"I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." -- Trent Lott, 2002 during Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party.

Maybe Gordon Smith would like to lead a discussion about what exactly are the problems Thurmond's segregationist policies would have prevented.

Mormons are among the most bigoted people in America... Our good Senator (sic) represents one of the whitest regions of the country and he truly represents them. (When he's not doing the bidding the his party's corporate and religious masters, that is.)

More from TPM:

Hmmm -- Smith thinks Lott's words were misconstrued, that he was wronged, and that he should never have resigned? Turns out that isn't what he said at the time. According an Associated Press article on December 17, 2002, Smith reacted as follows: "However they were intended, Senator Lott's words were offensive and I was deeply dismayed to hear of them," Smith said in a brief statement. "His statement goes against everything I and the people of Oregon believe in. I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to arrive at a decision that is best for the U.S. Senate and the country." Three days later, according to the AP, Smith also said: "I appreciate that Senator Lott has stepped down, it was a courageous thing for him to do..."Senator Lott's decision is best for the Senate and best for the country." Classic Gordon Smith -- condemns Lott when the pressure is on, but completely exonerates him when no one's paying any attention.

From NY Times columnist Frank Rich's sunday offering (seems relevant to this discussion):

Pushed over the edge by his peers’ polite chatter about Mitt Romney’s sermon on “Faith in America,” Lawrence O’Donnell branded the speech “the worst” of his lifetime. Then he went on a rampage about Mr. Romney’s Mormon religion, shouting (among other things) that until 1978 it was “an officially racist faith.”

That claim just happens to be true. As the jaws of his scandalized co-stars dropped around him, Mr. O’Donnell then raised the rude question that almost no one in Washington asks aloud: Why didn’t Mr. Romney publicly renounce his church’s discriminatory practices before they were revoked? As the scion of one of America’s most prominent Mormon families, he might have made a difference. It’s not as if he was a toddler. By 1978 — the same year his contemporary, Bill Clinton, was elected governor in Arkansas — Mr. Romney had entered his 30s.

The answer is simple. Mr. Romney didn’t fight his church’s institutionalized apartheid, whatever his private misgivings, because that’s his character. Though he is trying to sell himself as a leader, he is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his flip-flops on nearly every issue.

seems relevant to this discussion

Yep! Just find "Romney" and replace it with "Smith."

I think Rich's comments enlighten the discussion about Smith because, "(T)hough he is trying to sell himself as a leader, he is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his flip-flops on nearly every issue."

"(We shouldn't be) blaming (Smith) for what his church did in the past."

I agree, but it happened in the past while Smith was a member (and also a member of one of the most one of the most prominent mormon families in the nation).

This is not holding Smith responsible for what his church did, it is holding him responsible for how he reacted to it.

And it speaks directly to whether he is a maverick, or whether he is a follower who is unable or unwilling to fight against orthodoxies and institutions when they are wrong.

Frank Rich seemed to think these were legitimate issues regarding Romney, and because the men are so strikingly similar, I think it's a legitimate issue for Smith.

I know you're not going to like this, Kari, but I think it highlights the different judgments and priorities of a journalist observer like Rich compared to a partisan consultant who gets paid to elect politicians.

Jeff, when you say this: "The theme on this thread appears to be ... Smith is a racist because his religion was," (besides the fact that nobody said that) it makes me think you missed this:

This is not holding Smith responsible for what his church did, it is holding him responsible for how he reacted to it.

And it speaks directly to whether he is a maverick, or whether he is a follower who is unable or unwilling to fight against orthodoxies and institutions when they are wrong.

I understand why a frank discussion that includes religion is uncomfortable for political partisans connected closely with campaigns, but I'm still more persuaded by the judgment of Frank Rich and the NY Times than I am by your argument, seein's how it's based on a misplaced inference to begin with.

"As far as I'm concerned, everyone's religion - and their sex life - is pretty freaky when you get down to the details." -- Mo Rocca

Ahhhh, Jeff ...

criticize me for an array of charges flatly refuted by even a casual reading of my blogs over the past five years.

