# Church bans autistic boy



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

As many of you know, my oldest son has Autism. Crap like this frosts my ass! This church is going to be getting some hate mail for sure from many parents and organizations, including me! Hell, why stop at banning people with Autism? They're forgetting a host of other disorders in their restraining order like Epilepsy, Parkinson's, Tourettes and Muscular Dystrophy (to name a few) that people have no control over that may be "disruptive to their devout celebration". I'm pretty sure God doesn't only want the "perfect people" worshiping.

F*#king Bastards! :smt076:smt076:smt076

http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/story/1092922.html

*Church bans 13-year-old autistic boy*

BERTHA, MINN. - Carol Race thinks it's important for her 13-year-old son to be in church on Sundays for Catholic Mass.

Leaders of the Church of St. Joseph once felt the same way, but not anymore. They say Race's autistic son Adam is disruptive and that his erratic behavior threatens the safety of other parishioners.

The northern Minnesota church has obtained a restraining order to keep Adam away, an action that has been deeply hurtful to the Race family and has brought them support from parents of other autistic children.

"My son is not dangerous," Carol Race said. The church's action is "about a certain community's fears of him. Fears of danger versus actual danger," she said.

In court papers, church leaders say the danger is real. The Rev. Daniel Walz wrote in his petition for the restraining order that Adam -- who is more than 6 feet tall and weighs more than 225 pounds -- has hit a child, nearly knocked over elderly parishioners while bolting from his pew, spit at people and urinated in the church.

"His behavior at Mass is extremely disruptive and dangerous," wrote Walz. "Adam is 13 and growing, so his behaviors grow increasingly difficult for his parents to manage."

Carol Race said Walz's claims are exaggerated.

"He's never actually injured anyone," she said. "He's never knocked down anyone. He's never urinated on anyone or spit on anyone."

Carol Race was cited for attending church May 11 in violation of the restraining order and faces a hearing today.

Walz did not return calls seeking comment, but Jane Marrin, who works for the Diocese of St. Cloud and is acting as a spokeswoman for the parish, said the church board tried working with the Races to find "reasonable accommodations." That included offering a video feed of Mass that could be watched in the church basement.

The family refused all suggestions, she said.

"It's a difficult issue," Marrin said. "There are no easy answers."
Adam is prone to anxiety attacks. Carol Race said some of those outbursts force members of the family to sit on him to calm him down, or restrain his hands and feet with a strip of felt.

In his court petition, Walz said that after one service Adam got into another family's car, started it and revved the engine while there were people in front of the vehicle.

"Adam's continued presence on parish grounds not only endangers the parishioners, it is disruptive to the devout celebration of the Eucharist," Walz wrote.


----------



## mikej997 (Jan 26, 2008)

It sounds like a difficult situation no doubt. The church would let him come... if he was separated from everyone in the basement? :smt076 That's not right. But on the other side, the family admitted to having to restrain him. 13 years old and more than 6 feet and 225 pounds??? That is one BIG 13 year old!!! I think I was 5' 8" and probably weighed 85 pounds at 13. If they physically have to restrain him on occasion, that does add weight to the church's argument. Someone that big could be a danger if they wanted to.
I don't know the whole story, but it seems that something other than a restraining order could have been worked out if both sides would have tried a little harder. I have sympathy for both sides. I don't have any autistic children but my wife has babysat one boy who was autistic. It was difficult for us because we saw it almost immediately and the parents were oblivious to the fact for quite some time. I guess they were too close and hadn't seen it. Anyway, they got defensive when my wife tried to get a little help from their end for his needs. I can definitely see why though, it is tough to take that kind of news from a doctor, and you would refuse to listen to it from a baby sitter (as they did). They finally got him diagnosed through a specialist and are getting him special treatment. The boy is doing well now and is improving all the time.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

That's a tough one. Being that the information given in the article isn't really clear as to the facts, it makes it difficult to say one way or the other. 

