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):
I believe that what brings out so many hostile feelings toward Sarah Palin is that many people look at her and see the dark side of themselves. The psychiatrist will tell you that often what you hate in others is the thing you are most afraid of in yourself.
[Religion historian Karen] Armstrong talks, too, about how every fundamentalist movement she has studied "is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation: and each one began with what was perceived to be an assault by the liberal or secular establishment." That assault, says Armstong, "merely convinces its adherents that their enemies really are bent on their destruction."
Of course, evidenced by the way many in the liberal media portrayed it last week, it's the Left that are fearful that their opponents on the Right are literally bent on their destruction and that Palin's shooting metaphors are "dog whistles" to cue violence among unstable people.
Yet instead of removing the log from the liberal media's eye, Quinn was more than content to obsess over the speck in Palin's:
Was Palin responsible for the shooting in Arizona? Of course not. Does she share responsibility for creating a climate of suspicion and hostility and even violence? I think so. As much as she talks about God, it's always God 'n' guns. With her, the two seem inseparable.
There were other ways for her to respond to this event.
Palin believes in Jesus. One wonders, if, while she was preparing her video response, she asked herself, "What Would Jesus do?"
There are so many things she could have said, not in her defensive video but right after the shooting. She could have talked about the victims in more detail rather than speak of herself as the victim. She could have inspired us rather than divide us. But divide us, yet again, she did.
