the educated elite are baffled by Woods’ award.
“I’m not sure I understand — this isn’t for golf here, is it?” said bank worker Irfan Hazin. “Because we haven’t got any.”
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose relations with golf have been distinctly chilly, congratulated the U.S. golfer, expressing the hope that with Woods’ “leadership of the backswing and vision of the perfect putt… peace and normalcy will return to Afghanistan and our region.” He added, “Then we can golf.”
Even the Russians are weighing in, claiming Woods has “not been active in world golf long enough” to deserve the prize.
“The awarding of the prize to Woods testifies to the deep disappointment caused by the golfing of Jack Nicklaus,” Mikhail Margelov, foreign affairs committee chair in the upper house of the Russian parliament, told a journalist. “He is golfer, yes?”
Woods will be celebrating this amazing honor by taking Michelle Obama and her two children putt-putt golfing. Her husband will not be present.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/tiger-woods-wins-nobel-prize-for-golf/
One point Four million Bucks ($425K, after taxes). Any bets on what Mr. O will do with the prize money?
Maybe try and get across a cliff? (http://www.amazing-planet.net/trondheim-mister-o-and-mister-i.php)
Fortunately, we're all atheist social democrats, so religious mumbo-jumbo doesn't concern us ~;)
Well, at least two of us are :laugh4:
Banquo's Ghost
10-11-2009, 13:42
Robert Fisk delivers a crushing analysis (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-obama-man-of-peace-no-just-a-nobel-prize-of-a-mistake-1800928.html) of why awarding President Obama the Peace Prize is an act completely out of touch with international reality - even if one is arguing that it's all about the hope.
His Middle East policy is collapsing. The Israelis have taunted him by ignoring his demand for an end to settlement-building and by continuing to build their colonies on Arab land. His special envoy is bluntly told by the Israelis that an Arab-Israel peace will take "many years". Now he wants the Palestinians to talk peace to Israel without conditions. He put pressure on the Palestinian leader to throw away the opportunity of international scrutiny of UN Judge Goldstone's damning indictment of Israeli war crimes in Gaza while his Assistant Secretary of State said that the Goldstone report was "seriously flawed". After breaking his pre-election promise to call the 1915 Armenian massacres by Ottoman Turkey a genocide, he has urged the Armenians to sign a treaty with Turkey, again "without pre-conditions". His army is still facing an insurgency in Iraq. He cannot decide how to win "his" war in Afghanistan. I shall not mention Iran.
...
Oh, go on then, it's good:
Then, after stroking the Iranian pussycat at the Geneva nuclear talks, the US president discovered that the feline was showing its claws again at the end of last week. A Revolutionary Guard commander, an adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei, warned that Iran would "blow up the heart" of Israel if Israel or the US attacked the Islamic Republic. I doubt it. Blow up Israel and you blow up "Palestine". Iranians – who understand the West much better than we understand them – have another policy in the case of the apocalypse. If the Israelis attack, they may leave Israel alone. They have a plan, I'm told, to target instead only US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their bases in the Gulf and their warships cruising through Hormuz. They would leave Israel alone. Americans would then learn the price of kneeling before their Israeli masters.
For the Iranians know that the US has no stomach for a third war in the Middle East. Which is why Mr Obama has been sending his generals thick and fast to the defence ministry in Tel Aviv to tell the Israelis not to strike at Iran. And why Israel's leaders – including Mr Netanyahu – were blowing the peace pipe all week about the need for international negotiations with Iran. But it raises an interesting question. Is Mr Obama more frightened of Iran's retaliation? Or of its nuclear capabilities? Or more terrified of Israel's possible aggression against Iran?
But, please, no attacks on 10 December. That's when Barack Obama turns up in Oslo to pocket his peace prize – for achievements he has not yet achieved and for dreams that will turn into nightmares.
And that is where I left the discussion, because it is quite pointless by now. [...] Who knows what Nobel intended?
In fairness, the europeans on the Org have listened to us yankees debating the will of the founding fathers a quadrillion times, so it's only fair we should have to suffer through a little of our own medicine. Turnabout is fair play.
I love you, Lemur. :laugh4:
Thanks, Husar. And since the Nobel Peace Prize is all about symbolism, I think it should have gone to Neda.
I didn't know he was Irish, either. :laugh4:
Aemilius Paulus
10-11-2009, 19:24
Thanks, Husar. And since the Nobel Peace Prize is all about symbolism, I think it should have gone to Neda.