I would say this though, Autistic or not, IF someone was outwardly dangerous or disruptive, pushing, hitting, peeing on the pews, that sort of thing, it would warrant a restraining order. The fact that the young man is autistic is a match to the fuel gas in this case. If someone were described as above and not autistic, no one would pay this story any mind at all. Someone with ADD would not attract this much attention if they did bad things, they'd just be told to leave. 

There was an incident in one of my stores where an older woman was knocked down forcibly enough to knock in the sheetrock by a young man who was autistic. The first thing I heard out of the parents of the young boys mouth were, "that stupid old lady blah blah blah..." and my jaw hit the floor. The older woman ended up with a broken upper arm. I knew that it probably wasn't an intentionally violent act, but the parents knee jerk response was more about "I hope we don't get sued for this" than it was about general concern for others. It was a surprising response from them, because if their son had been knocked over, it would have been the same. I think the only reason this hit the news was because someone wanted it to hit the news, not because it drummed up all this attention by itself.

Again, if it was a non autistic boy, doing the same things, there'd be no story. 

I realize it's a touchy subject for you Todd, and my thoughts go out to you and yours, but as with all things media, there's probably a whole lot more to the story.

Zhur


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

zhurdan said:


> *I realize it's a touchy subject for you Todd,* ....


You don't know the half of it and no one here ever will unless they are living it as well. IMO, the only people that truly understand what the life is like for a parent of a special needs child is another parent of a special needs child.

I see thing's pretty black and white when it comes to issues like this. I see a church wanting to ban a kid because he has Autism and is disruptive. Fact of life Church of St. Joseph, people with Autism don't know the "rules". They can be loud and behave erratically. If the church had said, "Can you sit in the back so you can leave without disrupting the service if you have to and it also lets you be first to the parking lot when mass is over", I'd not have a problem with it. But instead they made an offer to accommodate him by suggesting to stick him in the f*#king basement! Even if you had a typical child and the church told you to sit in the basement, wouldn't you be pissed? And if they're allowed to get away with this, what's stopping them from saying, "Sorry Jennifer's parents, but your daughter has had 2 epileptic seizures now and it's just disruptive to our devout celebration of the Eucharist, we're going to have to file a restraining order." I'm not one for frivolous lawsuits, but I do hope someone slaps these people with one. To me they're saying, "All are welcome .... as long as you sit quietly and don't disrupt mass, even if you have a developmental disability that you can't control." Real Christian and tolerant of them, I tell you. They're really practicing the lifestyle of love and tolerance for all that they preach. :smt011


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

Wow, just re-read the article as I must not have seen the basement part. A few churches I've been to over the years had a "cry room" off to the side of the altar which I thought was kind of nice for fussy babies, but the basement seems a bit much. People can be fairly insensitive, but for the most part, people are more selfish than insensitive. They want their experience to be the way THEY want it, not how it'd be best for everyone. In fact, I don't attend church anymore, simply because it started turning into a "Keeping up with the Jones' event" and had a lot less to do with what it should. 

I commend you for being as good a parent as you can be. I don't have kids and don't want any, I honestly don't know how people manage with kids who don't have special needs, I can only imagine how difficult it would be for people who's kids do require more attention.

Zhur


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Todd said:


> Adam -- who is more than 6 feet tall and weighs more than 225 pounds -- has hit a child, nearly knocked over elderly parishioners while bolting from his pew, spit at people and urinated in the church.


The mother doesn't dispute any of this this.



> ...some of those outbursts force members of the family to sit on him to calm him down, or restrain his hands and feet with a strip of felt.


People have to _sit on him_ to control him. He has to be physically restrained.



> ... Adam got into another family's car, started it and revved the engine while there were people in front of the vehicle.


He has come perilously close to auto theft, and possibly reckless endangerment.



> "He's never *actually* injured anyone," she said. "He's never knocked down anyone. He's never urinated *on* anyone or spit *on* anyone."


