Not-So Intelligent Design

Tertullian- "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem."

This past week I read a news article saying that archeologists have discovered the oldest human remains in Israel: 400,000 years old. Much speculation surrounds the discovery and could drastically alter theories of human origin. Also this past week, I read a statistic that approximately 40% of Americans believed in some version of Intelligent Design (AKA- "Creationism"). Normally when I speak to religious fundamentalists about evolution, the most popular response that I receive is " I don't believe that we came from monkeys." It is at this point that I abandon the conversation because in most cases the individual's understanding is so misguided I do not wish to take the time having to reinvent the wheel to bring the discussion up to par. To make matters clear, primates are our cousins who share a common ancestor with modern man; we did not come from them as many like to argue.

I would like to approach this topic from a theological perspective since that is the language and discipline I am most familiar. The basis for ID is a strict, literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. To put it simply, there are people who believe that the ancient Hebrews and other Ancient Near Eastern groups processed and defined both history and science in a modern matrix. The Bible is not only a theological document, but can also be used in science text books. Put this way, the whole proposition seems almost laughable. To use the Bible as a polemical weapon to battle against the "evil" designs of science is to forfeit religious and spiritual credibility as a Christian. The most ancient forms of Christian faith, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, do not even endorse such a view. What fundamentalists must understand is that both religion and science seek truth, but do so in different ways. Where science becomes incompatible with religious beliefs, then those beliefs must be changed or modified to remain relevant.

Theologically speaking, evolution is completely compatible with the Christian religion. God the Father is both Creator and Love. The whole concept behind love is freedom- being willing to accept something or someone as is. I believe that evolution more adequately represents the character and economy of God. Since love implies freedom, then would it not be more plausible that God ALLOWS the universe and the rest of creation to "create" itself and pursue paths to life as it sees fit? Could God have given the universe the freedom to create itself? Science has shown how both the universe and carbon-based life have literally taken billions of years to shape itself. From Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding to Darwin's proposal that life evolved from lesser life forms, we are given a unique perspective of where humanity stands in the great scheme of things. Humans are related to and made up of the same materials as the rest of the creation around us. Evolution can serve to enrich that kinship between the environment and ourselves.

The Ownership of God

For many millions of people, the holiday season conjures up images and speculation about God and humanity's role in the grand scheme of things. Many churches around the world hold services commemorating the birth of Jesus and those involved. What becomes increasingly obvious to me is that there are some denominations claiming to represent the Christian God that simply do not. Instead, they detach and ignore the sacraments and portray an aberration of God that is foreign in Christian history. I went home for the holidays to visit my parents. The First Baptist Church there was holding the "Lord's Supper" on Christmas Eve night. No doubt, people earnestly believed that their worship was appropriate and theologically sound. However, their approach and lack of reverence was something alien to the rich history of Christianity and the Early Church. To view Communion as an empty symbol merely observed because it was a commandment given by Jesus is to severely undermine any attempt to serve as the Eucharistic community intended by God. If this is their understanding, then they do not worship the God of Christianity. This is merely one example of a church/denomination falsely representing the Christian God. I do not mean to suggest that people who attend, for example, this Baptist church are not Christian, but instead they are theologically and spiritually impoverished and anemic. This assessment is not based upon lack of piety or dedication, but a purposeful detachment and suspicion of the Sacraments given to the Church by God.

I realize that for many my statements come across as arrogant and divisive, but they are not so when viewed against the backdrop of Christian history and worship. Christians who restrict their view of God solely on the Bible are those who are least able to produce a tenable and intelligent account of Christianity. I often times try to engage and kindle conversation with my relatives about their options and views on God. What I have found is that most of them are ignorant of the Ecumenical creeds like Nicea and Chalcedon. They cannot list the parameters and descriptions of the person of Jesus or the attributes and relations of the members of the Trinity. Instead, many Protestants are only able to reference the Bible in their defense of the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity. What they fail to realize is that the Bible leaves more questions than answers and proof-texting a verse here and there is simply insufficient. For example, it is clear in his writings that Paul assumed that Jesus became the Son of God only after the Resurrection and that in other places, like Luke, Jesus is "adopted" by the Father (i.e. Jesus' baptism). There are so many conflicting views in the Bible that it was left to the Church Fathers, bishops, theologians, etc to determine the proper boundaries of Christian belief. To be ignorant of this fact is to be ignorant of what it means to be a Christian. The reason that the Church has creeds was that the Bible, as important as it is, simply wasn't enough to stand alone.

