Sally Quinn: Only Believers Can Be American Citizens
Posted: October 6, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama, Media, Mitt Romney, nature, Surreality, U.S. Politics | Tags: Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward, Declaration of Independence, presidential debates, Sally Quinn, Thomas Jefferson, Washington Post 38 Comments
Sally Quinn is insane
Why does the Washington Post keep publishing the bizarre rantings of an insane person like Sally Quinn? Does Ben Bradlee still have that much influence, or is it Bob Woodward’s attachment to Bradlee that ensures that Quinn can keep vomiting forth her hate-filled screeds in, of all things, the “On Faith” column?
Forgive me if you’ve already heard enough about Quinn’s reaction to Wednesday’s presidential debate. Somehow I missed her latest nonsensical frothings until this afternoon. If only I’d continued on, happily unaware! But instead, I clicked on a link and soon learned that, according to Quinn, Mitt Romney won the first debate because he mentioned god. I also found out that Quinn believes that atheists can’t be American citizens!
When Mitt Romney mentioned the “Creator” in the debate Wednesday, he owned it. “We’re all children of the same God,” he said.
That’s about 85 percent of the country he was talking to. That should have been President Obama’s constituency but he let Romney have it as he let Romney have the debate.
Is that so. Is she really claiming that 85 percent of voters are suddenly going to vote for Mitt Romney now because he mentioned god?
Moving on:
Citing the Declaration of Independence, Romney said: “Second, is that line that says we are endowed by our Creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can’t care for themselves are cared by — by one another.”
Like most of what Sally Quinn writes, and much of what Mitt Romney says, that makes absolutely no sense, but I’ll have more to say about that in a minute.
Quinn continues (emphasis added):
This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian…. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God.
An atheist could never get elected dog catcher, much less president….Up until now, the idea of being American and believing in God were synonymous.
I have news for Quinn. This is not a “religious country.” This is a country in which people can worship as they please, but they can’t interfere with other people doing something completely different. Our government, however, is secular and there can be no religious test for American citizenship or for public office.
Quinn wraps up her idiotic piece by announcing that if President Obama wants to win the next debate, he’ll have to “wear God, as much as it offends him to do so.”
WTF?! How do you “wear god?” Is she suggesting that Obama should wear a crucifix around his neck at the next debate? And what does she mean by claiming that Obama is offended by “wearing god?” I’m completely at a loss here.
Frankly, I think Sally Quinn needs to be evaluated by a competent psychiatrist immediately. Furthermore, as long as she continues writing for it, the Washington Post cannot ever again be considered a serious newspaper.
But I want to return to Romney’s quote on the the Declaration of Independence:
“Second, is that line that says we are endowed by our Creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can’t care for themselves are cared by — by one another.”
That is not at all what Thomas Jefferson wrote. The Declaration of Independence says that we are all “created equal” and have innate rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There’s nothing in there about the pursuit of happiness “as we choose,” or about who is supposed to take care of “less fortunate” people. Here’s the relevant quote:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Romney seems to be trying to reinterpret Jefferson’s words–perhaps based on Paul Ryan’s twisted version of Ayn Randism–to mean that “less fortunate” people should help each other, while fortunate ones like Romney help themselves in any way they like. Come to think of it, that’s probably exactly what he does believe. But it’s not what Thomas Jefferson wrote.
It’s abundantly clear that Jefferson was writing about the role of government in making sure that citizens are granted the rights that come from “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and that when a government no longer protects those rights, the citizens have a right to form a new government. If Mitt Romney doesn’t understand that, then he has no business running for public office, much less serving as President of the United States.
Although I regret reading Sally Quinn’s confused and innane thoughts on the presidential debate, I’m grateful to her for pointing out Mitt Romney’s complete ignorance of the document that laid the foundation for American independence and for the rights that are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. I hate to think how he would interpret the Bill of Rights.
Oh, and I am a full-fledged citizen even though I don’t accept Sally Quinn’s or Mitt Romney’s twisted religious beliefs, and I have every intention of voting on November 6.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Lot of good thoughts there BB. She’s right about one thing, that Obama would do well to wear his religion on his sleeve henceforth. I think he’s actually a stone atheist, like all smart people, but too smart to let that out in public.
Please. Obama constantly talks about god. He finished every public statement with “God bless you and god bless America.” It wouldn’t make any difference how much he talked about god anyway, because right wingers and weirdos like Sally Quinn assume he doesn’t mean it.
He could wear a suit made up of flag lapel pins and and crosses and they’d still call him a Kenyan Muslim Usurper.
The weirdest part about this is that that answer was where Romney confused the declaration with the constitution. There’s no mention of god at all in the constitution which is the real cornerstone of government. For some reason, all right wing whackos seem to confuse these two things.
“God bless you and god bless America” has been a required trope for politicians for many years, no matter what they really believe. But I’m interested in why you think Obama really believes in God. I don’t see it anywhere, except lip service. Also interested if you think a genuine belief in God is actually a good thing in a politician?
“It wouldn’t make any difference how much he talked about god anyway, because right wingers and weirdos like Sally Quinn assume he doesn’t mean it.”
Heck, I assume he doesn’t mean it either, except for me, that’s a plus.
BTW, your exposition of what Jefferson was talking about is right on. When you read the two paragraphs together, it is clear that Creator means men (and women) who give ourselves those inalienable rights. You never see that first part quoted though…
I don’t assume anything. I couldn’t care less if he believes in “god.”
