A Sham Prize

The biggest news of the day: Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. I would be happy for him except I think the meaning of this prize is so hollow that it simply boils down to ... money, really. On the one hand, I do not know anybody in the recent year who did more for easing up tensions in the world than Obama. Who else was a better candidate for the prize? Angelina Jolie? Mikheil Saakashvili? Sarah Palin? Give me a break! They had no better choice! So no, I do not begrudge the person who received the prize this year.

On the other hand, the company he finds himself in is questionable at best. Think about it: Al Gore was awarded the same prize 2 years ago for his invention of a man-made global warming. Mikhail Gorbachev was awarded this prize a number of years back even though his policies led to the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union and the unprecedented number of military conflicts and deaths on the territory of the former Soviet Republics. Even Yasser Arafat got awarded that prize! And we all know how instrumental he was for the peace process in the Middle East.

Oh, and did you know that for a brief time Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939 by a member of the Swedish parliament?

So for all practical purposed, in my mind the Nobel Peace Prize is completely meaningless, if not a bit embarrassing.

Parental Insecurities

President Obama addressed the nation's school children yesterday via a live televised address. I am not sure if it was shown to high school children - I don't have kids in grade school any more, and my son's high school did not show the address, nor did it contact the parents discussing why it did not. It is possible that the rationale was that it is too late to be preaching basic values to teenagers in high school. I am not sure. I certainly hope that the school did not make this decision because a school for rich white kids does not need to air an address by a black President (many of the parents of those white rich kids voted for this President, and to this day they have not removed the Obama stickers off their rear bumpers as they drop their children off at school).

What surprised me was that this speech has caused such a stir. A friend of mine who I love and respect very much called me yesterday morning and asked me if I felt threatened by my son being exposed to the socialist propaganda in Obama's speech. She had her son opt out of listening to the speech in his school. Well, first of all, I do not see what was so socialist in encouraging kids to do their best in school.  (Unless it is now a basic capitalist value to not study well which I won't rule out completely - just look how pathetic our academic school achievements look compared to the rest of the world.)  And secondly, no I do not feel threatened by exposing my son to speeches by all sorts of individuals. I feel very confident that as a parent who talks to her children, I can undo any harm done by those people. I think it is healthy for a child to be exposed to different views on the subject, to develop some critical thinking of his own, and to be able to argue one's position against some opposing views.

I don't even feel threatened by the teachers some of which consistently preach tree hugging, environmental Nazism, and man-made tales of man-made global warming. I feel annoyed that my son's time and our money is being wasted in classes like that.  I did unsuccessfully try to reason with one of my son's "science" teachers who spent a year promoting her environmental political agenda, as well as with the school administration to make the curriculum a bit more relevant to the declared course of study. However, other than a waste of time I did not fear any indoctrination of my child into those extreme values. You see, I TALK with my child. Over the years I managed not to lose my child's TRUST. And I in turn trust my child to think for himself and to make judgments by himself. 

It perplexes me why the public is up in arms against a 20-minute speech, or wants to eliminate great books like "Huckleberry Finn" from the curriculum, yet nobody that I know of was objecting to that substandard instruction our "science" teacher provided for a year.  It sure seems to me that the public's priorities are seriously screwed up.

I think the most important value we have in this country is the freedom of speech.  And this means that as a society we are going to be consistently exposed to some views with which we disagree.  This is normal.  I see my mission as a parent not to indoctrinate my child into my particular set of political beliefs, but to raise him as an independent thinker.  Doing that without exposing him to a variety of views is impossible.  To me opting out of listening to some speeches which MIGHT contain something you disagree with amounts to  censorship and ultimately, to propaganda of your own views.  Communists felt threatened by the capitalist values which they feared might corrupt the hearts of their citizens, and that is why they completely censored them from our eyes and ears.  Why parents in America feel as insecure beats me.

Separation of Church and Conscience - Part II

Fox News is reporting today:

"A Phoenix-area pastor has started to draw protesters to his congregation after he delivered a sermon titled, "Why I Hate Barack Obama," and told his parishioners that he prays for President Obama's death.

Pastor Steven Anderson stood by his sermon in an interview with MyFOXPhoenix, which reports that the pastor continues to encourage his parishioners to join him in praying for the president's death.

"I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today," he told MyFOXPhoenix on Sunday. He called his message "spiritual warfare" and said he does not condone killing. [...]


"I'm gonna pray that he dies and goes to hell when I go to bed tonight. That's what I'm gonna pray," he told his congregation."
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/31/phoenix-pastor-draws-protests-telling-church-prays-obamas-death/?test=latestnews)

A few days ago I expressed surprise at a minister spreading a very unchristian message of not sharing your wealth. I realize we have freedom of speech in America. But is there freedom of speech within the Church? The Church after all, is an ideological institution charged with a propaganda mission. There are certain tenets of faith which I would imagine should be upheld by the ministers, at least in their sermons. One of which is to love your enemy ("Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Matthew 5:44). To pray for someone's death seems to be not only in exceptionally bad taste, but it also runs contrary to the church doctrine, and it should not be tolerated by the Church if the Church wants to retain the authority as a spiritual leader.

Messages of hate and calls for violence should not be tolerated when they come from spiritual leaders of any faith - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other. A Christian pastor praying for the death of a US President is no better than a Muslim cleric whipping his parishioners into a frenzy praying for the destruction of America.