Hmm, I would agree with that likewise. She did much more than Obama, even in her few moments of death. What is Obama going to do? Bring peace to the Middle East or eliminate all atomics? Both seem like impossible goals, along with his promise he uttered in one evangelical church to "create Paradise on Earth" - am I the only one who thinks that was a tad over the top?? And I do not believe I took his words out of context either...
Louis VI the Fat
10-11-2009, 19:41
his promise he uttered in one evangelical church to "create Paradise on Earth" - am I the only one who thinks that was a tad over the top?? And I do not believe I took his words out of context either...I have the secret hope that O'Bama echoed the famous word of Voltaire: 'we must build a heaven on earth'.
The ancient watchword for theists and atheists. Not fullfulling the work of God, or living a life with the afterlife firmly in mind, must be the goal, but this life, this earth.
It is telling that O'bama used the phrase to speak to evangelicals - the group that has such a stifling effect on America's policies.
I suspect O of being a closet atheist.
By applying what the evangelicals will perceive as a phrase of devotion, he could make common ground with them, direct their energy away from rapture and 'what would Jesus do' politics.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-12-2009, 01:45
I have the secret hope that O'Bama echoed the famous word of Voltaire: 'we must build a heaven on earth'.
The ancient watchword for theists and atheists. Not fullfulling the work of God, or living a life with the afterlife firmly in mind, must be the goal, but this life, this earth.
It is telling that O'bama used the phrase to speak to evangelicals - the group that has such a stifling effect on America's policies.
I suspect O of being a closet atheist.
By applying what the evangelicals will perceive as a phrase of devotion, he could make common ground with them, direct their energy away from rapture and 'what would Jesus do' politics.
I suspect Obama is a very vague agnostic, I doubt he has the conviction to be an atheist.
Aemilius Paulus
10-12-2009, 02:03
I suspect Obama is a very vague agnostic, I doubt he has the conviction to be an atheist.
Yes, normally men of his characteristics are agnostic nowadays, even despite the fact that blacks are more religious in US than the whites.
AlexanderSextus
10-12-2009, 06:53
I know a fair few black agnostics, AP.
Aemilius Paulus
10-12-2009, 13:17
I know a fair few black agnostics, AP.
Well, that is what I said: men of Obama's characteristics tend to be agnostics, even if they are black or Southern, or so... I have two black professors, both of them are agnostic/atheist (in between those two). A great deal of doctors of science tend to lose their faith - there is normally a inverse correlation between education and faith.
I suspect O of being a closet atheist.
Well, his father was an atheist, which makes the birthers comments of "His dad was a Muslim" all the more entertaining.
LittleGrizzly
10-12-2009, 15:12
Im sure I heard of some poll where Americans said they would vote for a muslim over an atheist... maybe the Republican attack machine picked the wrong angle....
Aemilius Paulus
10-12-2009, 17:36
Im sure I heard of some poll where Americans said they would vote for a muslim over an atheist... maybe the Republican attack machine picked the wrong angle....
Yeah, I saw it too. Out of all the various "handicaps", atheism was by far the most serious.
Here is one Gallup poll from 1999, which measured the percentage of Americans not willing to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" with one of the following characteristics:
Catholic: 4%
Black: 5%
Jewish: 6%
Baptist: 6%
Female: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38% (yeah, I know, it is probably much worse right now, with the 9/11 behind us)
Homosexual: 37%
Atheist: 48%
Here is a 2007 Gallup poll, albeit with slightly different categories:
Catholic - 4%
Black - 5%
Jewish - 7% (slightly worse than in 1999)
Female - 11% (quite noticeably worse than in 1999)
Hispanic - 12%
Mormon - 24% (very noticeably worse)
Married for the third time - 30
72 years of age - 42%
Homosexual - 43% (very noticeably worse)
Atheist - 53% (quite noticeably worse than in 1999)
So Americans are growing less tolerant :inquisitive::skull::thumbsdown:? Especially against gays, Mormons and atheists…
According to this Gallup article, it is true that Americans are growing less tolerant in the past few years (http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx#2):sad:
LittleGrizzly
10-12-2009, 18:08
Wow.... 53% thats a crazy amount of people.... I can somewhat understand some of them... albeit thinking in an intolerant mindset...
Atheists are baby killers without morality but 53% is quite high...