The holidays are meant to be a time of coming together and sharing. However, holidays are also meant to be a time of reflection and spiritual renewal. Let the full force and appreciation of the holiday season be realized by a return to the ancient faith and worship.

Wall Street and Main Street

As Republicans prepare to take control of the House and seat their members in the Senate, much criticism is still launched at Obama over the "bailout" of Wall Street. A strict dichotomy is being drawn between Wall Street and "main street." However, such a distinction represents a distortion of of the issues surrounding the credit crisis the world finds itself. The argument goes something like this: The banks and mortgage lenders got us into this mess by making imprudent loans which resulted in the vast numbers of foreclosures and other financial defaults experienced in the financial sectors." I am not defending Wall Street for their irresponsible purchasing of "toxic" mortgages or causing such loose regulations in the lending sector. But, Wall Street does not deserve all of the blame here. If one can recall, the US government is in part to blame for the burst of the housing bubble. It was Alan Greenspan who is largely responsible for keeping the return of US Treasury bonds at 1%. This may not seem like a big deal, but what it did was ensure that global investors were going to look to other places that yielded a higher return. With mortgages returning on average 8% and above, many viewed the housing sector as a much more attractive investment.

While Wall Street struggled to keep up with the demand of shareholders desiring a stake in the housing market, loans were issued with no proof of income or job assurance. While Wall Street is culpable, so are those who took out loans that could not be paid back. If Wall Street is irresponsible, then those individuals who took out these loans are even more so. Whether they realize it or not, they are the ones who entered into a contract and agreed to the terms of repayment. Many will complain and lay blame on the financial sector (and much of it is deserved) but to absolve themselves of responsibility in this quagmire is equally disgusting. In large part, capitalism is based upon greed and competition. When you agree to enter into its arena, don't complain if you get hurt because in all likelihood, you had a part to play in it as well. We are a nation that has a strong sense of entitlement, but if you are not too big to fail you really have no argument.

Obama: Compromiser or Victim

Political strategists are still debating the recent "compromise" President Obama has entered in to with Republicans, agreeing to grant a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans. Obama has been excoriated by by many who say that he has unnecessarily capitulated to Republicans, breaking his campaign promises and, in the process, further damaging his credibility with his own party. Bernie Sanders from Vermont and others have stated that Obama should have taken this issue to the people. Then, there is the position that Obama should have stood firm and even risk unemployment and middle class tax cuts lapsing forcing the opposition party to acquiesce. The truth of the matter is that none of these options are viable. Obama has suffered from splits and indecisiveness from within his own Democratic party making him susceptible to Republican filibusters. On many key issues, the Democratic agenda has been thwarted and upended by the minority. What traditionally was meant to be used only in extremely sensitive pieces of proposed legislation, the filibuster has been implemented on both the most mundane and popular issues. Again, this is symptomatic of our failed political system. I, like much of the nation, had high hopes for the Obama administration, but the fact remains that if you put good people in a bad system, the system always wins.

Instead of attention to far-reaching implications of our various fiscal and economic policies, it seems that no politician can see past his/her next election. It appears that our politicians are so myopic that they can only see 2, 4, or 6 years at a time. While political points are won and conceded, the nation suffers. Our current form of democratic government simply does not work. Nations like ours are destined to learn everything the hard way and at great expense. If those that have died for our freedom and for our democracy could see the state that it is in now, I believe they would demand immediate resurrection so they may die for a nobler cause. How much longer do we believe that countries like China will continue to purchase our debt at the low interest rate that it is currently? How much longer before the United States has to crawl before the IMF and the EU asking for a lifeline? Are we to be the next Ireland or Greece? US fiscal and economic inaction are more a threat to national security than any terrorist base or any documents that have been released in the past months. In essence, the very configuration of our democracy is perhaps the biggest threat to our country and the world.

