Comments on: Boy with autism barred from attending church http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2008/05/19/boy-with-autism-barred-from-attending-church/ Disability News | PatriciaEBauer.com Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:42:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Heather O http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2008/05/19/boy-with-autism-barred-from-attending-church/#comment-919 Heather O Fri, 23 May 2008 18:07:04 +0000 http://www.patriciaebauer.com/?p=2141#comment-919 There has been a lot of unwarranted speculation on a lot of websites. The accusations in the restraining order are extreme exaggerations, according to the mother Carol Race, who I know. Many toddlers, preschools and seniors are occasionally incontinent, but you wouldn't say they are "urinating in church," leading people think they are pulling down their pants and peeing in the aisles. Discrimination laws will define what is "disruptive" and "annoying" to what is "crimininal". Carol Race said that only one time Adam struck a child in mass. Is this criminal? or in the normal realm or what children can do. Despite his size, he's 13 years old and developmentally delayed. Obviously that's no excuse for injuring someone, but who has Adam injured? I have a son with autism and in this past week, he was hit in the head with a rock thrown by a "neurotypical" child. The child did not get into trouble, but I had to put a cold pack on my son's head. Later, my son accidentally hit a classmate with his lunch bag, had to apologize and go to the principal's office for a "fix-it" plan. Parents of children with autism do not use it as an excuse for disruptive behavior. Many churches of many denominations have already developed plans and programs so special needs members and their families can participate without being banished from church ceremony. There has been a lot of unwarranted speculation on a lot of websites. The accusations in the restraining order are extreme exaggerations, according to the mother Carol Race, who I know. Many toddlers, preschools and seniors are occasionally incontinent, but you wouldn’t say they are “urinating in church,” leading people think they are pulling down their pants and peeing in the aisles.

Discrimination laws will define what is “disruptive” and “annoying” to what is “crimininal”. Carol Race said that only one time Adam struck a child in mass. Is this criminal? or in the normal realm or what children can do.

Despite his size, he’s 13 years old and developmentally delayed. Obviously that’s no excuse for injuring someone, but who has Adam injured?

I have a son with autism and in this past week, he was hit in the head with a rock thrown by a “neurotypical” child. The child did not get into trouble, but I had to put a cold pack on my son’s head. Later, my son accidentally hit a classmate with his lunch bag, had to apologize and go to the principal’s office for a “fix-it” plan. Parents of children with autism do not use it as an excuse for disruptive behavior.

Many churches of many denominations have already developed plans and programs so special needs members and their families can participate without being banished from church ceremony.

]]> By: Redtown http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2008/05/19/boy-with-autism-barred-from-attending-church/#comment-905 Redtown Tue, 20 May 2008 13:24:43 +0000 http://www.patriciaebauer.com/?p=2141#comment-905 This isn't a kid just making a few noises. According to AP, “Adam struck a child during mass, nearly knocks elderly parishioners over…, spits and sometimes urinates in church and fights when he is being restrained. He also… assaulted a girl by pulling her onto his lap.” When he started two cars in the parking lot, “people could have been injured or killed.” The church has tried to accommodate, but the behavior has only become more dangerous. It’s not the boy’s fault, but his own parents cannot always control him. I doubt that even Jesus would condone the enabling of such dangerous and disruptive behavior -- posing great risks to others and self -- in the name of “acceptance”. This is sloppy agape. Someone can be seriously injured. The pastor has definite moral and legal responsibilities to protect everyone from harm. If some child or elderly person were injured, there would be a major lawsuit. “I was practicing inclusion” would not be a defense for reckless endangerment. This isn't general discrimination against all handicapped or autistic people. This is a case of a particular individual with dangerously disruptive behavior. There is such a thing as rational discrimination; Adam will never be allowed to drive either. In a perfect world, everyone would be welcomed everywhere. But if I had a highly communicable disease, say TB, I’d have no right to mingle in large crowds where I posed a serious threat. And I think Jesus would agree, notwithstanding that he loved everyone. My right to inclusion ends where your rights to safety begin. Is it unreasonable to ask Adam’s parents to accommodate everyone else’s rights to public safety? This isn’t a kid just making a few noises. According to AP, “Adam struck a child during mass, nearly knocks elderly parishioners over…, spits and sometimes urinates in church and fights when he is being restrained. He also… assaulted a girl by pulling her onto his lap.” When he started two cars in the parking lot, “people could have been injured or killed.”

The church has tried to accommodate, but the behavior has only become more dangerous. It’s not the boy’s fault, but his own parents cannot always control him.

I doubt that even Jesus would condone the enabling of such dangerous and disruptive behavior — posing great risks to others and self — in the name of “acceptance”. This is sloppy agape.

Someone can be seriously injured. The pastor has definite moral and legal responsibilities to protect everyone from harm. If some child or elderly person were injured, there would be a major lawsuit. “I was practicing inclusion” would not be a defense for reckless endangerment.

This isn’t general discrimination against all handicapped or autistic people. This is a case of a particular individual with dangerously disruptive behavior. There is such a thing as rational discrimination; Adam will never be allowed to drive either.

In a perfect world, everyone would be welcomed everywhere. But if I had a highly communicable disease, say TB, I’d have no right to mingle in large crowds where I posed a serious threat. And I think Jesus would agree, notwithstanding that he loved everyone.

My right to inclusion ends where your rights to safety begin. Is it unreasonable to ask Adam’s parents to accommodate everyone else’s rights to public safety?

]]>