Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 9:46 a.m.

Parvaz writes:

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.

Folks, just re-read that several times and let it sink in. "I can understand the power of the image to someone who sees the church as an oppressive institution..." The image the reporter refers to is one of a historic cathedral burning at the hands of an arsonist. AND SHE UNDERSTANDS THIS?

"...there's a chance this little stunt could have damaged other property and hurt some folks..."

TORCHING A CHURCH IS A "LITTLE STUNT?!!" "Other property?" As if torching a church isn't enough.

Parvaz - You've outdone yourself this time.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 10:23 a.m.

The image the reporter refers to is one of a historic cathedral burning at the hands of an arsonist. AND SHE UNDERSTANDS THIS?

Where I come from, tolerance and understanding of other people's viewpoints, criminal or not, is encouraged and generally looked upon as a good thing. Understanding something, regardless of whether or not it is good or bad, is always a Good Thing(tm).

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 10:55 a.m.

He should be charged with an attempted Hate crime.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 11:36 a.m.

Just one more example of the intolerant "mainstream" left and their love of violence. Wake up people, the liberal left is an intolerant hate machine. They hold in extreme contempt all elements of Western civilization. They seek to destroy all of the institutions that have brought prosperity to the West. They embrace the messages of bin Laden and Ahmedinejad over the messages of Jefferson, Washington and the notions of the Age of Enlightenment. They are anti-everything. Unless you are trying to destroy us, then they are with you.
To casually embrace the actions of a lunatic with a suicide belt on as he threatens to attack a cathedral, of all things, is not new. But it is telling.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 12:14 p.m.

A silly little man is crying out for attention by making empty threats, much like "death by cop," but more pitiful and mostly harmless. Had he not succeeded in a widely publicized arson already, we would not take a guy with firecrackers and a toy gun as a serious threat to the cathedral or anyone else. Statements of his intent are hearsay, and it has been quoted elsewhere that he did not have sufficient materials to actually burn the cathedral. The second act has been interpreted as more serious in light of the first act.

Regardless of whether it was designed to burn, or what your opinion is about the Burning Man event, the Burning Man effigy was not prepared for burning when it was set on fire, and there were many people who were put in danger by the arson, as well as many artists whose work was damaged as a result of this act. It is amazing to me that this point is lost on people, as if non-commodification equals an end to personal property rights. Because participants "assume risk" at a participatory event does not give someone the right to assault them as "performance art." The end result of Paul Addis' "performance art" will be that he ends up in prison. To an attention whore, even negative attention is preferable to none at all-- I'm sure he will get lots of attention in his comfy cell, paid for by our tax dollars.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 12:27 p.m.

As a neighbor of Paul Living in the same building I can say that the man is truly mentally Ill. This incident is not all that surprising to the residents of our apartment building. Paul is a very angry delusional man that needs medical treatment. It is sad that the SFPD and crisis mental health services have been unable or unwilling to intervene. Hopefully now he will be evaluated and treated.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 1:17 p.m.

Arson is not art under any circumstances.

I think we're living in really sick times if there are people who would seriously equate the two.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 2:25 p.m.

I think he is just misunderstood.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 2:28 p.m.

if you investigate anything beyond the basic AP writeup, he only had small LEGAL fireworks on his person.

so stop conjecturing on him.
innocent until proven guilty may help you someday too.

he is delusional and mentally unwell.
hopefully he will be get some institutional help.

but i don't consider him an arsonist for having fireworks at a stone building. he's just mentally crazy to brag about his stunt as if he were actually in possesion of the means to burn down the church. it's not a hate crime.

while his burning man stunt was arson, that doesn't mean i equate it with those actually burning churches/buildings with accelerants for hate or fraud reasons.
It was stupid, i think it shows that he was delusional enough to think that it would not damage other art and that he could warn enough people to make it somewhat safe.

Someone who is paranoid schizophrenic is not the same as someone who is an attention seeking whore.
So quit projecting.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 4:13 p.m.