In ancient Rome, a dictator could be temporarily appointed in times of serious national calamity, mostly in times of war. This individual had the power to do what was necessary to quell danger and stabilize the nation. The most notable strength of this option is that it eliminated the "red tape." I suggest that the United States have a modified version of this. Our president is already in charge of the armed forces and can deploy them as he sees fit to neutralize and respond to a potential national threat. Why not give the office an extension of power to deal with a economic crisis of this magnitude? Perhaps our nation will have to become insolvent before it finally extracts the cancerous growths from its democratic body.

What the "Wiki"!!

Over the past few weeks, there has been much debate and speculation on the significance surrounding Wikileaks. I have heard that this organization is endangering not only our national security, but potentially putting lives at risk. It has been suggested that those directly responsible for the leaking of this "sensitive" material be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and even, according to Mike Huckabee, executed. Who is really to blame here? Should the United States really place the blame solely on the shoulders of Assange? Is it Pfc. Bradley Manning who violated protocol in copying and disseminating these classified documents? While it may be easy to assign blame it is far more difficult to ascertain the true significance of this leak. Despite the fear-mongering, I would like to argue that these documents are truly helpful in aiding us in evaluating our government and better understanding the political climate we find ourselves. I think that these documents and cables cause more national embarrassment than a high-risk security threat. How many deaths have been reported due to the actions of Wikileakes? How many countries have openly disavowed further cooperative ties with the US over this issue? Has anyone declared war?

Everyday, we entrust diplomats and other government officials to represent not only our best interests, but those of the rest of the world. We count on these federal employees to be the face of the nation to others. Do we not have a right to know how the business that effects our standing in the world is really conducted? Do we not have a right to know what actions and methods our officials are engaged? The argument has been postulated that some business and discussions need to take place in secrecy and that in order for solutions to be found, it is essential that leaders be afforded strict confidence on certain matters. However true this may be, it is equally true that "classification" of materials happens at an alarming rate. ANYTHING is subject to classification these days. Any official who wants to be spared embarrassment or scrutiny can "classify" what they see fit. Many hear the term "classified" and immediately think that national security is involved. What they do not understand is how the process really works and the frequency of use. What is also implicit in the government's reaction to Wikileaks is its low view of its citizens. How dare the American people actually know the truth about what is going on!! What a tragedy that the American people are given information they can use to hold us more accountable!! Many in government talk about transparency and reaching out to the American public, EXCEPT when there is information that can embarrass them and only when it suites the political climate.

Another aspect of this case is how the American government is increasingly adopting and advocating censorship of information. No doubt the government has put pressure on Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard to stem the tide of support that Wikileakes receives. Speculation on labeling Wikileakes a terrorist organization have even surfaced. Interesting how anything we don't like we call "terrorist." For many years, the US has been severely critical of China's censoring of information of the Web citing that all have right to information made available via the Internet. Now, our own government seeks to shut down a site that it resents! How is that for hypocrisy? If we are truly serious about advocating and protecting freedoms that constitute our democracy, we should stand by those freedoms even when it is not convenient. Otherwise, we jeopardize what so many have fought and died for. Thank you Mr. Assange.

Cult of Militarism

Oscar Wilde~ "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."

In today's political climate, it appears that nothing is off limits for discussion and evaluation. Discussions range from rights of homosexuals to whether or not the legalization of marijuana is a viable option to rescue state budgets. However, one thing that you will never hear questioned or debated is the value of our military. It is without question sacrosanct. Sure, there may be disagreement on the various engagements they are currently involved, but they will always be referred to our nation's "heroes." Despite the conflict or war, the men and women in the military are glorified and put upon a pedestal. I never quite understood this kind of mentality. I recognize the need for a standing and well-equipped military to provide stability and act as a deterrent, but I do not understand the level of adoration afforded to the individuals serving. One could easily come to the conclusion that those in the military are doing so without pay or benefits. It could easily be inferred that they are completely selfless and have given themselves over to the greater good. The reality is much different and the sacrifice not so impressive.

I am primarily speaking about today's current military and not so much about the great generation that fought in WWI or WWII. There is no question that there have been great contributions and sacrifices by past individuals and generations, but I do not believe that our present military typifies those of past eras. Some wars were necessary evils (WWII) and some were the result of poor diplomacy and leadership (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan). These examples may be debated and the contributing factors that led to them scrutinized, but for general purposes they will suffice. I would like to ask questions about the true function of the military and explore the reality behind their existence.

