It seems incredible that a church would take out a restraining order against anyone, never mind a 13 year old who has worshipped with them for almost all of his life. This boy and his family need and should receive unconditionally the love and support of their church, not rejection and ejection.
Yeah, it's really cute to get onto ones high horse on this matter, but there do come situtations wherein an INDIVIDUAL, due to INDIVIDUAL behavior, simply does NOT have to be tolerated UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. If he's a physical danger, then he should be restricted. If he takes a piss in public and won't stop taking a piss in the sanctuary or elsewhere inappropriate, then he can rightly be required to wear some Depends or GTFO and STFO!
I can love somebody and STILL demand that they not bring their gigantic son over to piss all over me.
This is a difficult issue... On one hand, obviously it is unacceptable for anyone, autistic or not, to hit others, spit, and urinate while at church. If this is what's actually going on (there seems to be some considerable debate as to what this boy was actually doing), then I feel that the owner/operator/proper authority of the church has the right to decide whether or not the said person can attend the church if they are severely disrupting others.
On the other hand, I feel that a restraining order for the entire family for two years is excessively harsh. The article states that the family says the boy's behavior is getting better recently, and if he has been well-behaved for the past couple of months I don't see why the church should disallow him from attending. Even if he still acts disruptively, I don't see why the parents can just go to church by themselves and find a caretaker for their child while they are away for an hour or two (that is, I don't see why the church would need to get a restraining order against the whole family).
I don't understand how churches and stuff work, though, so maybe my thoughts are not applicable to this situation.
I'm not much of a fan of religion, AKA the Opium of the people, according to my friend, Karl Marx. That's just my reaction to the boy getting banned. I pretty much expected it to happen.
Because atheists would have no problem at all with a gigantic teenager rambling around and pissing on them!
Yup!
when he wants to leave, his parents tie him up.
It sounds like his parents are actually attempting to permanently drive their son away from the Christian faith.
=Yet if someone sings off key and too loudly all the way through, that's fine. If someone stands up and dances, that's fine. If someone starts clapping, that's fine. If someone waves their arms in the air and shouts "hallelujah!", that's fine. It's just not fine if children with disabilities make a noise, you see. (!) I'd call it prejudice in a fair number of cases.
Maybe in some freaky little "church" that just makes things up as it goes along, but that sort of outrageous behavior would not be tolerable in my Church. It would detract from the contemplative and meditative atmosphere that the Liturgy is meant to instill.
=Yet if someone sings off key and too loudly all the way through, that's fine. If someone stands up and dances, that's fine. If someone starts clapping, that's fine. If someone waves their arms in the air and shouts "hallelujah!", that's fine. It's just not fine if children with disabilities make a noise, you see. (!) I'd call it prejudice in a fair number of cases.
Maybe in some freaky little "church" that just makes things up as it goes along, but that sort of outrageous behavior would not be tolerable in my Church. It would detract from the contemplative and meditative atmosphere that the Liturgy is meant to instill.
But would you go to court to ban them?
Okay, I'll come over and piss all over you and your home and you won't use the police or court to ban me, right? That is part of what this kid is doing. Likewise, it IS THE RIGHT of a church to maintain its good order.
In answer to the question on what the priest's view was and the question about why he didn't watch from a different room, here are
more details from Grizeldatee’s thread:
“The Church of St Joseph in Bertha, Minnesota took out the restraining order after 13 year old Adam Race, who suffers from autism, assaulted another child, spat at worshipers and urinated in the church font. Daniel Walz, the church pastor says he was forced to take action to protect the congregation from the six foot, sixteen stone teenager.
Adam’s mother Carol Race is defying the court order, saying that mass is very important to her son and no one has the right to refuse him access to church. The Races have been offered a closed circuit television link-up so they can watch the mass live from the church basement, but they have declined the offer saying it has no spiritual value.
Mrs Race has admitted that Adam is sometimes difficult to control. On previous occasions she and her husband have had to kneel or sit on the boy as he lies on the church floor flailing his arms and legs around. Sometimes it is necessary to tie his arms and legs together”
“During one church ceremony Adam ran from the church into the car park, leapt into a car, started it up and sat revving the engine.”
His pic is here
http://www.themorningstarr.co.uk/2008/06...om-church/
Adam’s mother Carol Race is defying the court order, saying that mass is very important to her son and no one has the right to refuse him access to church. The Races have been offered a closed circuit television link-up so they can watch the mass live from the church basement, but they have declined the offer saying it has no spiritual value.
The only parish named "St. Joseph" that I can find in Bertha, MN, is Roman Catholic. If a priest is willing to offer this as an alternative, within Roman Catholicism, it is not the responsibility nor place of a layperson within that particular tradition to say that it "has no spiritual value".
The parents have taken it upon themselves to tie the boy up to force him to remain in the sanctuary. It is obvious that the boy is not demanding to stay in the sanctuary during Mass. The parents are demanding to be permitted to force the poor boy to sit through it.
If you had a disability that meant you had incontinence problems and you had wet yourself in my home, no, I wouldn't call the police to have you arrested nor go to court to have you banned (and yes, that's what he did - it wasn't a question of him unzipping his trousers and urinating in the church openly).
He urinated IN THE FONT! Do you have the faintest idea of what the font is? YOU HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO READ A THING ABOUT THIS! You HAVE to unzip and let fly to make it into the font. It's just how they're built in every Catholic church building I've ever seen. He did not just have an accident on the pew or the floor. His family has been offered accommodations. They rejected them. HIS PARENTS have tied him up in the pews instead of take the accommodations.
"Race said Walz's descriptions of Adam's behavior illustrate that he understands little about autistic behavior and how to address it. She said that Walz used language like "urinate" to describe an incontinence problem that Adam sometimes has which is no worse than that an elderly person or a young child might have. "
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/266930/36/
I can find only that one article from that one newspaper suggesting any font-urinating. The mum strongly denies it. Everything else says incontinence. I guess we have to wait until the main court Hearing in July to find out for sure.
And, as far as you are concerned, it is just 100% perfectly okay and hunky-dory for his parents to sit on him and tie him up during Mass in order to force him to stay there?
I think at least 90% of 13-year-olds sitting in church are being coerced into being there one way or another. With this kid it is more overt. Personally, I had difficulty understanding why they would want to attend a church that chose to use courts to resolve the issue. This is obviously a church that has lost its way.
You've, of course, done more than make yourself superficially familiar with the situation?
It really DOES NOT MATTER TO YOU that the parish in question has already offered very reasonable and workable accommodations to permit the boy to still attend and the PARENTS have rejected these accommodations?
Great day in the morning! I thought that I was the master of going off half-cocked on everything. I am but a tyro, I am the grasshopper here.
I don't believe the parents should be tying this boy up and I'm very surprised that nobody has reported them for doing so.
Well, the priest did offer to say a mass in their home. I can't see why they couldn't do that because then there wouldn't be the issue of upsetting other people and he'd probably be calmer at home. But I think it is just not right for them to tie him up in church or wherever else.
He might also have something else on top of the autism; for example - attention deficit disorder. It seems to me that his mum believes her little darling can do no wrong and it's up to everybody else to accommodate her and what she wants. The boy probably can't help much of his behaviour so then I think it's up to his family to seriously consider the alternatives given to them.