Seattle Columnist Says ‘I Understand’ the Burning of ‘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.
We’ve met Miss Parvaz 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, Parvaz 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 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 Parvaz 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, Parvaz 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 Parvaz’ 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 Parvaz 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.
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on November 3, 2007 9:05 am
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State, Liberal Media/Bias, News
Trackback URL:
Comments
7 Responses to “Seattle Columnist Says ‘I Understand’ the Burning of ‘Oppressive’ Churches”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
She is a freakin´commie. Her hatred of christian
churches is the result of the ACLU´s war on
Christianity when it quoted Article 51 of the
constitution of the USSR ¨a wall of separation
between church and the state,¨as being the First
Amendment of our Constitution.¨ From then on it was
attacking the Ten Commandments, Christmas carols in
school. Nativity Scenes and Holiday pageants in schools.
I learned about Chanukah from our holiday pageants
and appreciated how my jewish classmates celebrated the
holiday.I wasn´t offended nor were they offended by the
Nativity Story. The Nativity story was also read from the
Bible, the only teaches read from the New Testament.
The remainder of the year was the Old Testament, usually a psalm.
Our schools were safe and sane. All of this is gone thanks
to the ACLU, and nut cases like Dorothy Parvaz. Now schools
dispense prescription drugs, condoms, and revisionist versions
of history.
The use of the word religion in the First Amendment is synonymous
with the denomination. This harks back to the end of the Thirty
Years War in 17th centuty Europe, ¨cujus regio, ejus religio,¨
correction: century. I corrected after hitting submit but
it still came centuty.
I´m more upset by that woman than I thought. The nest to the last sentence
should read: The use of the word religion in the First Ammendment
is synonymous wtih the word denomination.
As usual liberals are always saying stupid things and have the usual wackos to defend them.
Burning churches is rare… raping women is common. She could just as easily have said:
In that case she, and her ilk, would be having a nervous breakdown denouncing all white-males collectively for moral equivalence.
This mushroom aholic might wake up one day looking at four gray walls. If the person who struck the match thinks that Ms Ding-a-ling told him to do it, then possibly she might be charged with conspiracy to commit arson.
Sounds as good to me as some of the spaced out cases of the you know who. The ACLU
I read some more information on this half-wit Parvaz… turns out, she is Iranian! She is also a Canadian citizen living in Seattle (not sure if she is also naturalized as an American), and get this… this summer she committed voter fraud in Washington State by listing her residence address on her voter registration as the Seattle Post Inteligence building! (that’s against the law). I wonder how she is even able to vote legally if she’s an Iranian/Canadian!?! Fricken B*tch – go home!