1. The military participates in government sanctioned killing. In our society and religious backgrounds, we are told that taking another's life is a crime/sin. We have in our Constitution that "all men are created equal." Due to societal laws and culture, taking another life, except in extreme circumstances, is deemed as perhaps the most egregious offense. However, it becomes acceptable and is even encouraged when the government condones it. All of a sudden the criterion of how to determine whether life matters is placed with the government. As a result, a dehumanizing process takes place whereby people become terrorists, Communists, extremists. I would imagine that it is easier taking someone's life if you were able to put them in a nice demonic category. Why does the government have the authority to determine whose life matters? I guess that is a form of hypocrisy that our nation has to deal with. A nation who many claim is a Christian nation is anything but.

2. The military are in many ways mercenaries. There is a reason that the government continues to add incentives for those thinking about joining the military. There are signing bonuses, scholarships for school, and, not the mention, a way out of this terrible economy. Additionally, excellent medical care and family services are a plus. It is also notable that President Obama is placing a freeze on pay increases for those working for the federal government, except the military. If the people who serve in the military are as pure and sacrificing as we say they are, why not freeze their pay as well? It is because people always do what they think is in their best interest. How many would continue in the military if their payment were a meager stipend and the privilege of serving their country? I think there would be forced conscription if that were the case.

3. The military is meant to be apolitical and areligious. Those in the military are to obey orders and not ask questions. This statement is a generalization and does not take into account exceptional circumstances. Overall, a soldier does not need to have a deep understanding of the culture or historical background of the people or region they are going to occupy or engage. More attention is paid to weapons training than to obtaining a meaningful grasp of the roots of the conflict in question. The most important item that is needed, is an order. Why do we call people "heroes" who are trained to follow instead of to evaluate? Why are they placed in such high honor? Are they not already adequately compensated? Why do we glorify those who lack the power to disengage from a hopeless and reckless cause?

Many may disagree with my evaluation and view of the military. However, I think that I have brought questions that need to be addressed. A hero should not be someone who is told how to view the world, but instead exercises their constructive gifts upon it. War is the most destructive thing that humankind has invented. Perhaps it is more apropos to pity those in the military, because they subject themselves to serving in the capacity of pawns for political use.

"Closed" or "Open" Communion

Cardinal John Henry Newman~"And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism."

Today, I went to an Orthodox worship service and was reminded how difficult it was not to be able to take the divine gifts at the Eucharist. This practice is in stark contrast to many other Christian denominations. If one were to walk into an Anglican or other Protestant worship service, the odds would be that any baptized Christian is allowed to fully participate in the Eucharist; in essence, the individual would decide whether their beliefs and spiritual state would allow them to participate in a meaningful way in the Eucharist (the heart of worship). For this reason, a Baptist (one of the least liturgical sects) can take Communion in a Lutheran or Episcopal service. It is easy to point to the practice of "open" communion as promoting the inclusiveness of the Christian faith and worship experience. Many will say it is indicative of unity in diversity.

However, faith is not merely an individual affair. While no denomination is a monolith, there are certain doctrines and beliefs that need to be consistently maintained in order for Christianity to retain its uniqueness. Orthodoxy is the oldest form of Christianity that exists. Thanks to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Christian traditions have been established and its integrity preserved. It is no wonder that the Orthodox Church takes such an active role in protecting and safeguarding the hard won truths of Christian doctrine and proper worship. When a denomination practices open communion, they are subjecting and identifying themselves with the beliefs of those participating, orthodox (correct) or not. As a result, Christianity's identity is jeopardized for the sake of "unity".

