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

Change font size:  A |  A

**WITH UPDATE** 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 here on Newsbusters before, the last time 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 relays 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. 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. (Edit 11/03/07 to correct spelling of Miss Parvaz' last name) **UPDATE** 11/04/07 Dorothy Parvez... um, I mean Parvaz (apologies there, my sloppiness for sure), has answered to my Newsbusters post about her outrageous blog post supporting the arsonist cum "artist," Paul Addis, on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer blog. At the top, here, I'd like to say that I wish I had been able to be on the Dori Monson show on KIRO, but the show's producer sent me an email inviting me on only hours before the show aired. Unfortunately, my personal schedule finds me asleep roughly between 11AM and 8PM, so when the email arrived I was asleep. And I did not see that invite until about 8PM that evening. I would have enjoyed appearing on the show as I have so many other radio programs. In any case, go on over to the Seattle P-I and have a read of Miss Parvaz' reply to our story as she tries to explain herself away using the last refuge for most on the left: the "I was only joking" defense. (Saying of her original post that it was "tongue-in-cheek.) Of her back tracking, I have little to say. But one comment stood out, showing her hate once again. Miss Parvaz suggested that, instead of the old Valentine's Day photo, we use a photo of her in which she is wearing a Muslim Hijaab because, in her words, it would "better serve" our purpose. What purpose might that be, Miss Parvaz? After all, we are sure you are a lover of religion... not that we would ever employ that filthy tongue-in-cheek stuff to describe that deep, heartfelt love. But, should Miss Pavaz wish to shoot us over an updated photo of her, we'd be happy to post it. Maybe she has a nice photo of her burning a flag, or a Bible, or maybe a nice photo of her throwing a molotov cocktail at a "peace" march somewhere.... oops. There's that tongue-in-cheek stuff again. Sorry.