moonbattery.gif


« Moonbats Fret About Environmental Spoilage of the Moon | Main | Dennis Kucinich Given Marching Orders by UFO »


October 31, 2007

Dorothy Parvaz Discusses the Pros and Cons of Burning Down Churches

Dorothy Parvaz is a columnist and member of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board. Here she is discussing a lunatic's attempted torching of San Francisco's historic Grace Cathedral, via NewsBusters:

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.

When members of the editorial board of a major newspaper can't decide whether to endorse or condemn burning down cathedrals, it's past time to give up on the mainstream media.

burning_church.jpg
Good or bad? A conundrum for mainstream journalists.

On a tip from V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at October 31, 2007 12:06 PM

Comments

"could have damaged OTHER property"

So it's okay if the CHURCH gets damaged, but we don't want to damage OTHER property.

What she's really saying:
"It IS a church, so burning that would be okay, but only if it's empty and not near any non-churches..."

Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at October 31, 2007 12:12 PM

The objectification of a class of people is a precursor to perpetrating violence on them. In a civilized society, such intemperance is delegitimized by loud condemnation. There are today more and more voices on the Left spewing hate without anyone in the room calling them down. The more deranged fringe element picks up on this tacit approval and acts on it. Indulging in bigotry is playing with fire.

Posted by: Beef at October 31, 2007 12:30 PM

Insert the word mosque and we'd have riots that would make Rodney King blush.

Posted by: Jenn at October 31, 2007 12:40 PM

There is an Anti-Christ. There is a spirit of Anti-Christ that Ms. Parvez seems to be possessed with. Beef is right, they will soon come for the true Church to rid the world of us.

Posted by: apostle53 at October 31, 2007 1:35 PM

Note that it's not what the "Christianists" have done... it's speculation as to how the self-proclaimed "victims" feel.

You are now not a criminal for what you think... but for what someone else decided they think you think.

Posted by: DANEgerus at October 31, 2007 1:41 PM

Insert the word mosque and we'd have riots that would make Rodney King blush.

Posted by: Jenn at October 31, 2007 12:40 PM

Christianity doesn't have the privilige of taking offense, so this piece of religious bigotry can be published with nary a blink.

Posted by: Arthur at October 31, 2007 2:22 PM

I bet she's a Feminist. Here's another Gem by Mizz Parvaz:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/parvaz/327176_parvaz11.html

Posted by: Anonymous at October 31, 2007 4:10 PM

Somehow the Left can never totally separate an act of arson by one of theirs from the symbolism of the act. Since they heartily approve of the symbolism they can't quite come to disapprove of the act.

For decades now they have shouted, moaned, gibbered, and sung about "Four dead in Ohio"...and it never occurs to them to think about what happened the night before.

The night before the infamous Kent State shootings, protesters set fire to the campus ROTC building, and then interfered with firefighters on the scene. THAT is the point when deadly force was introduced to a (supposedly) peaceful demonstration. At that point the 'demonstration' was unquestionably an out of control riot, and a present danger to the people in the town.

It's a pity that the four dead weren't organizers, but I have little sympathy with the kind of idiot who hangs around the kind of 'demonstration' that involves burning buildings. That just ain't bright.

Posted by: C. S. P. Schofield at October 31, 2007 4:56 PM

In addition to what C.S.P. posted about the Kent State incident, the rioters pelted National Guardsmen, who were in strictly defensive positions, with rock-filled bottles and chunks of concrete. After repeated calls to desist which went unheeded, the Guardsmen were left with no options.

Anyone who thinks that our Modern "Liberals" and their idiotic followers would not be happy to see such things- and worse- happen to those they hate is living in sheer denial. Dorothy Parvaz' column is not an isolated phenomenon by any means.

Posted by: Toa at October 31, 2007 5:46 PM

So it is cool for the left to burn churches but they are first to cry inhumanity if someone were to destroy a Quran or burn a mosque. Well what is good for the goose is good for the gander and I am off to destroy a Quran because I am exercising my artistic rights, Burning Mosques and Qurans is art and very powerful sight for me. If you are soldier in Gitmo and destroyed a Quran, good for you and continue!

Posted by: What? at October 31, 2007 6:52 PM

E-mailed to 'dparvaz@seattlepi.com'

Dorothy,

Would the below offend you?

On the one hand, I can understand the power of the image to someone who sees "Liberal Newspapers" 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.

Curious,

Eric

Posted by: Eric J Stevens at October 31, 2007 7:29 PM

Think the pros & cons of burning down Mosques would ever be discussed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? How about the Pros & Cons of burning down gay bathhouses? Of course not, those institutions are worthy of respect, despite all the Jihadist violence that is preached in the Mosques and all the STD's that are spread throughout the bathhouses while Christian churches are worthy of contempt, since they preach tolerance, love and upright morality. Just ask a moonbat, they'll tell you

Posted by: Refuter of Liberal Vermin at November 1, 2007 10:56 AM

Toa,

While I agree that throwing rocks at people with rifles isn't bright, my point is that for decades the Left has pretended that the Kent State 'demonstration' was peaceful right up until some authoritarian goon called for the National Guard. In light of the burning of the ROTC building, that is so much pigswill.

Once the ROTC blaze was going, the local authorities absolutely HAD to shut the riot down. When you have a building sized fire - especially when twits are preventing the firefighters from working at top efficiency - it os only blind luck if it doesn't spread. The 'protesters' had demonstrated that they were deadly dangerous goddamned fools who thought nothing of endangering the whole campus and town. They were no longer entitled to kid glove treatment.

Local police had already proved overmatched. The Ohio State Police might have been able to break up the riot, if enough were available, but they would probably have had to crack skulls in wholesale lots. Somebody probably hoped that the sight of soldiers with rifles would shock the idiots who were running amok into some sense that playtime was over. It didn't work out that way, but it was worth a try.

Donald Hamilton used one of his Matt Helm books to observe that four dead for that rifle volley was very bad shooting, especially since not all of the four were actively involved in the riot. To some extent, I agree. If ten or twenty little rock-throwing morons had been killed, somebody might have gotten the point.

But the Left didn't want to learn the lesson that symbolic acts that endanger hundreds or thousands of people are criminally stupid, and so they are still finding excuses for dangerous loons.

Posted by: C. S. P. Schofield at November 1, 2007 8:37 PM

I think many arsonists choose churches because they are empty at night. They don't want to hurt anyone, just watch the pretty flames. Most of the talk about black church burnings ended abruptly when one of the arsonists turned out to be a black girl.

Posted by: Paul Moore at November 2, 2007 2:54 AM