Where The F*#@! did that come from? Take a lunch break. Your thoughts apparently needs some clearin'

Moreover, not everything is about you, when I wrote "I understand why a frank discussion that includes religion is uncomfortable for political partisans connected closely with campaigns," I was actually thinking of someone else.

Most important, if you continue to flog the lazy "you're-just-pissed-cause-you-got-kicked-off-BlueOregon" fall-back position every time I disagree with you, I'm really gonna have to start questioning your intellectual work ethic. You can do better big fella. C'mon, put some leg into it.

By the way, I followed Kari's well-intentioned advice, and I feel kind of liberated over at The World's Maddest Dog.

I should have written:

"I understand why a frank discussion that includes religion is uncomfortable for political partisans and those connected closely with campaigns."

My apologies (blush) Also for never having missed your blogs tackling religion in American politics.

Mike Austin, My favorite history professor and a very dear family friend are both Mormon. Broadbrush statements like your comment are not a lot much better than racism, as broadbrush is a form of propaganda. You may not like their beliefs, but don't broad brush all people who attend a certain church. And no, I am not a Mormon and never would be.

We need to be able to have the conversation about Mormonism's racist past. (Just like we need to have a similar conversation about Catholicism's sexist present.) And when people who belong to a racist/sexist/discriminatory group later enter public life, it is not inappropriate to ask them to reconcile their personal views against those of said group. This is as true for people who belong to all white/all male country clubs as it is for people who belong to all white/all male religions.

This is especially true when said public person says something that could be construed as supportive of racism, which is the current case with Gordon Smith.

While the flip flopping will give us hours of enjoyable muck, I agree with David Kurtz at Josh Marshall's place:

For my money, this is the best part of Sen. Gordon's defense of Trent Lott's Strom Thurmond homage:

"We knew what he meant."

Who's we? And what did he mean?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061327.php

HEY SMITH: WHO IS WE AND WHAT DID YOU MEAN?

(PS I don't speak "wink and nod")

As a Catholic, and as a person who reasons as well, I can understand why "sexism" is a charge leveled against the Church.

It's hard to comprehend why anyone would believe that Jesus is God, that the Eucharistic food is the body and blood of the Lord, that Jesus effects this change through priests, and that priests have to be male because of the sign (just as the matter of the sacrament has to be bread and wine).

Things partly understood because of their basis in faith become problematic in forums such as this. I ask only for an attitude of respect, which I assure you is reciprocal.

Well said, Bill V.

After all, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Not exactly fodder for a blog discussion.

LT and lestatdelc,

I certainly deserve your criticism and I apologize for offending individual Mormons.

I have the utmost respect for religion. I think it's important, however, that religion not be given special immunity from social scrutiny simply because it involves deeply personal issues of faith. This is especially true when churches insert themselves politically as agents of oppression, such as the Catholic church's crusade against gay marriage and gay families.

And when people of faith enter politics, it is fair to ask them how their faith influences their views, if at all. Does Mormonism's racist past influence Smith or Romney's views towards minorities? Does Catholicism's view of women and oppression of gays influence a Catholic politician's beliefs?

These are legitimate questions.

Miles, While I disagree that the Church wrongs homosexual persons by its teachings - I agree with your point that religious persons need to own up to how their views would influence their policies. But the same, I think, goes for everyone. Few office holders or aspirants are forthright in their words. To single out Catholics on this matter, for instance, would be very misleading indeed. And I'll bet you agree.

To single out Catholics on this matter, for instance, would be very misleading indeed.

People who spout thoroughly unsupported nonsense about supernatural gods and goddesses, and use their evidence-free tales to deny women medical care, deny gays and lesbians basic civil protections, and dumb down science education, deserve respect because..?

And Catholics are particularly horrific because, let's face it, they deny priests close personal relations with other adults (i.e., they ignore basic, evidence-based biology), with clearly disastrous and predictable consequences for children everywhere. Billions in settlement agreements are a little tough to ignore!

Why does an international organization of convicted pedophiles deserve any respect? NPR's "Here and Now" just interviewed some guy from the Boston Archdiocese about a new Catholic "outreach program" for teaching kids to avoid abuse.

Ewwww....