So, by this logic, I can set the Seattle P-I offices on fire because of the power of the image to someone who sees the Seattle P-I as an oppressive institution?

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 4:24 p.m.

i don't consider him an arsonist for having fireworks at a stone building"

This is the same logic Rosie O'Donnell uses when she says that fire won't melt steel.

A wooden effigy in the middle of the desert designed to burn is different from a structure in the middle of a city in a state plagued by wildfires, some undoubtedly set by performance artists or anarchist kooks like Parvaz.

Posted by click4851 at 10/30/07 4:34 p.m.

....can you say hate crime.....

Posted by desmoscott at 10/30/07 5:01 p.m.

After reading this I'm not sure who exhibits more mental illness, D Parvaz, or Mr Addis. They both need serious psychiatric attention.

Posted by desmoscott at 10/30/07 5:07 p.m.

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.

So as long as the fire is contained to the church everything is OK with you?

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 7:24 p.m.

O come on people, we're talking about PI staff, what do you all expect?

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 7:30 p.m.

I would expect they are o.k. with the P-I building being set afire, as long as the fire is confined to their building

Posted by unregistered user at 10/30/07 7:47 p.m.

Isn't it truly performance art to build a church?

Posted by sokala at 10/30/07 8:07 p.m.

So lets change up the circumstances just a bit, change the name and place and see how Ms Parvaz words hold up to the fairness test if not a sanity test:
"On the one hand, I can understand the power of the image of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building to Timothy McVeigh, someone who sees the government as an oppressive institution. On the other hand...it's still bombing. And given how explosions can get out of hand, there's a chance that this little stunt could have damaged other property and hurt some folks."

What bothers me the most that someone who no doubt prides herself as infinitely tolerant, non-violent, anti hate and all the other things journalist wrap themselves in these days (at least on the outside) so quickly check their acts at the door when the right (left?) sign of something they actually and deeply can identify with leads them to write such revealing thoughts without second thoughts.

Posted by Kiana at 10/30/07 9:09 p.m.

All moral clarity has gone out the window with this. Arson is arson, honey. Even if you hate churches.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 12:04 a.m.

you, OP...

you're ignorance is showing.

torching a church is a BAD thing. I kinda wonder how you would feel if the other moron (as I lump you and your "understanding" in with him) were torching YOUR house...

what has become of my country... sigh.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 12:06 a.m.

I can't wait till your lousy rag of a paper dies from dwindling subscriptions.

It must be the lack of sun that wet your brain to thing torching a church is understandable...

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 8:06 a.m.

Why doesnt this Parvas have its picture shown like everybody else or is this some phony person so the paper can throw out anti-church anti-west B.S.

Posted by Lord Sauron at 10/31/07 10:45 a.m.

So, criminal activity can now be excused as "performance art" in the right locales? What is the defining criteria - a liberal arts degree and an IQ equal to that of a warm day?

"Performance Artist" - another term for someone that really wishes they actually had some sort of talent, but usually don't. An arsonist is just an arsonist, there isn't any "art" involved.

Posted by christalynn11 at 10/31/07 12:37 p.m.

First of all, sokala? Check yourself. The bombing in Oklahoma City at the Murrah building is not even remotely close to what D Parvaz was discussing here. To write something so ignorant in an attempt to prove a point is not right. Having just recently visited that memorial site in person, I suppose I am more educated than you as to the devastation the bombing caused. The man in this artivle, albeight not right in his methods, was attempting to prove a point or "perform art" - not kill hundreds of innocent humans, 3 unborn children, and 19 little ones in protest of the government.

Second, as a person who DOES in fact identify herself as a Christian, I do agree with D's point that she understands the purpose behind his attempt at imagery. The unregistered user who posted:

Where I come from, tolerance and understanding of other people's viewpoints, criminal or not, is encouraged and generally looked upon as a good thing. Understanding something, regardless of whether or not it is good or bad, is always a Good Thing(tm).