State of Our Democracy

The famed playwright Oscar Wilde once state that, "America is the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." While this quote may be harsh towards the United States, it is not entirely unwarranted. After the November elections, I find myself truly doubting the state of our democracy. After all, democracy is only as good as its electorate; which, I view with suspicion. The US often presents itself as the poster child for what a democratic society looks like and judges the rest of the world according to what we think is the correct form of governance. While it is admirable that many of our citizens want to ensure that others around the world have the same opportunity to participate in government as we do, perhaps we should be more introspective of how our government really functions. For example, our recent elections have ensured that there is going to be political gridlock for the next two years as both parties are looking to the 2012 elections. At the time of this generation's greatest need, our country will be dominated by political posturing and ineffectiveness. If our democratic process is to be so lauded, then why do we lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in education, environmental reform, health care and other social programs, and acceptance of homosexuals in society? Why do we spend more on military spending than any other country in the world when our two neighbors are Canada and Mexico? What does it say about our political process that elects a person of the calibre of George W. Bush, potentially places an ill-informed and incompetent individual like Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency, or that fosters the rise of the counterproductive Tea Party Movement? Our government is so fractured and misguided that it is highly questionable as to whether our democracy can see us through this economic downturn.

Many of our European counterparts have strong democracies that continue to make gains and progress with respect to their economic concerns. What makes them different from us? I believe a major difference lies in a cultural and historic understanding that is embedded within their national identities. Unlike the US, many European countries have long histories spanning many centuries. As a result, they have an established and shared history that promotes unity, cooperation, strong political institutions, and international awareness. Granted, many of these attributes have only come about through a long period of evolution and maturation, but they have proven to be time tested. Many democratic countries have taken the long road to democracy traveling through oligarchies, monarchies/dictators, constitutional monarchies, etc. These countries have been tried through fire and have come out stronger for it. Not only have many of these democracies had to fight to maintain and sustain their forms of government, but they have also experienced trials as they transitioned to them. The US on the other hand was able to bypass all of these forms of government once it gained independence from Great Britain. Sure, America has had to fight FOR our democracy, but never (since the beginning) to OBTAIN it. One could argue that the strong sense of individualism and entitlement has led to a country that is both in decline and culturally stagnate.

If we are to get a true sense of what democracy is, then perhaps we should look to countries like England where students were protesting a rise in tuition, Ireland where many are visibly angered over severe austerity measures that are being implemented to curtail budget costs, or France that is undergoing similar measures. One could immediately point out that these countries have not displayed anything resembling unity with such fractious measures permeating their societies and are a poor example of a desired democracy. However, it can also be argued that despite the debates and discontent, these governments still find a way forward and do what is necessary to meet the challenges. At the end of the day, despite great difficulty in many instances, people are able to come together and place the interests of their nation ahead of their own. Even those that strongly protest their government's policies realize their importance in aiding that very government. The reason for this is that a larger majority of our democratic counterparts are better educated and attuned to the affairs of their nation. As a result, the "radicals" are kept on the fringe instead (like our government) in the center of the political sphere. I have talked to many Republicans in this country that voted and inquired as to their reasons as to why they voted as they did. It quickly became apparent that many have not read any reports by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), economists, voting records, etc. All many could state were mere talking points that they have picked up from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh and therefore void of any real content. I do not mind those who may disagree with me over various issues, but at least make a point to be informed about your views. I find it a very scary prospect that so many uninformed American's are able to vote and hold political office. I am thoroughly convinced that democracy is not something that people are entitled to, it is something that they have to earn. That is what I believe is the main difference between our European counterparts and us.

Does God Suffer?

I have recently been questioning and exploring the question of whether or not God suffers. Many theologians and lay people have taken the position over the last 100-150 (especially after the Holocaust) years that God suffers with His creation. Notable among these have been Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Indeed this position is very attractive and has strong emotional appeal to many. However, this view deviates from the Church's official position for the first 1800 years. I have attached a most helpful article that addresses this issue and the points that it fosters. I will briefly refer to some of the salient points of the discussion. If it is true that God suffers, then it is impossible for God to be all good because suffering implies a lack of good. I would also like to add that the view that God suffers comes dangerously close to violating the Council of Chalcedon which places boundaries around how the person of Christ is to be viewed: without confusion, change, division, or separation. The article below argues that God suffered in his humanity but not his divinity (again, this is what the Church universal taught since its beginning). If the sufferings of Christ also spilled over to his divinity, then it is impossible for God to know true human suffering. If suffering was transferred to God's divinity, then it can only be assumed that He suffered in some "mitgated divine matter, and thus He did not truly experience authentic human suffering." Our focus should not be on God suffering in solidarity with His creation, but His ability to abolish and restore His creation. I don't have faith in God because I believe He suffers with me, but that He has the power to conquer and abolish those things that rob me of experiencing His presence.