Muslims and Jews, see ME... (it wouldn't suprise me if conspiracy thoeries somewhat drove up the Jewish figure, red hot since 9/11)
Gays and Hispanics have major issues surronding them so paranoia there too...
The married for the third time doesn't suprise me too much in a country like America (i wouldn't care though)
I can somewhat understand the 72 one, although if he was in fairly good health for his age and had the right policys i would still vote for him...
I can't say I fully understand Mormon(ism) but from what I have heard its kind of looked down upon somewhat... whats the problem with catholics ?
The 11% against women strikes me as quite odd though... I could only think maybe Palin and Clinton with thier polarising effects somewhat increased this number...
TBH this makes me happier about voter apathy... sure theres some determined intolerant people but most of them are to busy blaming or criticising groups of people to go vote....
I hope....
So Americans are growing less tolerant :inquisitive::skull::thumbsdown:? Especially against gays, Mormons and atheists…
Why does this make me really, really want to see a gay atheist ex-Mormon win an election somewhere?
Aemilius Paulus
10-13-2009, 16:21
What is yet worse is that 53% will absolutely refuse to vote for an atheist. The majority of the other 47% may vote, but will still prefer a religious candidate to a non-religious one...
And I have to say, I find it disturbing Muslims are preferred over atheists in America... What have we done to earn so much hate? And compare that to what Muslims did (mostly radical ones, but the point remains).
This is why American politics is completely different to European politics (in general), you can't imagine our elected leaders "Preaching" like a priest, like the American leaders do. If they did, they probably would get sidelined into the raving loony party.
to each their own, right?
HoreTore
10-13-2009, 18:12
Well...
It's not like I would vote for any religious person, so....
Aemilius Paulus
10-13-2009, 18:59
Well...
It's not like I would vote for any religious person, so....
Why not? If their denomination is a moderate and liberal one, if their faith is personal, not public, then why not? I mean, I am a strong atheist, but that is no justification for me not to respect other beliefs or to stay way from the, as it is in your case - since you probably respect religion, but would rather keep it away, thus favouring the latter choice.
It is not as if the Norwegian government makes world-changing decisions either... :sweatdrop:
...as it is in your case - since you probably respect religion...
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Aemilius Paulus
10-13-2009, 19:38
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Hey, I was merely attempting to sound nice, as I am tired of getting a couple warnings every week for the smallest things. So far the strategy is paying off, and I have no new infractions or warnings since my last temp-ban.
EDIT: unlike you, Mr. Spammer :devilish::laugh4:
What is yet worse is that 53% will absolutely refuse to vote for an atheist. The majority of the other 47% may vote, but will still prefer a religious candidate to a non-religious one...
IIRC, there is a grand total of one Representative in the US Congress who is openly atheist. (And who happens to be Congressman for San Francisco, of all places)
And I have to say, I find it disturbing Muslims are preferred over atheists in America... What have we done to earn so much hate? And compare that to what Muslims did (mostly radical ones, but the point remains).
Well, you can always pick out Muslims from a distance, but those atheists could be anywhere, since they're not brown like all the other minority groups.
HoreTore
10-13-2009, 20:25
Why not? If their denomination is a moderate and liberal one, if their faith is personal, not public, then why not? I mean, I am a strong atheist, but that is no justification for me not to respect other beliefs or to stay way from the, as it is in your case - since you probably respect religion, but would rather keep it away, thus favouring the latter choice.
It is not as if the Norwegian government makes world-changing decisions either... :sweatdrop:
Well I guess I could.... But I won't. Why? Because the party I vote for doesn't have many/any religious people...
I think the greater good of governments lie in good leaders, and leaders with a good solid religion tend to be good leaders.
America's constitution was based off of Christianity and look how well it did. Only recently, due to the separation of church and state, has things started going downhill that a tank of gas breaks the bank and you have to lock your doors to feel relatively safe.
Hollywood takes some blame as well.
...Only recently, due to the separation of church and state, has things started going downhill that a tank of gas breaks the bank and you have to lock your doors to feel relatively safe..
Church and Uncle Sam have been separate since the beginning.
Church and Uncle Sam have been separate since the beginning.
Yes but recently (past century) prayer has been taken out of school and evolution has been pushed in the schools.
No evolution discussions please. I've had too many of those to count.
They however, aren't that seperate, since American politics is all about religion. For this fact, in this thread or another, it was shown that over 51% would not vote for an athiest for being a non-believer, regardless of how good they are in the job or could be. It isn't based on merit at all and closer to the divine right of kings.