Bold is mine. Parsing the mother's words here, we see that she doesn't deny that Adam has hit others - just that his striking of them didn't result in an actual injury. She doesn't deny that he has "nearly" knocked down elderly parishioners, as the church claims, just that they haven't actually fallen over. She admits he has urinated in the church - and not in the rest room - and that he spits indoors.

So basically they have a really big kid who is out of control enough - at least at times - to require physical restraint, who pisses and spits in _a church_, and who hits other kids. The kid is clearly a major disruption, and possibly dangerous. Whether or not autism is the root cause of his behavior, the fact remains that he is a large person who is out of control and possibly dangerous.

I sympathize with the families of special-needs kids. My sister has a deaf son, and I saw how difficult that was for her family, especially when the boy was young. But the fact that Adam has special needs does not override the right of the rest of the congregation to enjoy their Sunday service free of violence, pissing, spitting, and auto theft.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> But the fact that Adam has special needs does not override the right of the rest of the congregation to enjoy their Sunday service free of violence, pissing, spitting, and auto theft.


So what then? Because he has special needs his family is supposed to keep him locked up at home? They don't get to go to Sunday service because their son has a _developmental disability_? Or they get to be banished to the basement? Why not ban him from grocery stores, malls, and restaurants too? I'm sure he has outbursts there as well. I guarantee church is not an isolated incident. Where does it stop once precedent is set that it's OK to restrict where people with _disabilities_ can go (and I stress *"disabilities"* because this is *NOT* a case of a kid simply misbehaving)? Granted, it is clear that mom and dad need to do *a lot* more to reel him in (I'd say though the pissing in church is probably more if him wetting his pants instead of whipping it out and spraying the back of the pew), but social interaction and integration is one of the biggest problems people with Autism face. They need to get out in public settings to overcome this. Alienating the kid from the rest of the world is not the solution. Locking these kids up and forgetting about them is not the solution. Ignoring the *epidemic* of Autism is not the solution. These kids need love, patience, and understanding (and a lot of therapy). Of all the places on this planet that are supposed to epitomize love, patience, and understanding, you would think that a church would be on the top of the list. And here it is not. This is hypocrisy at its finest and it's sickening, saddening, and maddening. I keep imagining myself being told by our pastor that not only was our son no longer welcome (think about that;* NOT ... WELCOME... AT... A... CHURCH*) but they have a restraining order against him. I know it would be enough to toss what basic religions beliefs I have right down the drain. I can only imagine what this family is going though.

I'm almost at the point of not being able to subscribe to my own thread anymore. Even though my son doesn't have nearly the behavioral problems this other child does, maybe this is hitting to close to home for me because, in theory, it could happen to me someday. I have no idea which way my son is going to turn. My blood is boiling seeing this article knowing that it just adds another thing to all the shit parents of special needs kids are going to either put up with or fight against, and yet, at the same time, I'm sad. :smt009


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

*Todd*, it is very understandable that you have difficulty seeing this issue objectively. But why does this one family's desire to have Adam attend the church override the safety and comfort of all the other congregants? No one else at the church is hitting kids, urinating, spitting and jumping into cars that don't belong to them. They aren't singling out this kid because he is autistic, they're singling him out because he is ruining worship for everyone else.

Regardless of the root cause of the behavior, the kid is making everyone at the church uncomfortable and afraid. The fact that the church was granted a restraining order is pretty good evidence that the kid is extremely disruptive, if not outright dangerous.

I understand that autistic kids need socialization, but I don't see why the responsibility of socializing Adam has to fall on the entire congregation. The members of this church understandably don't want to get hit or knocked down or run over or spit on or smell urine while they are worshipping. Forcing them to do so because one family can't control their son's behavior - for whatever reason - is selfish in the extreme.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> *Todd*, it is very understandable that you have difficulty seeing this issue objectively.


