Thursday, November 1, 2007

Seattle PI Columnist: 'I Understand' Burning 'Oppressive' Churches

Seattle PI Columnist: 'I Understand' Burning 'Oppressive' Churches |
Dorothy Parvaz, a columnist, blogger and member of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board, posted a short P-I blog post in which she sympathetically says she understands how someone would want to burn a church down because it is "an oppressive institution." And she isn't just shrugging her shoulders over the threatened arson of a church, but the planned arson of San Francisco's Grace Cathedral, a landmark building on Nob Hill. Is there a little hatemongering going on against religion in the Post-Intelligencer? Sure seems so.
Well, this time she is ready to "understand" the burning of churches in a blog post about the arrest of a mentally suspect man named Paul Addis who was the goof responsible for the too early torching The Man figure at the last pot-head festival Burning Man 2007. This time, though, he meant to burn down the famous Frisco Cathedral.
After describing Addis' arrest, Parvez sympathetically assesses his newest target:

On the one hand, I can understand the power of the image to someone who sees the church as an oppressive institution. On the other's still arson. And given how fires can get out of hand, there's a chance that this little stunt could have damaged other property and hurt some folks.

"On the other hand... it's still arson"?? On the other hand? Someone needs to tell Parvez that there isn't any "other hand" in a case where someone is threatening to burn down any building, much less a church. It's wrong to commit arson on EVERY hand, not just the "other" one.
And even her advice to our nutty arsonist and so-called "performance artist" is filled with hate for churches.

Perhaps he should have settled for painting a picture of a burning church rather than trying to destroy an actual historic landmark. That wouldn't be performance art, I guess (unless he created the painting in public or something), but at least it wouldn't be a felony.
Imagine, if you will, what kind of hew and cry would occur if a newspaper would host the work of a person that said that all Democrats were "slightly stupid" or excused the burning of Universities or Newspaper offices because they were "oppressive institutions." Does anyone imagine that the hate of such a column would be so easily excused should it be as extremely from the right as Parvez' work is from the left?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content