WAS CORRECT. Christians who do not listen to other people's viewpoints are often the reason that those of us who DO get a bad rap.

D - I just heard about this on Monson's show on the way back from a meeting. Glad to hear you stand up for yourself against those who are reading much too far into a statement which was indeed (clearly) made tongue-in-cheek. :)

Posted by desmoscott at 10/31/07 12:40 p.m.

You people need to lay off Ms Parvaz. I totally, 100% agree with her. I want to burn down some churches, too. In fact, we should ALL burn down churches. Ms. Parvaz might be ushering in a new age of non-toleration of christianity. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

The new voice of the Democrat party.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 12:52 p.m.

christalynn11,

Why do you say the Oklahoma bombing wasn't a good analogy? I think it's an EXCELLENT analogy to address D Parvaz's point. She was saying she understood the power of an image to someone who sees the church as an oppressive institution. Timothy McVeigh saw the government as an oppressive institution. What's the difference?

Her point was that if Addis acted that out by burning a church, she understood the reason behind it. McVeigh acted out, too. What's the difference?

Oh wait, I know. The difference is it's somehow OKAY to burn down a church. Hate Christians much? Your intolerance is showing.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 1:15 p.m.

Could there be a bit of selective indignation at work here? If this were an African Methodist Episcopal Church or a mosque would the pyromaniac in question be considered nut case, racist or both? Would he then be charged with a hate crime?

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 2:45 p.m.

I saw a video of Paul Addis shot by his friends and posted on YouTube. I believe he is delusional and is a danger to himself and others, despite the cloying worship of his friends and some members of the Burning Man community.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 6:34 p.m.

Hate crime here, and why is the PI promoting hate crimes.

Wow, i never thought i'd see PI favoring attacks on peaceful places.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 6:52 p.m.

Dorothy Parvaz is a fool and should be ashamed of herself. I hope she quickly dissapears from where she came from.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 7:00 p.m.

Looks to me like this weird bloggist is just another example of 'Seattle Values' ... what she wrote is what she wrote ... and she can't laugh it away ... as I just now saw her try to do on a news program ... Let's hope the PI takes another look (but, I doubt it) ... I only remain 'anonymou' because I don't need hate mail ...

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 7:16 p.m.

If this was a "mosque", Ms. Parvaz would be calling Paul Addis a "RIGHT WING EXTREMIST", and fulminating for his head.....another sterling example of left-wing hypocrisy.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 7:18 p.m.

"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".

I suppose a racist in Mississippi dynamiting a Church and burning it to the ground is viewed as "performance art" in "tolerant" San Francisco?

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 7:50 p.m.

Let's see Dorothy Parvaz. I think I totally agree with you. hmmm. yep. Those fires, for example, in California got a "little out of hand and damaged a little property and hurt some folks." Wonder which hand those arsonists used?

Dang those little stunts anyway. BTW, in your investigative fervor, have you found out if Pauly would like to torch Mosques or does he just have this fire thing for Churches as oppressive institutions.ny.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 7:56 p.m.

You know, I never thought much about O'Reilly's "San Fransisco Values" stuff, but now I think I understand more. It's funny, I never would have thought of myself as anything but a true liberal Democrat, but I'm starting to see something I never noticed before.

Sure my friends would joke around about Christians and right-wingers, and we'd never take Republicans seriously...but I never wanted to hurt anyone, you know? I never wanted to burn their churches.

What I'm afraid of is that that's what it might start coming to, not because WE do it, but because we LET it happen, and secretly APPROVE of it. I know, I know, this Addis guy is a nutjob, but my own people, my own friends, my own "side" I guess you could say, seems to be excusing him and even understanding him because it's a church!!

I'm not saying I'm suddenly turning pro-dubbya, but I AM saying that this may be a turning point for me, a time to realize I've been misled. Maybe I've been misled by D Parvaz, maybe she's just been misled, too. Either way, this isn't right. There comes a time when people have to take a stand, draw that proverbial line in the sand and say "this is as far as I go and no further".