Yes but recently (past century) prayer has been taken out of school and evolution has been pushed in the schools.
No evolution discussions please. I've had too many of those to count.
Thank God that the government actually decided to enforce the First Amendment. Thank God.
Aemilius Paulus
10-13-2009, 21:09
I think the greater good of governments lie in good leaders, and leaders with a good solid religion tend to be good leaders.
Religion does not stop anyone from doing anything. Not to mention, almost all those presidents lie about their religiosity. Generally, only the Republicans, and but a fraction of them actually believe in the Christian God as much as they purport it. You honestly think they are earnest? Politicians?
America's constitution was based off of Christianity and look how well it did. Only recently, due to the separation of church and state, has things started going downhill that a tank of gas breaks the bank and you have to lock your doors to feel relatively safe.
Hollywood takes some blame as well.
Good Lord, I never thought people like this were found in the Backroom... Not that this is bad, but it is just that I did not expect traditional, conservative Christians in this place... In any case, if I had a penny/pence for every time someone said that, Zain... They did not base it off Christianity at all. I fail to see any link. They based it off Enlightenment philosophers, which drew their inspiration from more sources than we can name.
Do you honestly see separation f church and state as a negative thing? Do I have to quote how ardently opposed all the Founding Fathers were to the fusion of state and religion? How the loathed it? How they attempted to ensure none of that would happen ever again in US? How they were Freemasons, Deists, and agnostics, as opposed to Protestants?
Lock your doors to feel safe?? What? The last time religion took law into its own hands with the Prohibition, the crime skyrocketed, creating the modern gangs...
Religion does not stop anyone from doing anything. Not to mention, almost all those presidents lie about their religiosity. Generally, only the Republicans, and but a fraction of them actually believe in the Christian God as much as they purport it. You honestly think they are earnest? Politicians?
Good Lord, I never thought people like this were found in the Backroom... Not that this is bad, but it is just that I did not expect traditional, conservative Christians in this place... In any case, if I had a penny/pence for every time someone said that, Zain... They did not base it off Christianity at all. I fail to see any link. They based it off Enlightenment philosophers, which drew their inspiration from more sources than we can name.
Do you honestly see separation f church and state as a negative thing? Do I have to quote how ardently opposed all the Founding Fathers were to the fusion of state and religion? How the loathed it? How they attempted to ensure none of that would happen ever again in US? How they were Freemasons, Deists, and agnostics, as opposed to Protestants?
Lock your doors to feel safe?? What? The last time religion took law into its own hands with the Prohibition, the crime skyrocketed, creating the modern gangs...
In God We Trust... It's been on our money since the late 1700s.
Just explain this for me. I've been curious as to why.
They however, aren't that seperate, since American politics is all about religion. For this fact, in this thread or another, it was shown that over 51% would not vote for an athiest for being a non-believer, regardless of how good they are in the job or could be. It isn't based on merit at all and closer to the divine right of kings.
There is nothing wrong in declining to support someone based on their religious preferences. Qualifications are irrelevant if the candidate does not share my general outlook on the world. Differences in religion are differences of opinion and thus are very valid reasons to withhold support. Religion is a choice and as such, one cannot compare declining to vote for a candidate based on his religion to declining to vote for a candidate based on his race.
Religion is a choice and as such, one cannot compare declining to vote for a candidate based on his religion to declining to vote for a candidate based on his race.
Would be the same for homosexuals, and in a way, it is the same for race and sex. Religion simply shouldn't be a factor in politics, you can believe whatever you want, from pink invisible dragons to spaghetti monster, however, these don't actually change the values themselves of a person. There are left-wing Christians and right-wing Christians.
A person should be independently judged on their merits and convictions. Yes, by all means, elect some one who might believe in God because they were the best choice. However, don't just vote for them, because they were the one which does, when arguably they could be a very bad choice.
...you can believe whatever you want, from pink invisible dragons to spaghetti monster...
You can, but beliefs or lack of them are liable to influence the decisions that a person. In everyday life, those influences are irrelevant, but when it comes to the elected officials (especially presidents), their belief systems do matter, since everything they do carries tremendous consequences. An atheist mayor is no big deal, but an atheist president can be a big problem. No need to risk a potential problem when there are plenty of risk-free candidates that can do the job.
