What if we’re not bigoted so much as paranoid? What if discrimination is merely a symptom, and the bigger, actual problem lies just below the surface: We’re afraid. We’re simply trying to block any person that could lead to our own untimely (or even timely) death.

Today the topic-du-jour is immigration from any Muslim-heavy country – but the topic could apply (and has in the past) to racism, Zionism, sexism – well, the full range if ‘“isms.’“

If North Korea lobbed a missile in America’s direction, we’d be surprised but not shocked because North Korean’s leader has threatened to do so – and he’s not cooking on all four burners. What we don’t have a handle on, however, is the invisible mass killer who ‘“seemed completely normal,’” like the San Bernardino terrorist couple willing to leave an infant behind to kill a bunch of innocent people at an office Christmas party.

How, we wonder, do we protect our children, our town, our own jaded butts from this kind of invisible insanity?

Answer: We make something up.

We convince ourselves we can stop it, but, in the absence of understanding the cause, we Olympic-jump to conclusions. If a vacuum exists – if we can’t figure out a simple way to stop this kind of tragedy from occurring – we overextend, such as: “By God, we’ll stop all Muslims from entering the country. That will stop radical terrorism.”

We analyze it, categorize it, minimize it and create an aura of control.

Why we do it

Mankind has wrestled with death – and specifically early and unfair deaths – since the first gray cells started firing. The Greeks believed The Fates (Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos) cut someone’s life string, resulting in instant death. It explained why a 20-year-old might drop dead for no earthly reason.

It wasn’t a good excuse, but it was an excuse. It explained the unexplainable.

Unfortunately, stupid reasons seem to work

If we decide Charlie wants to kill us, and we banish Charlie to Siberia, Charlie won’t kill us. As a result, Charlie’s banishment appears to work because Charlie hasn’t killed us. We’re no longer scared. We’re in control.

But that doesn’t mean we’ve dealt with the actual Charlie problem. We solved a personal problem – a fear for our own safety – but we still haven’t answered the central question: Did Charlie want to kill us in the first place? Does Charlie deserve a frozen life in the Russian tundra?

We may never know.

The downside to false solutions

A shortsighted solution such as banning Charlie to Siberia hurts Charlie. But maybe Charlie deserves it. Even if not a killer, perhaps Charlie isn’t such a nice guy, and a hearty Siberian winter is just what he needs to tone down his attitude.

Immigration issues, discrimination and other bigotries, however, involve more than one human being. Our over-the-top solutions to issues such as immigration not only affect Charlie, they hit everyone who shares Charlie’s country of origin, religion, sexual orientation, etc. For each problem solved, thousands and thousands of decent human beings get the shaft. It’s “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” though I’ve never been sure what that literally means.

False solutions also hurt us. By grabbing our attention, they keep us from focusing on the core problem – a legitimate fear for our own safety – as we focus on Band-Aid solutions that kick the can down the road.

False solutions also turn us into bigots – people who judge men and women by the color of their skin, the god they worship or the people they love.

Solutions aren’t easy, but they become easier if we start with the truth, recognize our own fears, and take logical steps to address the actual concerns while simultaneously respecting the sanctity of each human life.

© 2015 SmithTakes.com