As for the right, they can believe what they want, they have a right to. But I will NOT stand idly by while others try to take that right away from them!

Posted by sokala at 10/31/07 9:40 p.m.

christalynn11 – The analogy in putting her words in the context of the Oklahoma City bombing was to illustrate the hypocrisy of someone who espouses ZERO tolerance (e.g. no threshold) for violence the rest of the time no matter the circumstances thus has what a electrical engineer calls a "sneak circuit" that in fact says in effect: "ummm, I can see that might be OK…". We are not talking about someone (Mr. Addis) who has a mental disorder and soiled himself in public and "she can understand this happening". It's about the fact that she would have never entertained the thought of writing what she did had the institution been a government entity no matter the severity of the act. It's about expecting people who disagree with her otherwise to be judge by a zero tolerance but having a different standard for those she can "identify with".

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 10:04 p.m.

It is bad because it is arson and it could get out of hand and kill someone else.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 10:20 p.m.

Do people know that a fire can happen from well a candle or a rock and metal? So a firework could start a fire I do not see how hard that is to believe by some liberals.

Also fire can happen from rags. So I do not get what is so hard to believe about burning a church with fireworks. Gas is legal so them being legal has nothing to do with it. The burning the church is the problem...

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 10:31 p.m.

...Apparently someone turned on the "completely confused people" comment filter, preventing intelligent or at least moderately rational people from writing comments. Let's see if this one gets through:

I find it incredibly, shockingly depressing that every single comment so far has failed to understand that Ms. Parvaz's point was not condoning the action, but that she is willing to admit that she understands the viewpoint of the religious institution from the perspective of the anti-religious.

This doesn't necessarily mean she IS one, but that she's signaling her understanding of the viewpoint to the surprisingly large minority of people who believe the church is a threatening institution.

Sean Hannity, his comments & (almost) all the comments on this post so far have proved only that people are less understanding of other people's viewpoints than Ms. Parvaz assumed.

Thank you all for reminding me, too, that differing perspectives should be quashed by the loud & angry majority. I almost forgot this fact and pressed the "Post Comment" button...

Posted by unregistered user at 10/31/07 10:36 p.m.

I want to thank most of the posts that I have read.I would have figured most of the posts would have been from Parvaz's smarmy friends or that one guy that will agree with her just to get in her pants.Writing about pop culture in Seattle,how can that be a job?Art and music/film are the only thing that is important to the left.Vain professions that put NO money on anybody's table except the creator and the hair stylist they worship.80,000 spent on a college education just so they can berate the masses for not "seeing" certain dialogue in a Clooney film.Where was Parvaz during the Danish Muhammed cartoons....of course probably hiding.By now Parvaz should be at the point where she is laughing at all my run-on sentences and bad punctuation(typical lefty move that gives them a warm feeling of "superiority").Folks,we have these clowns figured out at every level unfortunately for us we don't get to take to the streets to protest(that's for the journalist majors that take 8 credits a semester and for grandmothers with pink sweaters that sent their husbands to an early grave) but once again thanks to everyone who came to this blog and voiced their displeasure with Parvaz,the littlest of humans.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/1/07 1:23 a.m.

Forcing sex bad or an art?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/1/07 5:18 a.m.

Parvaz is an interesting character. Clearly ideological with a thinly disguised contempt of anyone who doesn't buy into her political views. Her blog is outrageous and would never have been said if the individual were attempting to burn down a mosque.

I thank her for illustrating so very clearly how the nutjubs feel and think on the far left fringe. Please Ms Parvaz, keep these kinds of blogs going at least through election day next year.

One last thing. Christians have survived persecution, murder, and torture for 2000 years and we will also survive people who think like Ms Parvaz.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/1/07 8:17 a.m.

What kind of joke is this? Dorothy Parvaz "understands" why someone would want to burn down an "oppressive" church? Does she also "understand" why Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building or why people burn synogogues? Does this understanding also cover why Islamists gun down Christians worshiping in churches in Arab countries?