In God We Trust!!! :yes:
Trust, but verify. :yes:
In God We Trust!!! :yes:
What about if you're a Paranoid Atheist? :dizzy:
Kadagar_AV
10-13-2009, 23:04
In God We Trust!!! :yes:
Don't you think this level of reasoning reminds more of a cheerleader than someone intellectual?
By all means, go ahed and trust the god of your choice. However, it would be more interesting if you would elaborate somewhat.
And yes, that it is written on your money is a problem, and it should be changed. Some people take offense. Better let money and other things of the state be neutral, so to say.
:book:
Louis VI the Fat
10-13-2009, 23:13
And yes, that it is written on your money is a problem, and it should be changed. Some people take offense. Better let money and other things of the state be neutral, so to say.
:book:Not to mention, when presented with a coin with the portrait of Caesar, Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Baby Jesus sheds a tear every time a Christian touches a US dollar.
Centurion1
10-13-2009, 23:48
Actually aemilius paulus the framers of the constitution did want use many traditional values from christianity, specifically judeo-christian values, especially about law. We are ot our root a greco-roman and also judeo-christian country.
Zain yo can still be a good christian and believe in evolution. You can simply say that god's time is different from our time and it was all god's design. Interested to see why you think that evolution is bad....
Beskar, you are right religion is very intertwined with politics in america. Obama had to address questions about his pastor (though more for what the loon was saying) and there has only ever been one president who was catholic. Which annoys me i don't think about the pope and openly disagree with my priest in some discussions about things the church supports especially social justice but i would magically kow-tow to this man as president. I don't question whether protestants will follow billy graham do i? Simply an outdated idea, which is barely true since many old world monarchs often ignored the pope
Oh and subotan why are you actually suprised about there bing atheist politicians from san francisco...... not exactly the fundementalist capital of the world there mate
Actually aemilius paulus the framers of the constitution did want use many traditional values from christianity, specifically judeo-christian values, especially about law. We are ot our root a greco-roman and also judeo-christian country.
Zain yo can still be a good christian and believe in evolution. You can simply say that god's time is different from our time and it was all god's design. Interested to see why you think that evolution is bad....
Beskar, you are right religion is very intertwined with politics in america. Obama had to address questions about his pastor (though more for what the loon was saying) and there has only ever been one president who was catholic. Which annoys me i don't think about the pope and openly disagree with my priest in some discussions about things the church supports especially social justice but i would magically kow-tow to this man as president. I don't question whether protestants will follow billy graham do i? Simply an outdated idea, which is barely true since many old world monarchs often ignored the pope
Oh and subotan why are you actually suprised about there bing atheist politicians from san francisco...... not exactly the fundementalist capital of the world there mate
The Bible states Adam brought death and sin into the world. There was a lot of death before man according to evolution. Evolution is not of my God.
Don't you think this level of reasoning reminds more of a cheerleader than someone intellectual?
By all means, go ahed and trust the god of your choice. However, it would be more interesting if you would elaborate somewhat.
And yes, that it is written on your money is a problem, and it should be changed. Some people take offense. Better let money and other things of the state be neutral, so to say.
:book:
Why waste my time explaining something that is common sense? Just saying, In God We Trust, which has been on American money since the 1700s simply proves that the government was founded by Christians.
Strike For The South
10-14-2009, 02:54
Why waste my time explaining something that is common sense? Just saying, In God We Trust, which has been on American money since the 1700s simply proves that the government was founded by Christians.
No it wasn't
In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto) and the U.S. state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) of Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida). The motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress) in 1956.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#cite_note-CR1956p13917-1) It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_36_of_the_United_States_Code) § 302 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/36/302.html), which provides: "In God we trust" is the national motto".
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 04:23
Yeah, I sort of lost all will to reply to this thread in a constructive manner when I read some of the statements regarding religion and US here... No one here attempts to provide real examples of religion in government as mandated by the founding fathers for a good reason - because there are none. Darn it, you people have to read what the founders of your country wrote, the books and treatises they composed. They were not religious in the evangelical or even a wider Protestant manner, as much as Republicans and Southern Christians are fond of portraying them. I mean, come on, Deists and Freemasons are not Christian, and Deists and Freemasons is what all the founding fathers were, as reflected by their private (and sometimes public) writings.
They were as hostile to the mixing of religion and state as I could imagine anyone being. All of them passionately condemned the mixing of the two, looking at contemporary Europe and the corruption that has befallen on the Church there. It is preposterous to believe they would inject Bible into the Constitution. Seriously, what is the evidence??