http://www.mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml

Culture of Failure

The gauge for whether a country and society is going to succeed or fail is the quality of its education system. Many tend to follow developments in education only when something of "noteworthy" interests come up such as evolution, Islam, length of school year, teacher evaluations, etc. The United States ranks among the lowest of all industrialized nations when it comes to progress and students scores in education. A strong tendency is the place the primary blame on teachers and their inefficiency in the classroom. No place is this felt than in Washington D.C. where 388 school employees received separation notices. Teachers are evaluated based upon students' test scores to determine whether they receive job security or not. There is no doubt that teachers need to be held accountable for the performance of their students and the quality of education that they receive. But to only focus on this side of education is to miss the overarching problem. The other side to this coin is our culture and parental neglect. It has become increasing difficult to enforce learning and use discipline to address disruptive behavior in our schools. Teachers increasingly find themselves having to confront behavior that detracts from their teaching. Much of this behavior is reflective of a poor home environment in which principles, ethics, and respect are sadly ignored. If parents are failing students at home, teachers should not be expected to shoulder this burden in addition to their teaching responsibilities. Furthermore, teachers should not be held entirely accountable for test scores and results when positive behavior and accomplishments are not reinforced when the students arrive home. What is the reason for educational laxness in our country? Why is the rest of the world leaving us behind? Simply put, we foster and live in a culture where failure and mediocrity is accepted. We like to hide behind laws such as "No Child Left Behind" to give us the false impression that we are doing what we can to help our children. We like to coddle and assure our kids that it is the educational system that is failing them without giving proper consideration to parents and our culture.

This past year in one of my classes I had a parent that did not even look at her child's report card for the entire year and was surprised when her son failed my class. Despite unheeded email notifications and online grade updates, she abdicated any responsibility and placed the blame solely on me, the teacher. This behavior is symptomatic of a society that likes to "pass the buck" to avoid taking responsibility. Our culture teaches that if we can find a scapegoat we have done our job. We need to foster a system in which both the educational and parental sectors mutually reinforce the other in a more effective and meaningful way. It takes a village to raise a child, not just a teacher.

Wolf By The Ears

Abraham Lincoln once remarked of slavery, "We have a wolf by the ears; we can neither let go nor hold on much longer." A dispute that seems to always be in the background of both domestic and foreign policy is the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. During recents months the peace process has ground to an halt over building freezes in the West Bank. What often goes unnoticed is America's blatant hypocrisy in brokering this situation. I have always heard that Israel is vital to US interests and security, but the fact seems to be the opposite. Much of the Muslim world has at least some negative feelings and concerns with our preferential treatment of a state that is in clear violation of international law. Israel is also a state that uses disproportional force in occupying more Palestinian land and subduing the populace of both Gaza and the West Bank. The modern state of Israel is founded upon displacing untold numbers of Arabs: some of whose families had been in the Holy Land for centuries. Conditions in the Palestinians territories are among some of the most impoverished in the world, subject to Israeli occupation and restricted travel. Many in both Israel and the US state that the Jews have a right to occupy the land at all cost because it was God who gave them that land. In essence, God is a real estate agent. All of a sudden, land becomes more important than people. Where are the words of Amos who rebukes Israel for ignoring the poor and the orphan? Where is the motivation to see those around us as our neighbors?

Israel faces two major hurdles in any future peace arrangements. The first is that if they stay true to their democratic commitment, they risk jeopardizing the Jewishness of the state due to increasing Arab populations within their area of governance. The second problem is that Israel will continue to rule through apartheid and continue to undermine its stated democratic principles. The solutions to this problem are not going to be easy and whatever any future parameters that are deciding upon to move this process along, it is going to be a long road. What cannot continue to happen is America consistently blocking UN resolutions against Israel and giving Israel a carte blanche to treat the Palestinians in the inhumane ways that have been in the interests of its "national security." The United States can no longer treat Israel as though they have our best interests in mind. They do not stop or aide us in combating terrorism. Instead, they create an atmosphere conducive to extremism and destructive ideologies. We must join the rest of the international community in helping construct a more constructive platform by which both the Palestinians and Israelis can make permanent gains that are mutually beneficial. If we fail, then we will continue to hold the wolf by the ears until it is too late.