Sally Quinn

"I’ve never understood the opposition to gay marriage." That's the confession with which Sally Quinn -- the agnostic, liberal editor of the Washington Post's "On Faith" religion section-- began her May 11 column. But rather than humbly seek an understanding of the religious faith that informs the beliefs of millions of American Christians, Quinn launched into an attack on them by comparing them to opponents of the racial integration of the nation's public schools.

History, Quinn insists, is on the side of the eventual societal and legal acceptance of same-sex marriage, and those who stand in the way will one day be haunted by it, living their lives knowing how wretched they were to oppose progress in the first place:

So, uh, have you heard that the Catholic Church is working up a "crackdown" on nuns? Of course you have, as time and again the media have been repeating the charge. Well, today Sally Quinn, the agnostic editor of the Washington Post's On Faith feature, joined in the fun with her April 24 screed about "A Catholic 'war on women.'"

From start to finish, Sister Sally poured forth bilious attacks on the Catholic Church. Here's how she opened her screed:

In a March 5 post in which she deemed Rush Limbaugh's Saturday apology to Sandra Fluke as insufficient to be rewarded by her holiness, Washington Post "On Faith" feature editor Sally Quinn pounded her electronic pulpit yesterday, condemning Rush's audience for being complicit in Limbaugh's sin of daring to bombastically criticize the Left (emphases mine):

Washington Post "On Faith" editor and religious agnostic Sally Quinn took time yesterday morning to hack out a blog post offending people of faith entitled, "What will God whisper in Herman Cain's ear next?":

The day before Mississippi voters went to the polls to decide whether to amend the state constitution to define "person" to include unborn children as early as the point of conception, Washington Post's Sally Quinn set out to denounce Initiative 26 on the "On Faith" blog that she edits.

Quinn, an atheist, groused that religious voters in the Magnolia State may make a significant change to the state constitution in order to protect unborn children's lives:

The mainstream media reluctantly started covering President Obama's Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy roughly one year after Fox News's Sean Hannity alerted his viewers to the controversial preacher's "God damn America" rants in 2007.

But when it comes to the 2012 Republican presidential aspirants, it appears the media are determined not to be late to the game in vetting their (real or imagined) "pastor problems."

For example, Washington Post's online "On Faith" feature yesterday wondered if Texas Gov. Rick Perry -- who is thought to be mulling a run but hasn't made a decision yet -- should be "judged by the religious company" he keeps.

 

Sally Quinn pronounced Oprah Winfrey  "America's high priestess" and a "true religious leader" in a Thursday item on The Washington Post's "On Faith" website. Quinn, who waxed ecstatic over Oprah Winfrey's final episode, even went so far to compare Winfrey's last hurrah to a papal Mass: "The pope couldn't have done better."

The writer launched right into painting Oprah as a spiritual guru in her blog post, entitled "Oprah: America's high priestess":

"Thank God for Jimmy Carter. He takes on the tough ones."

That's how "On Faith" moderator Sally Quinn ended her April 26 post "Does God hate women?"

Quinn insisted that it was "a question that never occurred to me until I began to study religion" and that the 39th president of the United States had a role in her examining the topic:

As we've noted time and again, "On Faith" -- a Washington Post/Newsweek-run religion news and discussion website -- is biased against, if not outright hostile to traditional religious belief, particularly traditional Christian theology.

This weekend's "Discussion" section topic provided more evidence of that.

Examining the controversy over Michigan pastor Rob Bell's book "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived," editor Sally Quinn asked her panelists, "In this life (and, perhaps, the next) why does what we think about the afterlife matter?"

In their answers, all but one panelist attacked the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal punishment of the wicked, with at least two arguing that a belief in Hell engenders violence and abuse.

For an atheist, Sally Quinn sure loves to preach with righteous indignation. At least, that is, when the subject is Sarah Palin.

On Sunday, January 16, Quinn published a 26-paragraph "On Faith" piece entitled "To Sarah Palin: It's not all about you." [h/t e-mail tipster Brian Hastoglis]

In the middle of her piece, Quinn sought to examine why so many people detest Sarah Palin, writing without any hint of self-awareness that (emphasis mine):

 

Sally Quinn really wants to be helpful to both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. However, the result of her laughable suggestion that Hillary and Vice-President Biden switch jobs is that it would only highlight the desperate political situation that the current administration has gotten itself into. Here is Sally trying to be helpful with her bizarre recommendation:

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden should switch jobs.