Centurion1, you are posting the very exact things Christians and Republicans throw at you, word for word. At least you could have rephrased the statement to make it appear more original :juggle2: :P Instead of parroting their words, go and see the Constitution and tell me where you see Christianity. Yes, they mention god in the Declaration of Independence. And even if it were the founding fathers who used "under god", those two things were, for those times, innocent symbolism - after all, you can separate religion from the state, but you cannot deny the existence of the religion, now can you?
Strike For The South
10-14-2009, 04:26
Yeah, I sort of lost all will to reply to this thread in a constructive manner when I read some of the statements regarding religion and US here... No one here attempts to provide real examples of religion in government as mandated by the founding fathers for a good reason - because there are none. Darn it, you people have to read what the founders of your country wrote, the books and treatises they composed. They were not religious in the evangelical or even a wider Protestant manner, as much as Republicans and Southern Christians are fond of portraying them.
They were as hostile to the mixing of religion and state as I could imagine anyone being. All of them passionately condemned the mixing of the two, looking at contemporary Europe and the corruption that has befallen on the Church there. It is preposterous to believe they would inject Bible into the Constitution. Seriously, what is the evidence??
Centurion1, you are posting the very exact things Christians and Republicans throw at you, word for word. At least you could have rephrased the statement to make it appear more original :juggle2:. Instead of parroting their words, go and see the Constitution and tell me where you see Christianity. Yes, they mention god in the Declaration of Independence. And even if it were the founding fathers who used "under god", those two things were, for those times, innocent symbolism - after all, you can separate religion from the state, but you cannot deny the existence of the religion, now can you?
Listen here cowpoke, I know exactly what you're talking about. This is my are of specialty.
You're smart but tact will take you farther.
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 04:36
Listen here cowpoke, I know exactly what you're talking about. This is my are of specialty.
I do not know how much you know about this, and I am willing to believe you, but I am taking a college course on American founding fathers, so I am not exactly clueless, although far from an expert. One of the main highlights we went over was their religious affiliations... We read their personal writings. It was nothing ambiguous - those guys did not want religion in the government. They would certainly not approve of Zain, especially not Jefferson, with his notorious fame for "cutting out with scissors" the passages of the Bible he did not approve of.
You're smart but tact will take you farther.
I am normally tactful, but I have trouble tolerating creationist fundamentalist Christians when they begin to speak about their beliefs. And really, they are the only people I have met in all my life who have that effect on me. Normally, in RL, it is very difficult to anger me, but I avoid Young Earth creationists because I know there is no need to make unnecessary enemies :sweatdrop:.
No need for patronising BTW, y'know... :juggle2:
Strike For The South
10-14-2009, 04:47
I do not know how much you know about this, and I am willing to believe you, but I am taking a college course on American founding fathers, so I am not exactly clueless, although far from an expert. One of the main highlights we went over was their religious affiliations... We read their personal writings. It was nothing ambiguous - those guys did not want religion in the government. They would certainly not approve of Zain, especially not Jefferson, with his notorious fame for "cutting out with scissors" the passages of the Bible he did not approve of.
Jefferson and Franklin were both openly disdainful of religon, but it was more the fact that religon retarded thought more than religon was a bad thing. Both were diests (although the evidence is stronger for Jefferson. Franklin was probably a full blown atheist) that saw Jesus as a figure to be emulated (You mention the Jefferson bible where he cut out all of Jesus miricales)
Many of the Virigians were profit men while the NE men were more puritan but even men like Sam Adams had no use for God.
I am in full agreement that todays christians (ESP. evangillicals) have misconstrued the symbolism in God with a literal meaning which is false.
I am normally tactful, but I have trouble tolerating creationist fundamentalist Christians when they begin to speak about their beliefs. And really, they are the only people I have met in all my life who have that effect on me. Normally, in RL, it is very difficult to anger me, but I avoid Young Earth creationists because I know there is no need to make unnecessary enemies :sweatdrop:.
No need for patronising BTW, y'know...
I'm not patronising just suggesting. And the only reason I do it is becuase I am guilty of the same crime.
Kadagar_AV
10-14-2009, 04:55
I believe this would be a good time for me to *bow* out of the topic :dizzy2:
Darwin must be spinning in his grave; "Why is that :daisy: still alive!?"
