It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Minn. mom fights church ban on her autistic son

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


Thanks for pointing out methods for helping the child to have more self-control.

Pexx and a couple other posters have brought out the extreme behavior difficulties there could be with certain autistic children. I am currently aware of two autistic children, one with autism so mild that you would not label him "autistic" and who will be attending college and living on his own. The other is a 5 year old female who has sent two adults who work with her to the doctor with injuries.

Minniesoda posted observations from the fast food restaurant, which seem to be consistent with what the mother is saying, he loves food. But a church service is not the same as a fast food setting.

I disagree with the mother's contention that one must be in attendance at church to receive the sacramental benefits of Mass. When my sister was too ill to attend church, a priest came to the house to bring her the Eucharist; and there are many others whose only way to "attend" Mass is via the tv. The Church has no problems with those who cannot attend a church service; the problem arises in the mother's mind.




posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
The humane thing to do with a person with autism, would be to recognize them as still being a human being, and treat them as such.
Is an autistic person a physical threat to members of a church? No. People without autism have a far better grasp of their surroundings than autistics, and hence, can defend themselves against any outbursts.

Is the child with autism a threat? Absolutely not.
Is the child with autism in some form, not worth humane treatment? No.

So whats the HUMANE thing to do?
Treat the child as one of your own.

What is religion NOT doing?
The religious are NOT treating this child humanely.


What on earth are you talking about? How is the Church not treating this child as a human being? Please refrain from the histrionics and try to separate your hatred for organized religion from the case at hand.

What you have posted is ludicrous. To make sweeping statements like people with autism don't present a threat to others is ridiculous. Some do, some don't.

Who said that the child wasn't treated humanely? Numerous options were offered and they were rejected.

As far as treating the child as you would your own, I would take my child out of the immediate area if he/she were disrupting the services. It's done in Churches every single day.

The mother of the child stated that they had attended the Church for years. Are you assuming that overnight these horrible religious people stripped their veneer of civility and pounced on a helpless family?

Here is where I feel that the Church went wrong: they should have never spoken to anyone outside the congregation and the family about this situation. It's not fair to the family or the alleged victims of the child's outbursts.

It seems that the Church attempted to make accommodations for the family and their efforts were rebuffed. That is fine. The family has the absolute right to decide what their response will be to anything involving themselves or their children.

The Church has the right and responsibility to ensure the safety of the parishioners.

It's too bad that the two could not find an agreeable accommodation, but your (and the OP's) vehement attack on the Church clearly is motivated by an overriding bias that disallows logic.

Eric



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


A joke eh? Sorry, I failed to see your attempt at humor. You knew what you were doing, don't backtrack now on it. It's weak to say " I didn't mean that, it was really just a joke". Why even imply that if you did not, and apparently still feel that way? That's it, attack me for pointing our the problems with your question without acknowledging that your whole premise was wrong in the first place.

BTW, I am glad you picked up on my reference to recent political gaffes. I merely did it to show what damage is done but having preconceived ideas about a group. That is my entire agenda.

Have a nice day.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by pavil]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


I can say, without any sarcasm, that I have watched a miracle take place. Please do not mock that which you do not understand. If you really did, you would know what most of the normal christians consider Televangelists to be. Lepers, and Leaches.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


A joke eh? Sorry, I failed to see your attempt at humor. You knew what you were doing, don't backtrack now on it. It's weak to say " I didn't mean that, it was really just a joke". Why even imply that if you did not, and apparently still feel that way? That's it, attack me for pointing our the problems with your question without acknowledging that your whole premise was wrong in the first place.

BTW, I am glad you picked up on my reference to recent political gaffes. I merely did it to show what damage is done but having preconceived ideas about a group. That is my entire agenda.

Have a nice day.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by pavil]
You must really like the taste of your own foot. Don't accuse me of backtracking when I've stood by my statements from the moment I made them. Fail to see the humor do you? Well that's stating the obvious, I already stated that my joking could be perceived as bad or offensive, so you're scoring zero points against me there. And spare me the "I attacked you" crap, you fired the first volley. If you can't hang, then pipe down. the rest of your post made hardly any sense so I'm not going to bother pointing out the various instances of you choking on your foot. Unless you persist that is.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


I can say, without any sarcasm, that I have watched a miracle take place. Please do not mock that which you do not understand. If you really did, you would know what most of the normal christians consider Televangelists to be. Lepers, and Leaches.
Please don't presume to know what I understand and what I don't. If you want to have a serious discussion about miracles, then you can do one of two things: describe this miracle you say you witnessed, or explain why God won't perform a miracle on this boy.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


If you think this is relevant to the topic, and won't cause the thread to be moved, I will gladly answer both.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
^ Perhaps God wants to test their faith and endurance?

The Church obviously did something wrong, The Catholic Church literally means IT IS FOR EVERYONE. IT IS UNIVERSAL. Heresy is not a far fetched thought here. Especially if the Priest did indeed lie.