Really.

There were more examples this week of liberal Gore-friendly media outlets trying to smooth over Al and Tipper Gore's separation. In their "Conventional Wisdom" box Newsweek gave the Gores a sideways arrow: "Famous public smoochers calling it quits after 40 years. Still, they stayed classy."

Time ran a big picture of the 2000 smooch, and underneath Belinda Luscombe wrote "In a leaked e-mail to friends, Al and wife Tipper -- whose lascivious smooch on the 2000 campaign trail is etched in the public memory like an awkward childhood experience -- announced they 'have decided to separate' after 40 years of wedlock, a duration so robust that most statisticians will still count the Gores' marriage as a success."

On Monday's edition of the NPR talk show Tell Me More with Michel Martin, former Washington Post health editor Abigail Trafford also broke out the "Bravo to them" line about the 40 years:  

After blaming the 2000 election for the breakup of the Gore marriage on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, Sally Quinn of The Washington Post returned to CBS Wednesday morning for an interview with The Early Show, where she repeated the blame-Bush line, in a milder way: "You know one of the hard things is when you lose, this was their home. You can’t live here anymore." But mostly, Quinn suggested that if the Gores couldn’t make it, then maybe no one could:

And the interesting thing is that usually when something like this happens you get a sense of glee, people sort of saying, "I told you so, or I knew it," or whatever. I have only encountered sadness, and as you can imagine I’ve been on the phone with friends ever since I heard it yesterday and everyone feels as though somehow their own marriages have split up. You know watching the Gores is sort of looking at the possibilities of what a good marriage could be and when it doesn’t work for them you sort of think "oh my God, maybe it’s not possible."

People at CBS aren’t willing to consider that maybe someone’s selfishness is ruining the marriage. Quinn laid it on thick about how wonderful the Gores were in raising their children, and how talented they were:

Is there anything a journalist cannot or will not twist to bring the topic back to how life would be so much better if only not for that awful George W. Bush? On Tuesday's CBS Evening News, with the help of the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, Sharyl Attkisson managed to blame news, that Al and Tipper Gore are separating, on how they never got over being denied the presidency despite winning the popular vote in 2000. If only Bush hadn't taken it from them.

Attkisson recalled “it's been ten years since that oddly public passionate kiss at the Democratic convention. That was followed by Gore winning the popular vote for President but losing the electoral vote. Family friend Sally Quinn says that may have done the marriage irreparable harm.”

Viewers then head from Quinn, who's married former Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee and is now titular overseer of the paper's “On Faith” blog: “He obviously suffered a lot and still is suffering. He'll never get over that and neither will she.” (jpg of screen shot of Quinn)

At the On Faith page of The Washington Post and Newsweek, Sally Quinn interviewed liberal Sojourners magazine publisher Jim Wallis about his squabble with Glenn Beck about the meaning of “social justice” and Christianity.

Quinn probably could have lined up Beck – after all, he sat down for an online interview with Katie Couric. Quinn wanted to know if Beck would keep attacking if Wallis and his liberal friends would benefit. Wallis insisted he told his staff no personal attacks on Beck: “We have to stay on the high ground here.” Quinn asked, “Is it hard?”Wallis replied, “Sometimes, when they’re just misrepresenting. They said, ‘Does the Gospel call us to redistribution? ‘ I said ‘Yes.’ ‘So Jim Wallis wants the government to come in…’ I didn’t say anything like that. (Laughing). That’s dishonest.”

Our secular liberal media elites are never more poisonously insincere than when they recommend that conservatives should move closer to liberals, for their own good. Witnessing the relentless media attacks on the Catholic Church, no member of the flock should assume that the agitators at Newsweek or the New York Times know best how to steer the faithful – or even believe they want to help the faithful. Much like Ted Turner, who called Catholics “losers,” his media colleagues see Catholics – and particularly Pope Benedict XVI – as loathsome political obstacles.

