Jeff: I agree. Lest I be misinterpreted, however, I don't see any evidence that the majority of politicians have even an ounce of fear or love of God. Most of them draw near to God with their lips, but we know how little Christ said that means. Actions (fruit) in accord with proper rhetoric are what count as evidence for integrity.

 

 

Daniel: Sure, I wish it was aswell, but it never was all that important. At least in the sense of recognizing the people who really ARE working for peace.

From the link Tom provided,

 

"Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans. In retrospect, the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee may seem too narrow. Gandhi was very different from earlier Laureates. He was no real politician or proponent of international law, not primarily a humanitarian relief worker and not an organiser of international peace congresses. He would have belonged to a new breed of Laureates."

It seems as though up until 1960 Obama would have fit right into the category of individuals who were awarded the prize. He's certainly a "real politician" as well as "a proponent of international law,"

I think that maybe the Nobel Peace prize should be more important than it is. But it has a history of neglecting anyone outside of it's immediate attention. It seems to me as though the entire enterprise of the Nobel peace prize is a way of Eurocentrics (I include Americans in that) patting themselves on the back for a job well done, instead of encouraging people to actually become peacemakers.