Peace for What?

 

 

 

I never dreamed in a thousand years that I would ever agree with Hamas, that anarchist paramilitary group consumed with the destruction of Israel. My sentiments – indeed, my convictions – lie firmly with the state of Israel, both because of biblical and historical realities.

But today's column has nothing to do with Zionism or Semitism or even the Jews themselves. It has everything to do with an award that was handed out recently to the president of the United States, one that neither I nor Hamas nor (it now seems) millions of others agree with.

In other words, Barack Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is a bizarre twist of what the prize stands for. I rank that debacle of honour up there with Henry (the-father-of-abortion) Morgentaler getting the Order of Canada.

Much of the outrage has come because Obama has been in the Oval Office for only a few months. Listen, people: The nomination came through by the first of February! He had been in the office for only a few days!

Others are outraged, and this is where I come in, at what he has done in the name of peace, or better, what he hasn't done. Re-stated: What has he done to create peace in this troubled planet? I have no problem giving a president the Nobel Peace Prize (there was the precedent of the president, if you will) if, in fact, he has done something. But when a man has done nothing, that is a joke – a very bad joke.

We all know that he has plans for peace. But don't we all? Since when did this noble (pun intended) prize get awarded for something that hasn't happened yet? To carry this logic further, I can think of a number of businessmen, scientists, and others, who are on the verge of doing something great. Perhaps we should award them a prize for their prospective work, too.

Whether I am against a socialist president of arguably one of the most powerful nations in the world is a moot point. He could be a right-wing gas jockey, for all I care. You just don't give men awards having done nothing. You don't do that at schools, churches, businesses, or any other normal institution. It seriously cheapens the Nobel's credibility.

I know there has been this nauseating groundswell of support for the man as the next messiah. The hype has gone beyond tedious; it's actually downright scary. I don't even think he would promote himself in that manner. In all fairness, I understand Mr. Obama was as shocked at getting the Nobel Peace Prize as he is in being considered a messiah.

If you want to nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize, I have a name for you. His efforts in promoting peace around the world and throughout the centuries, across the borders and over the barriers, have stood the tests of time, space, and substance. His influence has altered homes, communities, nations, and history itself.

Agree or disagree about my candidate – Jesus Christ Himself – you must admit, even if you are a token student of history, that when His peace principles are carried out, things are radically and positively different. I will be the first to admit that many who have claimed to be His followers have bungled the mission supremely, but that in no way lessens the power of peace created by the world's only genuine Messiah.

Obama would do well to have a track record of centuries (not days), of cross-cultural followers (not a few capable hacks), of realistic solutions (not artificial handouts) before he steps up to accept this prize.

I would love all to agree with me, but that has never been the case. Funny, I don't think even Hamas and I would be on the same page on this one, either.