Dorothy Parvaz, a columnist, blogger and member of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board, wrote a blog post in which she sympathetically says she understands how someone would want to burn a church down because it is “an oppressive institution.” She’s talking about a foiled planned arson of San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral, a landmark building on Nob Hill.
After describing the man’s 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? There is no other hand. On the other hand? This guy was going to burn a church! And notice her only concern is that 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.”
She then offers a suggestion to the nutter:
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.
The problem with burning down a church is not that it’s a felony folks. It’s wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s very very bad. How else can you say it.
Could you imagine an editorial board member of any newspaper (except the New York Post) saying it would be ok to burn down…say…the ACLU headquarters. Do you think there would be outrage? You betcha. They’d be shown the back of the hand.