I guess that true, so there's probably no need for me to discuss it any more. I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to this stuff I am very narrow mined and will side with the family of the special needs kid 99% of the time.

It is funny to see the different perspectives. Here, where nobody has any form of daily contact with Autism other than Jeff (that I know of), nobody really has a problem with what happened to the kid and his family. Yet, I sent this article to my wife and some other families who have kids on the Autism spectrum, and all my responses from them were big WTF's?!? I guess when you live with someone with the disorder 24/7/365 and see first-hand, every day, the physical and emotional struggles these kids have with the simplest things that we take for granted, and then you hear of a story of a kid getting the shaft over something he can't control, you get a little pissed off.


----------



## vernpriest (Jan 15, 2008)

Todd, I can sympathize with you. My best friend and his wife have a daughter with down syndrome and she is truly a special child to me that has an effect on me that no other child and is like one of my own. I would be irrate if I felt someone was slighting that precious little girl. We also have a family in our church that has an autistic child. My wife has taken care of him in the childrens church and we have also had them over to our home. He can very excited when he is around a lot of other children but is very calm at our home without a lot of people. In instances when he is a disruption at the church his parents remove him from the situation. However, I am a board member at our church and in charge of security and I can sympathize with the position the church is in.

First, this child is plenty large enough to hurt someone. He has acted out and struck people and has to by physically restrained. Urinating and spitting in a church is a real problem. It is appareant that the parents have no control over him, especially if he is getting into peoples cars and starting them. This is not the boys fault unfortunately, however, it is not the duty of everyone else to be put into a situation where they are in danger of being hit, knocked down, urinated or spit on. When one person is causing a big distraction or problem for everyone else it must be addressed.

In our church we have had other children that occasionally get loud or disruptive because of various disorders and most everyone understands and accepts it, this childs behavior unfortunately goes well beyond. It is unfortunate for this family but I cannot see how someone should be forced to be in a situation where they or their family may be assaulted just because someone has a disorder. If this child was to hit the wrong person or injure the wrong persons family member this could turn very ugly.

Many churches use basements for various purposes including Sunday School, childrens church, overflow rooms etc. They are usually finished spaces that are a seamless extension of the upstairs. I would assume that this church had the same type of space that they were suggesting for this boy and not the damp dark dungeon one might imagine.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Just for the record, my wife's brother has Asperger's. I have had extensive contact with him, though not daily.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I gotta say I agree with Mike. I read that story a week or so ago. If you were one of the other parishioners - they don't desere tro have to deal with this. EVen though this is America, not everyone has the right to do everything. If he can't behave, and has done all the things listed above, I would want him removed from the church too, if I went to that church. Sorry.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

I just see this a a simple matter of right and wrong.

Right: The church says, "Listen, you kid is a bit of a problem. We're reserving the last pew for you. Bring in Adam right before service starts. From the back, you'll be able to get him out quickly if he has to leave. Also, you can leave first, once mass is over."

Wrong: The church says, "Go to the basement. No? Here's your restraining order." 

Again, so much for fellowship, understanding, and compassion.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

Shipwreck said:


> I gotta say I agree with Mike. I read that story a week or so ago. If you were one of the other parishioners - they don't desere tro have to deal with this. EVen though this is America, not everyone has the right to do everything. If he can't behave, and has done all the things listed above, I would want him removed from the church too, if I went to that church. Sorry.


No need to apologize. I hold no hard feelings against anyone here on this post that sees it differently than me; and so far that's everyone. :mrgreen:

I have a different, unwavering, view on it due to my direct involvement with the disorder, that's all.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I think calling this "a bit of a problem" understates the issue considerably. A 6-foot tall, 225-pound kid who whacks other kids and knocks around the elderly while urinating and spitting in church would be a pretty large problem if I attended that church.

I think the church's basement - which I suspect is similar to what *vernpriest* described - with a video feed is a reasonable compromise. It's not like the church just told the family to take a hike and immediate requested a restraining order.

