Seattle Columnist Says ‘I Understand’ the Burning of ‘Oppressive’ Churches
By: Warner Todd Huston
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.
We’ve met Miss Parvez in my work before, the last time was when she said that GOP voters were “White, male, middle-aged and slightly stupid,” and intimated that terrorism was nothing to worry about by calling the WOT “Bush’s asinine ‘war on terror.’” 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 her 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 hand…it’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.
She further displays her hate for religion by only worrying that burning down the Grace Cathedral would be bad because the fire might “get out of hand” and harm other nearby structures.
And what is with this “oppressive” stuff, anyway? When was the last time a church in America dragged someone off the street and forced them to join their congregation?
Besides her sympathy to Addis for destroying those “oppressive” churches, Parvez seems to offer him sympathy because he is a “performance artist.” In fact, she seems to treat the whole incident rather lightly. 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.
It is amazing that a person so filled with hate for the ideas and institutions of the Heartland of America is given such a prominent role at the newspaper of one of the West Coast’s largest cities.
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?
More to the point can you imagine the condemnation that would be visited on a newspaper that might have on their editorial board a columnist that comes from as far right as Parvez comes from the far left? There would be a cacophony like you’ve never heard before. For an example, imagine if Ann Coulter were to be hired for the editorial board of the New York Times. It would stir that kind of hatred on the left if an arch rightist would be placed on the editorial board of any national newspaper.
What ifs aside, it is sure that no one on the right would get nearly the same consideration and leeway that this extreme Seattle leftist gets. That is 100% sure.