Let the person without imperfections step forward and have a say on who to include in the mass and who to expel.


however, one cannot subtract the fact that maybe the parents are not being considerate enough, why cant they sit at the back of the church, or at the end of the row and tie adam down? And use materials necessary in controlling autistic people like what the other ATS'er pointed out.

If the parents failed to see this, then it's the Church's responsibility to do so.
however, what i mean by this is that the Church should help the family control the boy, not expel him.

They have no right to ban someone who has no consent over what he's doing, just like a person who did something wrong without their consent is not a sin. Once again, I call Heresy in that particular church.

on a side note I am not a Catholic, im a bornagain christian, i just study in a catholic school.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Chosen]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Chosen
 


THey did sit in the back. Remember the visitors saying that sat in the back pew usually reserved for Adam's family? They did it to show their daughter's place?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Flagged the thread


right now i still have no concrete decision, i'll wait for others to give their opinions.

If i was in the Priest's shoes, i would be compelled even more to preach and serve the lord knowing that Adam is in my church.

If the boy is harmless, like the family described, then the church is at total fault.

If the boy and the family would happen to go to my church, the pastor together with the church leaders would welcome the boy even more, after all, it's their job. No matter what happens they should follow God's call.


[edit on 3-6-2008 by Chosen]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Chosen]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 
You can answer either if you're comfortable with it. However the question involving the boy in the story is more on-topic.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Chosen
 


How did the Church do something obviously wrong when they are looking out for the safety of the majority of the flock? On top of that, the Church tried to reach an accommodation with the family, but could not.

The article states Adam is severely autistic. Again, I have had experiences with such children, they can and are dangerous to others and themselves at times. They aren't intentionally evil or trying to hurt others, none the less, they can at times, hurt others, which is why the Church took the steps it did.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


This is getting nowhere and off topic. You have a good day.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
^ thank you sir for reminding me.



This is so confusing for me, really. Which is why im sitting on the fence.
I have also managed to contradict myself throughout my posts.

By Catholic laws, they have done something wrong, you cant really ban someone from a church.period. no matter what happens you can't do it.
though this may not be practical, it's what i've been taught.


But by doing so they accomplish something that is right by caring for the other members.


i'm torn, it seems that both sides have some valid points.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Chosen]

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Chosen]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chosen

By Catholic laws, they have done something wrong, you cant really ban someone from a church.period. no matter what happens you can't do it.
though this may not be practical, it's what I've been taught.



Speaking as a lifelong Catholic, I think you are confusing religious sanctuary with this topic. The Church doesn't refuse to help those in need. I would have you find the law in question that you are referring to before I could comment more.

The Church in question has offered the family a means of worshipping that does not endanger other parishioners from what I have read in this case. The family of Adam chooses to attend church like they always had in the past and this is what has caused the ban on him.

While I agree it would be great to have Adam and his family worship at the Church, reasonable accommodations must be made to insure the safety of all who attend. Speaking second hand, it sounds as if the Church has tried more to reach an accomadation than the family has. You can't just build a seperate room for Adam and his parent's to sit in, especially in a less than wealthy area.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Well, maybe the parishioners didn't like to think about what would cause an all-loving God to give churchgoing Catholics a child with Autism? Cause he controls everything y'know...



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Look, its not a punishment, its maintaining a functional environment. We use the death penalty in our country, but we dont use it because "those people are bad and deserve to be punished" we do it because they are incapable of functioning in harmony with society, and the alternative is to put them out of the equation. This is not about rejection of the child, they are not saying god doesnt love him or that they dont. Just that they want their mass disruption free, and if a person cant control themselves, or cant control their children, its rediculous to say that those people must be included in mass. Further, as i said before, a person out of control is not the same as a citizen with full rights and privelege. This is evidenced by the fact that they are also given leeway with their behaviour, things that would be crimes for ordinary people (pulling people into your lap, spitting on others and urinating in public, hitting people) are treated differently for them. In a similar way, they dont necessarily have the RIGHT to inflict themselves upon other people. They dont have the right to drive (thank goodness). They dont have the right to bear firearms(im hoping). There are different considerations here, and these are there to maintain a reasonable amount of social decorum and are right and good. IF i were eating in a restaurant and an autistic child and his family were near me, and if the child kept throwing food and such at my table and the family couldnt control it, i would feel justified in asking them to leave, and if they would refuse, i would feel justified in asking the father to step outside so we could "discuss" it more reasonably. Any parents who completely fail to understand and accept responsibility for the effects their presence and actions have on those around them are being thoughtless and selfish, and this is quite inexcusable. Having a good "christian" open heart and open mind does not only have to do with helping others....it also has to do with understanding the effects your actions and presence have on others without needing it explained to you, and working to protect others from your own failings.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join