The mother willfully and intentionally violating the restraining order is not exactly what I'd call "right." Even if the church shares some of the blame for the escalation of this situation, the mother is just as guilty, if not more so. She acts like she's entitled to go to the church, which is private property, and is willing and eager to break the law to do so.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

Todd,
A question then, because I truely am ill informed. Isn't part of the social component that if they get attention, they shy away, but if they aren't getting attention, they act out? I don't know all that much about autism in general, so that's why I'm asking.

The other reason I was asking is, if indeed that is the case, wouldn't putting him in the back just exacerbate the issue? 

Again, I really don't know much more than what I've heard from other people, and it sounds as though you could provide some information, not to mention that it might be good for all to know from someone who knows first hand.

Zhur


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

zhurdan said:


> The other reason I was asking is, if indeed that is the case, wouldn't putting him in the back just exacerbate the issue?


Putting him in the back would not exacerbate the issue, IMO, since he would be able to see all around at all the good models (the other parishioners) of the behavior that he was supposed to be doing. He would be involved in a "typical" activity even though he would be on the outskirts. This however is assuming that the kid is not too severe to model. Unfortunately, Autism has a huge spectrum and can range from Asperger's all the way down to self-injurious and non-responsive.


----------



## mikej997 (Jan 26, 2008)

Todd,
I think I would choose your solution. Offer to let them sit in the last pew in the back so they could still be in the service. I would also place more responsibility on the family and require them to be able to control him so he is not physically abusive to other people. I realize it's not the kids fault, neither is it really the parents. Someone has to be responsible and I do not think it's fair to make that be the whole congregation. If the family was unable to control him still, well, then I guess I might have to suggest something else. 
It might well be that the church went through similar steps trying to correct the problem before it went to the extreme that it did. I'm not saying it's right, but you can't make everyone happy all of the time. 
I know I don't see it from your perspective since none of my children have any problems like that. I do however feel for parents who do.


----------



## Tscott (Apr 6, 2007)

I feel compelled to comment, I am not sure why but I do. I have no experience at all with folks with mental of physical disabilities, but i really have to agree with mike on this one. The kid has a disorder, and that is not his fault, nor is it the parents fault or the churches fault. So the question is, who is responsible to handle this kid? Clearly the child does not know any better so he cannot be responsible for himself so it is either the parents or the churches responsibility. I think all would agree it is not the churches job to control and keep him obedient. So by process of elimination that leaves only the parents. 

The disorder is not their fault, but one thing I have learned is that life is not fair and this situation is no different. This is their burden to bear (Not the child but the behavior) and if they cannot keep a reasonable level of control over this kid then he has no place in any situation where he can do harm to others. 

This is going to sound very cold, but we lock up violent mentally disturbed people all the time to protect the general public from them. I am not suggesting this, but I must agree that if the church sees him as a danger, then they must go, and the parent should be mature enough to understand that they live in a special situation that sometimes means they cannot participate. Life is tough and it sucks to be them but that is the cold hard truth of it. Perhaps the parents should try and have one of the priests set aside some time to talk to the child in his own home where he is calmer, maybe then the message the parents want the child to receive can still be conveyed. 

Todd, I understand you are very close to this, and I wish you and yours nothing but good things. It sounds like you have a pretty good handle on things with your situation and I commend you on that, I cannot even begin to imagine the feelings this brings up for you. But maybe these parents need a Little more practice or help before they can handle their child in a situation like this. 

Tom


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

*Viepoint*

I guess it just all boils down to point of view. Most of the posts are coming from the point of view of the parishioners and/or parents of typical children. My view point is from the kid's parents and/or the parent of a child with Autism; and it will never change as I am forever entwined in a life dealing with this disorder, and will be until I die. I'll admit that a few years ago, before we had my son, I would have been the first in line to say to toss the kid out. I was ignorant in how challenging and difficult life can be with a special needs child. Now, having dealt with the challenges, the whispered comments, the occasional stares, the fights with the school system for services, and even some (perhaps perceived, perhaps real) discrimination towards my son, I would never have the heart to side with anyone but the parents of this special child; no matter how much of a losing battle it was.