"Unsupported nonsense" is not what we do. Billions of people will concur. Yours is simply a cry of wrath. Yours- the unsupported and false accusations!

We do not deny priests close personal relations. They choose it - as Jesus says- "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

These "disastrous and predictable consequences for children" are the choices of those individuals who commit those heinous crimes- as they are for pedophiles everywhere.

"Billions in settlement agreements" are evidence of how authorities ignored and mishandled its own problem priests (who did these unfathomably reprehensible things)- it is true. I have plenty of complaints myself with their neglect.

But to label the Catholic Church as an "international organization of convicted pedophiles." is just an act of bigotry and hatred- a generalization of immensely unjust proportions- the countless people who have benefitted from its acts of charity would never stand with you.

We do not deny priests close personal relations. They choose it - as Jesus says- "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

Or to hide their homosexuality... with CLEARLY disastrous consequences. (and it ain't just Catholics - Larry Craig, anyone?)

When you're saturated from childhood with poetic delusions about "the kingdom of heaven," it's frighteningly easy, apparently, to delude yourself on other, more serious matters right here on earth.

And we can - and certainly should - offer charity without all the supernatural nonsense, or "rules" based on someone's supernatural nonsense, that lead so directly to misogyny, homophobia, scientific illiteracy - and (pretty obviously here) abuse.

an "international organization of convicted pedophiles." is just an act of bigotry and hatred

Based on evidence - billions of dollars in Church settlements, more settlements sure to come, Jesus dead for two millenia, and adults with clear biological needs for attachment and relations with other adults subverted by creepy supernaturally based "choices..." Ewww....

People who encounter God cannot, should not have to deny they do, just because you do not share the same experience.

People who encounter God cannot, should not have to deny they do, just because you do not share the same experience.

Yes, but when those people reference their "encounter" with a supernatural Zeus, Baal, or Jebus to justify denial of health care for women, selectively erase basic civil protections for gays and lesbians, restrict scientific investigation - and repeatedly abuse children - they've crossed a line.

They definitely don't deserve "respect..!"

And I want my kids to learn science and fully explore their world, respect both men and women, appreciate their gay and lesbian family, friends and co-workers as fully human - and thus generally be wary of imams, rabbis and especially priests!

But enjoy your personal, supernatural encounters - although it's hard not to notice that those with the most vehement "testimony" usually have something pretty awful they're trying to hide... (Certainly explains the Catholics!)

". . . reference their "encounter" . . . to justify denial of health care for women, selectively erase basic civil protections for gays and lesbians, restrict scientific investigation - and repeatedly abuse children - they've crossed a line. Where do you get this stuff?

Where do you get this stuff?

From the news. Public record. Providence doctors. And, let's see - the Portland Archdiocese was the #1 contributor to the "Yes on Measure 36" campaign. Stem cell researchers heading to Europe and Asia. And how many billions have you guys paid to settle past abuse claims? How many more millions were ordered set aside to handle those inevitable future claims?

That's the real problem with reality, isn't it - it exists!

But woo-woo supernatural claims about the Angel Moroni (I mean, Jesus H. Christ, Mary, the Holy Ghost, the Father - how many gods are there in Catholic mythology?) - apparently, these can change hourly, if need be. Order up an encyclical, delivered in a gown. Very handy! But with serious consequences (ewwwwwww!)

The Church does change- I grant- but organically, by development, like a child growing up. Not fundamentally- as you seem to imply. That should make sense- not be a source of surprise. Encyclicals are just letters that help convey that self-understanding. Mary, although extremely important as the one whose "yes" to God brought Jesus decisively into the world, has never been considered more than a human person. The Holy Trinity- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "One God" not three- analagously to space being one, although three dimensional. The Church is not against stem cell research (the contrary)- just against killing the unborn or using the results of that killing to accomplish it. And yes, the Church defends the mutual complementarity of men and women and that role of the unity which organically finds fruit in children. This is a natural consequence of that complementarity and the reasonable foudation of the rights which they engender. But you are misleading in the way you couch all these things.

The Holy Trinity- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "One God" not three- analagously to space being one, although three dimensional.

<h2>And Athena sprang fully formed from Zeus' head. Great story!</h2>