One can conclude from all the coverage of sexual-abuse charges that those charges aren’t really the primary point for the “truth” seekers. These leftist media elites have hijacked those heinous actions for a much broader goal. Theirs is a very political crusade, with the goal of sacking Pope Benedict and “reforming” the ancient church in their hipster image, one that celebrates gay bishop Eugene Robinson’s Episcopalian gospel of “tolerance” and “inclusion” and “pluralism.” That kind of church would pose zero threat to the global goals of the left. In that kind of church, there is no stained-glass ceiling to untrammeled abortion and unlimited “marriage” of everyone to everyone.

In May of 2008, Sally Quinn of the Washington Post’s On Faith site went on PBS’s Charlie Rose show and decried Barack Obama’s decision to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, since Wright was an incredible man being ruined by "latent racism." She even blundered into expressing that this shaming of Wright "has been absolutely devastating to me -- to him, sorry."

Apparently, Rev. Wright is a far holier man than the pope. Quinn was raining fire on a Vatican City "under siege" on MSNBC Monday afternoon, trashing Pope Benedict as Richard Nixon:

This is the Vatican’s Watergate. The Pope is Nixon. I mean, if you look at the signs, and the way they’re behaving, it’s exactly the same way. They’ve done something terrible. They’ve denied it. They’ve accused their accusers. The Pope this weekend talked about this being "gossip" and they weren’t going to be intimidated by it, but the fact is it’s been a coverup, and a crime, and a coverup.

Quinn insisted "The pope is going to have to resign," which brought more Watergate comparisons:

The special election in Massachusetts is sure to be a close one. Should Republican Scott Brown prevail, however, the liberal media will have a host of ways to explain away the election as an anomaly and by no means a referendum on either the president or his legislative accomplishments (or lack thereof).

Perhaps one of the most absurd instances of this thinking came on last night's "O'Reilly Factor" where Washington Post veteran writer Sally Quinn actually attributed Brown's meteoric rise to, wait for it, a semi-nude photo shoot he did for Cosmopolitan magazine--a full 28 years ago (video and partial transcript below the fold - h/t Jim Hoft).

Quinn postulated that the shoot gave the "hunk" Brown a boost in name recognition before the election. O'Reilly, for his part, called Quinn out on how outlandish she sounded.

In her Washington Post column today, Sally Quinn frets that White House security breaches divert attention from Barack Obama's accomplishments.  In "Time for accountability at the White House," she writes:

Obama has had some real successes this fall. He did a masterful job of bringing together incredibly disparate positions to craft a strategy for Afghanistan. He put himself on the line and will probably come up with a reasonable health-care plan. He left Copenhagen with at least promises of cooperation from other world powers regarding climate change. But he is not getting credit that he deserves because he is being ill served by those around him who will not step up as needed and take the fall for him.

Real successes, heh?  Obama's dithering on Afghanistan justifiably earned him criticism both here and abroad, where England's defense minister and others voiced their concerns.  It's impossible to know if Obama's health-care plan, cobbled in backroom deals, is reasonable because so many specifics are still obscure.  One thing we do know is negotiations weren't, as promised by Obama, aired on C-SPAN.  Moreover, Obama failed to go over it line by line with members of Congress, another promise made and broken.  Only in the mainstream media could Obama getting "at least promises of cooperation from other world powers regarding climate change" count as a success.

Last year, Sally Quinn of the Washington Post found it "devastating" on PBS that Barack Obama would abandon his sulfurous religious mentor Jeremiah Wright, a man "lionized by some of the great white theologians in this country." Quinn questioned how Wright’s allegedly racist opponents can call themselves Christians: They "go to their white churches, and you wonder how they can call themselves Christians and still look at other people as though they are inferior."

In her role as the co-creator of the Post’s "On Faith" blog, Quinn is at it again, suggesting on Tuesday Sarah Palin was a rotten Christian in her book Going Rogue. "Palin's book is a screed against everyone who ever done her wrong." She jokes nastily that maybe it was God’s plan for Palin to "go rogue" from the tenets of Christianity:

Appearing on MSNBC Thursday afternoon, Washington Post writer and founder of the paper’s On Faith blog, Sally Quinn, exclaimed of Sarah Palin: "Well, clearly, she has not put her family first...And these children have, it seems publicly, to have been exploited by her in a, I think, really unfortunate way."