Strike For The South
10-14-2009, 04:57
I believe this would be a good time for me to *bow* out of the topic :dizzy2:
Darwin must be spinning in his grave; "Why is that :daisy: still alive!?"
Who are you talking about?
I'm still a devout Christian but don't think my religon has any place in my goverment or in my school.
But don't bash those who hold a different scientific opinon than you. No matter how odd you think it is.
Kadagar_AV
10-14-2009, 05:11
My girlfriend is also christian, so I don't mind...
That is, as long as you are open to other ideas, you dont lock yourself in one line of thought, and, as you said, have some sort of scientific opinion.
That is, you don't just draw conclusions and "facts" from thin air and wave them around as the truth and only way.
Strike For The South
10-14-2009, 05:13
My girlfriend is also christian, so I don't mind...
That is, as long as you are open to other ideas, you dont lock yourself in one line of thought, and, as you said, have some sort of scientific opinion.
That is, you don't just draw conclusions and "facts" from thin air and wave them around as the truth and only way.
Well first off I'm glad you don't mind I'm a christian that's a load of my back
As for the rest of your post: I could say the same for the other side of the aisle
To say "It's only ok if you sit in back and SHUT THE **** UP" is intolerance and stinks of elitism.
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 05:20
Well, a recent Christian myself, I do not mind Christianity of course, and even often encourage it (in addition to pretending to be an ardent Christian when it is in my best interest :devilish: - although I have no qualms over flaunting my atheism), but I am firmly set against Young Earth Creationism, the fundamentalist movements, a great portion of the Southern Baptists and such, as all three are essentially in one category, sharing very little in the way of dissimilarities.
Kadagar_AV
10-14-2009, 05:21
Why so hostile?
To say "It's only ok if you sit in back and SHUT THE **** UP" is intolerance and stinks of elitism.
Agreed.
Did I hint that that was my opinion, or?
I just find it meaningless to try to discuss with young earth creationists... It's basicly a waste of time. I don't tell them to shut anything up though, they can rant as much as they want. I just can't be bothered to listen.
They have a whole world of knowledge outside their window and on their computer. If that can't convince them, neither can I.
Strike For The South
10-14-2009, 05:29
Well, a recent Christian myself, I do not mind Christianity of course, and even often encourage it (in addition to pretending to be an ardent Christian when it is in my best interest :devilish: - although I have no qualms over flaunting my atheism), but I am firmly set against Young Earth Creationism, the fundamentalist movements, a great portion of the Southern Baptists and such, as all three are essentially in one category, sharing very little in the way of dissimilarities.
Those are my peeps homeboi. I will admit the ignorance I encounter at times is frighting but they are still some of the kindest people I have ever met. People whom would clothe and feed you if you needed it.
TBH I find most atheists some of the most self absorbed insulated people I have ever met. Maybe it's becuase they live her or maybe its becuase the only reason I find out they are atheists is becuase They are usually the loudest in the room
Why so hostile?
Agreed.
Did I hint that that was my opinion, or?
I just find it meaningless to try to discuss with young earth creationists... It's basicly a waste of time. I don't tell them to shut anything up though, they can rant as much as they want. I just can't be bothered to listen.
They have a whole world of knowledge outside their window and on their computer. If that can't convince them, neither can I.
Well it looks like we're in agreement
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 05:34
To say "It's only ok if you sit in back and SHUT THE **** UP" is intolerance and stinks of elitism.
Well, I disagree. For one, is it intolerant to ridicule and avoid intolerant people? I do not think so. That is my rationale for avoiding the radical Christians who are too public about their faith. I have no problems with being friends with a Young-Earth creationist (and I do as a matter of fact have a couple) but those two keep their beliefs to themselves, which is why I associate myself with them.
Elitism is being snobbish in front of stupid people. Fundamentalists are not stupid - they can very well be intelligent, but they are stubbornly ignorant. I consider ignorance and stupidity two very different words. Ignorance is literally, in my own definition purposely ignoring facts for various reasons, or alternatively, as the dictionaries say - not being aware of those facts in the first place. But I will focus on the first definition. It is thus simply being headstrong. Stupidity is well, we all know what that is. Being snobbish in front of ignorant people is not elitism - it is simply being not wise, or tactful as you pointed out, SFTS.