Pierce
Lol. … it says its prayers or it gets the hose. … crazy shit is right!
Earlier Charlie talking about the right wing nutjobs…
“It rubs the flag and Bible against its skin.”
Man is a treasure!
“I don’t assume anything. I couldn’t care less if he believes in “god.””
Can’t seem to get a straight answer out of you today. Oh well 😦
They are shoutin out – If you are not a christian you are not my brother or my sister, you are not a citizen, this is what the ends of day is bringing us…………………….as I was told, “surrender to jesus”……………
She’s an idiot. I agree with you BB, why does she have a platform to say anything? Who honestly gives a shit what she says or thinks.
Her hubby, that’s why. He needs to keep her happy, even if it’s torture for the rest of us. You should check out the responses to her nonsense. So far not a single one in support. She really is an airhead.
WAPO has no shame any more.
At least she’s contained to online only now right? This junk didn’t actually make it to print, did it?
Message from a Leader…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY&feature=player_embedded
That is so perfect!
Here’s another great republican, gawd fearin elected representive!
Arkansas State Rep: Slavery ‘May Actually Have Been a Blessing in Disguise’ for Blacks http://lgf.bz/OKGjdo
and another this one from a Republican Congressman on the Science Committee.
Dispatches from the House SCIENCE committe: GOP Rep calls evolution a lie “straight from the pit of hell” http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/06/video_paul_broun_calls_evolution_big_bang_theory_lies_straight_from_the_pit_of_hell.html?tid=sm_tw_button_chunky … via @slate
That speech from FDR matches the current campaign, minus the complete crazy of course, so the base agenda hasn’t changed a lot since 1936 apparently where social programs are concerned,
FDR would be labeled a socialist radical today. 😦
Damn I wish Obama modeled himself on FDR.
“There’s no mention of god at all in the constitution which is the real cornerstone of government. For some reason, all right wing whackos seem to confuse these two things.”
The reason is quite obvious. If the whackos didn’t conflate the Declaration and the Constitution, they’d have very little evidence to say that America was founded as a Christian nation, which they like to do, of course. The whackos are so whacked that they insist the part of the First Amendment that talks about not prohibiting free expression of religion means we are naturally Christian, and that keeping prayer out of school for example is a violation of the Constitution! (I’ve actually had arguments about this). As you say, whackos.
The BLS Employment Figures May Have Been Unfairly Hurting Obama, Not Helping Him.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/bls-employment-figures-may-have-been-unfairly-hurting-obama-not-helping-him
Brilliant post BB, I had no idea this crap was printed in the Washington Post. Today I have been busy defending my disgust at the KKK assholes who held a rally in my pleasant town of Banjoville. I have a picture of it for tomorrow morning. Your post is relevant because the KKK uses religion as a vehicle for hate. You will see the crosses being held by folks in sheets…it has really pissed me off!
It seems that not showing up for the first debate has really hurt Obama.
PPP Poll: Obama lead down to 2 in Wisconsin
I had read that it was Republican consolidation more than anything leading that result.
One additional thing from PPP is they say volatility is now way up from what it was before.
That’s interesting.
I don’t believe it, but I heard a theory that Obama was playing “rope a dope” in the first debate, which could be likened to the early rounds of a boxing match. It would explain why he left all that low hanging fruit on the vine, and failed to knock the hanging curves out of the park. According to this theory, Obama lets Romney come out swinging, get the advantage of all the post debate bumps and positive reaction early in the process, and then “punch himself out”. Then close to the end of the fight, Obama slams him with the many lies, fuzzy math, and undisguised contempt Romney has been showing in the campaign all along.
It’s a bizarre theory, but stranger things have happened. It worked for Ali, and whatever else Obama is, he’s a student of history.
Obama is not good at rope-a-dope if that’s the case. He should ask Bill Clinton for tips.
Rope a dope depends on your opponent getting tired and Rmoney just kept right on lying at full velocity until the end. Obama forgot to punch him.
Wish all judges were like this:
San Francisco Judge Rules That Crisis Pregnancy Centers Cannot Mislead Women http://bit.ly/PFTdnz
Shame Obama doesn’t have Aaron Sorkin for his debate prep.
Maureen Dowd: Two Presidents, Smoking and Scheming
The point is that we are still in the starting stages of the fight. There is time for Obama to let Romney punch himself out, then pounce. Like I say, I don’t really believe it, but it would be nice on some level to believe that O’s passive performance was done on purpose.
On a related note, where are all the people who were dancing in the street claiming that Romney’s 47% remarks marked his campaign’s demise? I said then it was not that big a deal, and the whole flap is now virtually forgotten. Mitt himself, after initially defending himself, said he was wrong and is now for the 100%. And he’s getting away with it.
Maybe I’m a pollyanna, but I’m just not that worried about the debate. I don’t believe that Romney has turned everything around just by standing up and lying on TV for 38 minutes. He may be getting a bump in the polls (we don’t really know how big yet), but I don’t believe it will last. Democrats are acting like Red Sox fans after one bad loss. There are two more presidential debates and one VP debate next week.
Sally Quinn needs to get sent back to American History 101.
Sally goes round the roses is entitled to her opinion………….that 99 cents MIGHT get her a cup of coffee.