Valid feelings, flawed foundations

[steuard]

The comments on my last post have helped me better understand my reaction to the mosque protests, so I thought I'd promote some of that to a followup post. (But this will be the last one, really!)

First, an important point that I hadn't thought about when writing my last post: whatever their ultimate cause, some people have very real feelings of pain and anger at the thought of a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero. Sure, the basis for those feelings is probably an irrational but very human generalization of negative feelings toward "Muslim terrorists" to "all Muslims" (much as I described before), but we all find emotions clouding our logic at times. Looking at it that way, some of my earlier comments were harsher than they ought to have been.

And in fact, I'd be more sympathetic to the folks objecting to this mosque if their emphasis were on their own feelings and their own limitations rather than on the "offensive" actions of the Muslims involved. I'd feel much more comfortable if everyone who objected simply said, "I'm sorry, I hate to admit this, but in this place I still have strong negative associations with the Muslim terrorists who caused me such pain. I know it's unfair, but I'm not ready to cope with a Muslim community center so close just yet." But that's not the majority of what I've heard.

What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not! It might be more sensitive of them to refrain from building there (particularly if the objections had mostly been made in the way I described above), but the underlying problem is not of their making. Holding rallies to tell the Muslims they're not wanted (to the extent of driving away fellow Christian protesters if they happen to be Arabs) isn't a way of saying, "This is about my feelings." And it certainly isn't a way of saying, "...and I know those feelings aren't fair and I'm working to get over them."

That is why all these protests and objections bother me so much (and, I think, why I don't accept the word "offensive" as remotely appropriate in this context). If there is a valid reason to ask that the mosque not be built near Ground Zero, it must be made clear by everyone that even making such a request is an imposition on the innocent Muslims who are entirely within their legal and moral rights planning the project. But I don't think that's the spirit behind these protests. (And backing that up, the NY Times just published an article about opposition to new mosques all over the nation, most in "far less hallowed locations" than the general vicinity of Ground Zero.)


As a final thought, it's important to remember that the unfair mistreatment of Muslims in our society causes pain and humiliation and harm, too. We have to balance two types of undeniably real pain: the feelings of those for whom Muslims evoke the specter of terror, and the feelings of those innocents who face daily suspicion because of it. I don't know the best way to handle that. It may or may not be right, but I tend to have more sympathy with those who are being unjustly vilified than with those whose (real!) feelings are based on a flawed generalization.

False associations like "the terrorists were Muslim, so all Muslims are terrorists" are responsible for some of the darkest aspects of human nature. I think it's healthiest for everyone if we as a society work to recognize and reject them. And that's why I find it so upsetting when public figures who make these statements are taken seriously by society and the media rather than being condemned.

Comments

[pmb.livejournal.com]

The rich getting paid is important if we want to keep the program. It's stupid economics and good politics. You are also correct that it is a bad deal for people who die young. This is why national health care is important - it helps prevent poor people form dying young, and helps correct these imbalances. The "generational ponzi scheme" rhetoric is just dumb, however. This is how it was designed to work, and it is working well. This coming "generational crash" which we have heard so much about? Near as most people can tell, it amounts to about 1 trillion dollars in liabilities. Which is a lot, but not a lot if spread over many years. Medicare is screwed (although less so than before, thanks to Obama says the CBO ), but social security is pretty much solvent.

The bigger issue, however, is that by saying "blacks and the poor die young" you are stating it as if *Social Security* is the problem. The problem is that these people are *dying young*. Let's fix *that*.

As far as I have heard from economists, I have never heard of another proposal which actually provided a guarantee the way social security does. There certainly are ways to make more money. But not any which provide guaranteed security. It's a matter of goals. Social security provides extremely low returns and extremely low variance. This is a *good thing* for a program which is the last resort for many many people. If it gets an economics D, in the absence of a creditable alternative I'll blame the economists. This D-grade program is working well, and looks like it will keep working. Let's keep it.