My family is good friends with a couple in their fifties, and they are very intelligent in all respects. They have read a great deal, and the husband has a PhD. But they are both Southern Baptist creationists. Stupid? Of course not. Ignorant of even the most basic biology? Definitely. In general very stubborn? You betcha. They believe in numerous long-disproved old wives' tales and the two have a funny idea they are somehow more correct than the whole world... Talk about contrasts...
So ... how 'bout them Nobel Prizes, huh? Pretty wacky. If you ask me, too many women (http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/10/12/nobel-prizes-2009-a-record-year-for-women-41431/) getting them. It's a man's world and a man's prize, and those brainy chicks have no business taking away the prizes that rightfully belong to their husbands. You really mean to tell me that Ada Yonath deserves one just for describing the atom-by-atom structure of ribosomes? Gimme a break, lady. Shut that over-educated yap and make me a cake.
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 05:39
T I will admit the ignorance I encounter at times is frighting but they are still some of the kindest people I have ever met. People whom would clothe and feed you if you needed it.
That is very much true. Church people are on average much warmer, kinder, and more generous.
TBH I find most atheists some of the most self absorbed insulated people I have ever met. Maybe it's becuase they live her or maybe its becuase the only reason I find out they are atheists is becuase They are usually the loudest in the room
Same here, but only for the young atheists. Especially the "hard-core" atheists whom I dislike no less than the fundamentalist Christians. And because atheism is most prevalent among adolescents and young adults, that is all you will see. For instance, all my Uni profs are atheists, and they are marvellous individuals. I would much rather live and be friends with their kind.
Although if I need help, I may go to a Church :P
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 05:43
So ... how 'bout them Nobel Prizes, huh? Pretty wacky. If you ask me, too many women (http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/10/12/nobel-prizes-2009-a-record-year-for-women-41431/) getting them. It's a man's world and a man's prize, and those brainy chicks have no business taking away the prizes that rightfully belong to their husbands. You really mean to tell me that Ada Yonath deserves one just for describing the atom-by-atom structure of ribosomes? Gimme a break, lady. Shut that over-educated yap and make me a cake.
Meh, a bit of luck there, a bit of political correctness here, and a piece of professionalism all the way yonder.
Just like Obama's victory :grin:
Can someone tell me how someone can be a Christian believer in the Holy Bible and still believe in Evolution?
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 06:03
Can someone tell me how someone can be a Christian believer in the Holy Bible and still believe in Evolution?
As much as I hate to agree with that statement, I have to admit you are quite correct and I view Christians who accept evolution as "compromisers", and not in a good sense either. Regretfully, Christianity needs plenty of tweaking to be suitable for evolution. Creationism merely follows the Bible (and then for some mysterious reason perverts it with the uncalled-for and the wildest imaginable hypotheses about dinosaurs :( ).
Which leads me to another point, which is best not uttered here... Having to do with Christians and their ign:daisy:...
Can someone tell me how someone can be a Christian believer in the Holy Bible and still believe in Evolution?
Why not? As long as someone doesn't take a literal interpretation of the Bible, there is really no reason why evolution and Christianity can't co-exist. Maybe evolution is part of God's plan, or even God tweaking his work as time passes. Why can't various scientific theories/laws just explain mechanisms God set in place?
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 07:01
Why not? As long as someone doesn't take a literal interpretation of the Bible, there is really no reason why evolution and Christianity can't co-exist. Maybe evolution is part of God's plan, or even God tweaking his work as time passes. Why can't various scientific theories/laws just explain mechanisms God set in place?
Well, that is making it more complex... Not literal? How much of the Bible is "not literal"? Where do we stop?
Kadagar_AV
10-14-2009, 07:03
Well, that is making it more complex... Not literal? How much of the Bible is "not literal"? Where do we stop?
Didn't you know?
The bible is like a smorgosbord where you can pick and choose the parts you like :laugh4:
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 07:38
The bible is like a smorgosbord where you can pick and choose the parts you like :laugh4:
Of course, even the creationists do it all the time... What happened to the Old Testament Laws - when creationists love to maintain that all parts of the Bible matter, including the Old Testament? Or the New Testament idea that you have to give up your earthly wealth to be saved? Pick n' choose :2thumbsup:
Banquo's Ghost
10-14-2009, 08:02
This has long left the original topic behind, and whilst there are some well-argued posts developing, there are also some rather distasteful trolls peeking from beneath their bridges.
If a new thread on evolution/religion/the founding fathers emerges, I suggest participants treat their opponents with respect, as per the Backroom Rules.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.