Last Minute Cancellation for Jerusalem Homosexual Parade

The long battle over Jerusalem’s Gay Pride parade came to a surprise end yesterday, as organizers were forced to finally cancel the event one day before its scheduled date, reports Life Site News (Nov. 10, 2006).

The original Jerusalem World Pride event was scheduled to take place in 2005, but was postponed ostensibly due to “the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza,” although public opinion sided against the homosexual march. It was postponed until August of 2006, but that gathering amounted to about 100 participants waving banners and rainbow flags, while singing songs outside the giant gray concrete slabs near the gate of the “Separation Wall” separating Jerusalem from Bethlehem.

The “Pride” parade scheduled for November 11^th was canceled due to “security concerns” and “relentless pressure from the Orthodox Jewish community against the event,” according to its organizers, the Jerusalem Open House.

Violence in the Gaza strip on November 8^th led police to declare that they would not have manpower to maintain order and ensure security during the parade. In addition, protests against the parade had been held in religious neighborhoods of Jerusalem and in locations throughout the country over the weeks leading up to the planned parade. Leaders of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities worked together in a show of unprecedented unity to prevent the homosexual celebration from taking place. Their efforts were joined by strong international condemnation from religious leaders of multiple faiths.

In the week prior to the parade date, the Vatican issued a statement calling for Israeli officials to cancel the event, stating “it is clear that the gay parade scheduled to take place in Jerusalem will prove offensive to the great majority of Jews, Muslims and Christians, given the sacred character of the city of Jerusalem.”

When anti-parade protesters agreed to cancel demonstrations if the homosexual event was relocated to a closed area, the organizers substituted a rally at Hebrew University’s soccer stadium in place of the extravagant demonstration planned for Jerusalem city streets. Held in the small University stadium, the rally, which featured live rock music and dancing, drew a modest crowd of about one thousand participants, with an estimated 3,000-strong police force securing the building.

“The holy city of Jerusalem now breathes a sigh of relief that it is not going to be sullied by this kind of event,” declared Rabbi Yehuda Levin of the Rabbinical Alliance of America upon the cancellation of the parade.

Comment: Although Jerusalem has been the site of local homosexual parades since 2002, it remains to be seen whether or not the threat of an international homosexual extravaganza for the city will become a yearly event, like Oktoberfest or the Running of the Bulls. Jerusalem’s “gay” activists have made no secret about their intention to force public acceptance of homosexuality down the throats of the Holy City’s populace. WorldPride organizers, the Jerusalem Open House (JOH), has referred to a “gay pride” march through the streets of the city as “a historical opportunity to proclaim the moral values of our community from the home of three of the world’s great religions.”

It is very interesting to note that the JOH has touted the “moral values” of the homosexual community. And it’s further interesting to explore the hypocrisy of the statement. According to The Jerusalem Post (Nov. 6, 2006), JOH director Noa Satat announced that the planned WorldPride Parade would "have a 'Jerusalem character' - nothing sexual or provocative." And Steve Weizman of the Associated Press reported (Nov. 11, 2006) that participants at the stadium event “dressed mainly in regular street clothes, making it a far more staid affair than gay pride events in the more permissive city of Tel Aviv.”

What is a “Jerusalem character” and, if it is a good thing, a symbol of the homosexual community’s “moral values,” why was it not adopted for other “pride” events? In 2000, the WorldPride Parade was held in Rome, where “throngs of shirtless men in shorts and bikini briefs congregated on the streets” (World Net Daily, March 24, 2005).

Why was there no “Rome character” in 2000 to mirror what would come to be called the “Jerusalem character” in 2006? To put it logically, if  “sexual or provocative” attire is deemed to be morally offensive to the inhabitants of one particular city, then why inflict it upon any people, anywhere? The continued debauchery that highlights “gay pride” parades throughout the world is eloquent testimony to the fact that this sudden respect for a “Jerusalem character” was nothing but a sham, a ruse to get the public off the backs of the JOH activists. It didn’t work. Protests against the parade continued in religious neighborhoods of Jerusalem and in locations throughout the country prior to the event.