The hypocrisy of the left is incredible! Parvez is a perfect example of the bigoted hatred and intolerance the left wing media holds for people of traditional values.

Posted by gk1300 at 11/1/07 9:19 a.m.

Where's all the right wing "outrage" when Colter talks about bombing the NY Times building? What if right wingers start bombing buildings that contain folks who hold ideas they disagree with? Oh wait, they already are bombing abortion clinics and I guess that's all right with the right?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/1/07 9:48 a.m.

Well find an article that says something like this.

"I understand bombing an abortion clinic. IT could be considered an art a place that kills others. But that is arson and it might burn some other building and hurt some people."

I do not understand your point the right bombs abortion clinics. What are you talking about. Liberals leave pipe bombs in mail boxes. is that an art.

Your comment is prejudice its says right wingers bomb abortion clinics. I can also say that the left wing was the cause of all the major wars. actually the left was the cause of every major war probably 1900 and on.

Hitler and Stalin. kill probably 100 million together where is the left wing outrage. I bet it is an art.

Posted by tbjohnston at 11/1/07 7:51 p.m.

C'mon Ms. Parvaz, you're on the wrong side of both Jefferson and FDR here - one the author of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, the other the author of the Four Freedoms, including the Freedom of every person to worship in his own way.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/1/07 8:29 p.m.

Parvaz, Jamieson...they've all been given the same message by Oglesby: The paper is dying. Provoke sales or die with it.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 1:15 p.m.

Ms. Parvaz is clearly unfamiliar with Grace Cathedral. It is by no shred of the imagination an "oppressive church". Regardless of the liberal teachings of this church, Ms. Parvaz ought to consider that there is no justification for arson, least of all "art". Perhaps she has also forgotten that in the USA, there is no established religion or obligation to subscribe to any religious dogma? In which case, unlike the circumstances of her upbringing, there is no possibility for opression by a church.

She us also clearly delusional to suggest that burning a painting wouldn't be performance art but thereby implying that burning a cathedral would be performance art? No. Burning a cathdral takes no art or performance. Burning others' art is not art.

It is also beyond insulting for Ms. Parvaz to suggest that the only check on an arsonist of a church is that the act might burn OTHER property. What is your problem Ms. Parvaz? Can you not understand that damaging the church is of itself deeply wrong?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 4:03 p.m.

Why do you say the Oklahoma bombing wasn't a good analogy? I think it's an EXCELLENT analogy to address D Parvaz's point. She was saying she understood the power of an image to someone who sees the church as an oppressive institution. Timothy McVeigh saw the government as an oppressive institution. What's the difference?

That the power of the IMAGE is different from that of the ACT. She wasn't condoning the act, she was stating that she understood the mental image of a burning church. Which, honestly, do you not understand the image of a burning church? A noose hanging in a tree? A brick thrown through a window? That there is a vast difference between the idea and image of something and the act of making that real. Sometimes, yes, the image can be seriously damaging, as evidenced recently by the black professor at Columbia who found the noose on her office doorknob. Yet the act itself would be much more gruesome. This is not comparing apples to apples here people.

Her point was that if Addis acted that out by burning a church, she understood the reason behind it. McVeigh acted out, too. What's the difference?

149 adults, 19 children, 3 unborn babies, and hundreds of others who were injured. Pretty big difference. And her point, again, was about the IMAGE not the ACT.

Hate Christians much? Your intolerance is showing.

Interesting that I flat out identified myself AS A CHRISTIAN and yet you ( apparently also as a "Christian") call me intolerant? Hmmm…

Posted by christalynn11 at 11/3/07 4:03 p.m.

Ah, didn't log in I see - I wrote the above post.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/5/07 7:56 p.m.

I wonder how the illustrious Ms. Parvaz will find a real job after this paper folds...she's dug her own grave in journalism with her ignorant and insane comments.