Made-up hit job

It's difficult to express how horrible today's letter from David Osborn of Yukon is. It's a "zinger" type letter that the Oklahoman runs from time to time. Here it is, in its entirety: 

Women rights advocate Kate Kelly was excommunicated by the Church of Latter-day Saints for the 'public advocacy of positions that oppose church teaching.' Following this reasoning, one would think the same step would be taken against a Mormon of much higher profile who systematically lies, deceives, slanders, advocates for same-sex marriage and supports the killing of unborn babies (including partial-birth abortion) — all of which are contrary to God’s word and contrary to the teaching of the Mormon Church. 

Unless, of course, he happens to be the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid.

Got that? So this is a typical Oklahoman-type letter: if you insult high-level politicians like Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, and President Obama, there's a good chance that your letter will get run. Frequently, these insults invoke the S-word-- you know, "socialist"-- and have little other substance. Moreover, they often tend to be apropos of nothing. 

In this case, though, the letter is in reference to an actual event. (Naturally, because the editors are technologically inept, the Oklahoman doesn't bother to link you to the article Mr Osborn is referencing.) Moreover, it tries to make a compelling point: If the Mormon church is going to kick Kate Kelly out, why wouldn't it kick our Harry Reid?

To see how compelling it is, we should first see why it kicked out Kate Kelly. From this article, we see that she was kicked out for founding the group Ordain Women,

an organization that wants equal standing for women in Mormon church, which reserves its top leadership positions for men and does not permit female lay clergy.

Yikes. OK-- well if you're going to challenge direct church leadership not just on a particular issue but on how its leadership should change, you're taking a risk.

Now, what about Harry Reid? Well, Mr Osborn has a different list of reasons for thinking he should be excommunicated. First off, he argues that Harry Reid "systematically lies, deceives, [and] slanders." That's pretty bold! Can we back that up with some evidence? I mean, fine, it's easy to say that a politician is a liar-- they often make bold claims ("I will lower your taxes!") that don't come true, or that seem at odds with past or future votes. But voting for Congressional legislation is often not black and white and it would be difficult (if not completely boring) to nuance all of the issues that went into a seemingly duplicitous vote in a speech or interview.

OK, but what about "systematically" slandering? Slander is kind of a big deal-- if Reid is "systematically" engaging in this, there is probably a record of lawsuits and legal action against him. Of course, it's really all just overblown hype from the right-wing noise machine. "Oh no! Harry Reid called the Koch brothers some names! They should sue for slander!" Please. Just stop.

So, so far, all this letter has done is manage to associate Harry Reid with some negative words-- lies, deceives, slanders. It's all baseless, and a church isn't going to go excommunicating someone for baseless hyperbole.

What's next? Oh-- "advocates for same-sex marriage." OK. Indeed, that's a complicated situation, but as one paper (one in Salt Lake City, so we are clear) notes,

Reid, D-Nev., is the highest-ranking Mormon in the U.S. government and up until now has said he agrees with his faith's opposition to gay marriage, but on Wednesday, Reid aligned himself with Obama's newfound embrace for the legalization of same-sex unions.

On Thursday, reporters asked Reid if he would vote to legalize same sex marriage if it was on the ballot in Nevada and he nodded yes, even though he previously voted for the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Reid's stance is far from the stated position of the LDS Church, which considers homosexual behavior a sin and has repeatedly campaigned against attempts to sanction same-sex relationships, though in recent years it has supported political efforts to provide some legal protections to gay people. 

On more than one occasion, Reid has found his views on issues surrounding gay marriage departing from those of his faith, not that this would in any way threaten his standing in the church. LDS leaders regularly point to its statement on relationships with government, which says public officials who are Mormon make their own decisions and may not agree 'with one another or even with a publicly stated church position.'

The key things we can get from this is that a) Reid's position is evolving, which happens; b) it's not like the church actively hates gay people; and-- most importantly-- despite Reid's beliefs on this, he is not as risk of being excommunicated.

Right now, Mr Osborn is betting zero. Perhaps his last point will stick: "supports the killing of unborn babies (including partial-birth abortion)." OK, so this is also pretty compelling. Right? Oh, wait. Can this be correct? It seems like Reid has positions on abortion that are the opposite of what Mr Osborn has said. I mean, here are his votes!! Note this one:

It's hard to say that he "supports . . . partial-birth abortions" when, in fact, he voted for the bill that bans them. Right?

So at this point, Mr Osborn actually is just, well, lying and engaging in slander. Since we can make the assumption that Mr Osborn is probably a Mormon himself, we might wonder if HE should be excommunicated!!

A real newspaper would refrain from running letters that include made-up attacks on a politician-- particularly those that assert things that are the opposite of the truth. But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper. It runs propaganda pieces-- in this case, it wants you to associate Democratic leadership with certain words: liars, deceivers, pro-gay, pro-abortion. The facts are different, but that doesn't stop the Oklahoman.