On November 2, 2006, Ynet News reported on the desecration of a synagogue in Tel Aviv. An unidentified group of people smashed in the window panes of the Geulat Yisrael Synagogue and sprayed graffiti on the wall warning temple members that "If we don't march in Jerusalem – you won't walk in Tel Aviv." Yitzhak Bir, the manager of the synagogue, remarked "I think that had such a thing happened in London or any other place in Europe, the State itself would have wreaked havoc and called for a stop to this lawlessness and vandalism.” So much for “Jerusalem character.”

Vatican Museums’ Pro-Abortion Patron

One of the official Patrons of the Vatican Museums is also an active and public supporter of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider, reports Elizabeth Lev in an article for Zenit (Nov. 16, 2006).  The Patrons of the Vatican Museums were formed in 1983 as an international society organized from within the Holy See institution. The Patrons are dedicated to supporting and maintaining the art of the Vatican Museums. While there are chapters of Patrons in several parts of Europe, by far and away the greatest number of patrons can be found in the United States.

The Patrons donate between $320 to $1,280 annually to the museums and are coordinated in different parts of the United States by chairpersons who serve as links between the Vatican institution and the local area. The Vatican Museums maintain an office just for the Patrons where they are brought on private guided visits and have special events and dinners on the premises.

According to the Patrons Page of the Vatican Museums website, the chair for the Minnesota chapter of the Patrons of the Vatican Museums is one Maureen Kucera-Walsh, who was particularly instrumental when the "St. Peter and the Vatican" show toured the States in 2004. In the June 2004 issue of Basilica, the magazine of the Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Kucera-Walsh was listed as the point person for visiting the traveling exhibition. Her Minnesota chapter restored the hammer used to verify the death of the Pope as well as the statues of Sts. Peter and Paul from the sacristy of St. Peter’s Basilica.

However, Maureen Kucera-Walsh also plays an active role in Planned Parenthood. In the Planned Parenthood annual reports of 2005 and 2006, she is listed as a member of their board of directors. This past October 9^th, she served as a host for a Planned Parenthood event in Minneapolis, which was organized to marshal support against the proposed law in South Dakota which would make it illegal for anyone to perform an abortion except where the mother's life was in danger. One of the principal items on the agenda of this event was to "get the inside scoop on the effort to defeat South Dakota's abortion ban."

“With one hand, people like Maureen Kucera-Walsh polish the effigies of the saints,” writes Elizabeth Lev, “while with the other they dismiss what the saints died for. That gives a perverted twist to the Gospel injunction not to let the left hand know what the right hand is doing!”

Comment: I always get a kick out of hearing the “enlightened” set complain about the slavish adherence to dogma which is supposed to be a hallmark of the serious Catholic. To hear them speak, you would tend to picture Catholics as zombies straight out of a George Romero horror flick, except with Rosaries dangling out of their pockets.

While I can fully understand allegiance to religious doctrine (even that shown by the practitioners of false creeds), I am constantly amazed at the allegiance – and the fierce allegiance, at that – given so generously to human whim, the secular doctrines espoused by political activists and self-appointed social engineers.

A brief glance at Vatican Patron Maureen Kucera-Walsh’s political preferences says it all. Politicos who have received monetary contributions from Kucera-Walsh include Democrats Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum, Amy Klobuchar and Hillary Clinton.

McCollum and Clinton have received a “100% Rating” by NARAL, the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League (formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League) for their “pro-choice voting record.” Ellison is endorsed by NARAL, while Klobuchar states that abortions should be “safe” and “rare.”

In addition, McCollum and Clinton are both recommended by EMILY’S LIST, which operates as a donor network, recommending pro-abortion Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY’s LIST members contributed $9.3 million to pro-abortion Democratic women candidates. Talk about a “dogmatic” approach to life!

Will the Vatican, which is notorious for NOT “cleaning house,” take action? Who knows. Elizabeth Lev offered a good commentary on this latest example of the wolves guarding the sheep:

Undoubtedly many people who gave and produced the great art of the Vatican were sinners themselves, and found their path back to God through the patronage of great works. Nonetheless, supporting Church art while actively opposing the Church's moral mission confuses the faithful and scandalizes those who embrace the Gospel message in its entirety.

University Settles Anti-Christian Lawsuit

According to The Kansas City Star (Nov. 14, 2006), Missouri State University has settled a lawsuit filed by Emily Brooker, a May 2006 graduate, which claimed that Miss Brooker’s freedoms of speech and religion had been violated after she was punished by a university professor for refusing to lobby in favor of homosexual adoption.