Even anchor David Shuster, who on Wednesday declared that Palin had "no future" politically, questioned Quinn’s accusation: "Sally, the use of the word ‘exploited’ is pretty strong. Give us some specific examples that you think qualifies for that?" Quinn was happy to elaborate: "Well, you know, she brings them all to the convention, including Trig, the baby. She brings the pregnant daughter with the boyfriend who clearly didn't want to be there. She then travels around with the children, using them as sort of photo ops...she brings the children up when she needs them to shore up her own image."

Quinn even seemed to blame Palin for defending her family against David Letterman’s attacks: "It just seemed to me that the David Letterman situation where she whipped that up into a huge scene, bringing in her other daughter Willow and making a big – a big to-do about it when she could have just let it go."

During the 2008 campaign, Quinn appeared on the September 3 CBS Early Show to denounce Palin for deciding to run for vice president, claiming that the governor "has got to rethink her priorities."

The Washington Post found a very liberal way to celebrate Mother's Day. In the Outlook section, Sally Quinn wrote an entire essay offering her deep appreciation for the First Lady's arms. Will the flattery never cease?

Michelle Obama's arms, we determined, were transformational. Her arms are representative of a new kind of woman: young, strong, vigorous, intelligent, accomplished, sexual, powerful, embracing and, most of all, loving.

Today is Mother's Day. Today we should celebrate Michelle Obama's arms as the arms of a mother.

....She has come under attack for exposing her arms. They are toned and muscular, burnished and beautiful. That has to be threatening to some. For some men, often, a strong woman makes them feel diminished. For some feminists, the idea of an educated woman not taking on a full-time serious job is a frightening throwback.

Happy Easter, Catholics. Your pope is not much different from a secular politician exercising damage control. Fortunately, President Obama is helping him "repent faster" when he steps into controversy.

That's the message being sent by the "On Faith" editorial staff with their excerpts "From the Panel" published in the April 11 print edition of the Washington Post. A partnership with Newsweek, "On Faith" is edited by the magazine's Jon Meacham and the Post's Sally Quinn.

"What's Behind Pope's Apologies?" asks the headline. An editorial note gives readers the question asked "On Faith" panelists:

On Tuesday's "Nightline," ABC gushed over Michelle Obama with the enthusiasm and objectivity usually reserved for "Access Hollywood" reporters. Correspondent Yunji de Nies lauded the "rock star" first lady for her fashion sense and for speaking openly about balancing work and family. "Nightline" co-anchor Cynthia McFadden asserted that "with her muscular arms and outfits, she's become, well, a model first lady."

De Nies talked with liberal Washington Post journalist Sally Quinn, who has written for years about D.C. style. Asked about a recent Michelle Obama spread in Vogue magazine, Quinn enthused, "Well, for one thing, I think she's a sexual person. The pictures are attractive. They're womanly. They're sexy, but not in an overt way." She then went on to assert that Washington has often tried to force women to downplay their sexuality. This prompted de Nies to breathlessly wonder, "Is Washington and the world ready for such a modern first lady?"

During the 3:00PM EST hour of MSNBC news coverage, anchor Norah O’Donnell discovered the source of sexism in the Middle East was not Islamic fundamentalism, but rather, capitalism: "And to another big story, is oil behind sexism in the Middle East? It's a provocative new theory out there today, suggesting the real culprit of the lower status of women in the Middle East is because of the region's oil wealth."

O’Donnell then turned to Sally Quinn of the Washington, who wrote about the theory on the newspaper’s On Faith blog: "This is a hot topic, Sally. Do you believe that oil is behind sexism in the Middle East?" Quinn replied: "Well, I do think that it has a lot to do with it...when you have an oil-rich country, there's much less manufacturing, so that there are fewer jobs for women. But also because the country is so rich that women don't need to work and therefore they're comfortable and they stay home."

Later, O’Donnell concluded: "But it's a very interesting question, it's not necessarily Islam, it may be more, and you would know this better than I, as -- because of what you're doing -- it may more be the wealth of that country." Quinn replied: "Well, it is the wealth. The -- part of it, too, has to do with culture. I mean, that they come from a culture where women don't work. And so, because the oil-rich countries, all of the jobs that are involved around oil are much more male-oriented jobs."