The lawsuit alleged that one of Brooker’s instructors, Frank G. Kauffman, an assistant professor of social work, demanded that students write a letter to the Missouri Legislature expressing support for homosexual adoption as a course project. Brooker refused on the grounds that such support violated her Christian beliefs. The lawsuit also stated that Brooker had voiced her concerns about the letter during class and had agreed to do a project on a different subject.

Because of her refusal to express written support for homosexual adoption, Miss Brooker was charged with a "Level 3 Grievance," the most serious charge possible, and faced the possibility of having her degree withheld. The grievance filed against Brooker claimed she violated three standards that are to be maintained by students in the School of Social Work: diversity, interpersonal skills and professional behavior. Brooker was told her religious beliefs conflicted with the National Association of Social Workers’ code of ethics. As a condition for graduation, the lawsuit alleged, Brooker was made to sign a contract requiring her to conform to that code even though she objected to the contract.

On October 30, 2006, attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal team that often takes religious freedom cases, filed a complaint in federal district court to defend Brooker's First Amendment rights. "The university is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, and professors should be tolerant of the opinions of Christian students as well as those of non-Christian students," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, director of ADF's Center for Academic Freedom.

After an investigation into Brooker’s allegations, Missouri State University negotiated the settlement with the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented Brooker. The university agreed to pay damages in the amount of $9,000 and said that Brooker could attend Missouri State to pursue a master’s degree in social work free of charge for two years — equivalent to about $12,000. In addition, Brooker could receive $3,000 per year in living expenses for two years of graduate education.

MSU also agreed to clear Brooker’s official record of the high-level grievance filed against her by the university’s School of Social Work. After the university’s investigation, Professor Frank Kauffman voluntarily resigned his post as director of the Master of Social Work Program and was reassigned to non-classroom duties.

Comment: Perhaps the most striking travesty in this case was the “Level 3 Hearing” conducted by MSU officials on December 16, 2005. Ostensibly an inquiry into the “Level 3 Grievance” filed against Miss Brooker, the two and a half-hour interrogation session reads more like a combination tribunal-cum-firing-squad. According to Brooker’s lawsuit, this examination of her alleged “discriminatory conduct” in refusing to sign a letter in support of homosexual adoption included “a series of personally invasive questions criticizing her Christian belief.” She was asked such questions as "Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?" and "Do you think I am a sinner?" She was also asked whether or not she could effectively assist homosexuals as a social worker.

The defendants also stated that Brooker’s beliefs conflicted with the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) Code of Ethics, which states that “social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability.” Unfortunately, like any cookie-cutter-stamped secular manifesto, the NASW Code of Ethics can barely survive its own logic. While recognizing that “instances may arise when social workers' ethical obligations conflict with agency policies or relevant laws or regulations” and “ethical decision making in a given situation must apply the informed judgment of the individual social worker,” it also claims that it “does not specify which values, principles, and standards are most important and ought to outweigh others in instances when they conflict.” In the old Warner Brothers cartoons, this principle was demonstrated by a character pointing in opposite directions and saying, “They went thataway!”

Upon entering the School of Social Work, Brooker was required to sign a contract promising to adhere to the NASW Code. The defendants at her “Level 3 Hearing” demanded that Brooker “lessen the gap” between her personal beliefs and professional obligation to the Code of Ethics.  Lessen the gap. It is as good a euphemism as any for use by the charlatans who attempt to use their classrooms as labor camps for the “cause” – whatever the cause might be. Emily Brooker’s lawsuit states that, only a few weeks into Professor Kauffman’s course, Kauffman brought a guest speaker from the pro-homosexual advocacy group, PROMO, in to speak to the class. The group advocates for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality through legislative action, electoral politics, grassroots organizing, and community education.” PROMO is actively engaged in proposing and promoting pro-homosexual initiatives in the U.S. House and Senate – and one of their members is invited to address a class of future social workers. But it is student Emily Brooker who must “lessen the gap” between personal belief and professional obligation? Seems like that dictum didn’t apply to Professor Kauffman.

“Largest And Most Splendid Structure” Found at Meggido

Please subscribe to The Remnant in order to read Mark Alessio's news columns in toto.

 [Please Click Here to Subscribe]