I guess I've said my peace on this thread and have nothing more to add, so I'll stop before I get accused of posting a sob story.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I used to do security for special events at a church. At one event Aug. 1997 a special needs child/young adult was brought. He went off during a singing, light show for the youth and one of the other children had to have 4 stitches I had several bruise and a small cut on my left arm before the person was restrained. I don't know the history well enough to say if there were truely any other options left to that church. Yes special needs children/people need socialism as much as possible but very few need a team to take them places. I am still friends with the family whose child did the outburst and he does not remember anything about what he did. the girl is now working as a group home admin.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

After reading this a couple times I too feel the need to comment. 
Upon reading Todds intro, My firts thought was...well, I thought Todd was being nice.
Reading the story *as it has been presented(becasue lets remember this is ONLY a sound byte of the whole situation), I can See Todds side, and many other poster's side.
So what the heck am i contibuting then? Perhaps not much. But here is where I am coming from at this. A Friends son is autistc, other friends aspeberuers. ok been said. Dylan (Autistic son) has progressed (as you have mentioned Todd) through a number of stages of development. Through disruptive, amazing, violent, controlled, etc. It has been a joy and a challenge to watch him grow. But it has been scary to watch some of the behavior also. Yess Todd, I KNOW he is not in control of that. But a grown man big person, who is not in control of violent outburst is scary.

I also worked for over 5 years with sepcial needs "kids" (ages 16-21) Some of them were ED/BD. Some (actually some of my best students)were not. They were lower functioning disturbed children, many diagnoses. One of my Favorites was Joe. Joe was 18, 6'1 and over 250lbs. And usually a pussycat. But I (5'9 175 lbs (at the time) and well trained in Aikido AND non-violent restraint) have been injured in trying to keep Joe from hurting himself or others (usually the "others" deserved it here, but that would not have been fair to Joe either). I Miss Joe and hope he is doing well (he long ago passed from the system I was working in, then I got the sexaully violent students- NO comparison.).

I guess i am trying to say, I chose to work as well as I could, understood the challenges and (yes)dangers of my chosen profession. I Hate the looks, whispers, etc. that you have had to endure. Humans are CRUEL and MEAN. 
However neither do I find it fair to force others to deal with a situation where they are being forced to be in potential danger. Hell, how many times on this very site have many of us posted that in a potential danger TO OUR FAMILIES AND LOVED ONES, we would take the means we feel necessary to protect them.

If, your idea (which I also agree has GREAT potential for all involved, help the boy to learn by example, give him an out, and (most importantly here) have the community come to know that he, too, is a human in need of love, support, and compasion) was either bypassed by the church, or (and this too could be the case my friend) spurned by the family, then the church has a responsibilty to ALL its members.

If however, the first solution was to provide a video feed (and i am going to assume not to some dank dungeon, but to the rec rooms, chaildcare rooms and Sunday school class rooms that many churhces around here have eeeked out of this space), then....well.....they are ba$tard$ and deserve to rot in the special place in hell reserved for such narrow minded bigots.
I, Personally, do not know the facts. I am torn between the desire to help this disabled (your choice of words i believe) child as much as possible, and see others kept out of a potential harms way that they did not choose to pursue, as I did my previous career.
You are right, you will 99% of the time side with the special needs family, and 99% o the time, i believe you will be right.
But nothing is 100%. So we do what we can eh?
I personally, would probably seek out another church/faith, but my ties are not to a church/faith, so.......

I also feel, however, that since the boy can not (at times) control his behavior, the parents need to be able to help there fellow parishoners feel safe also. There has been no mention, other than some potential restraint situations, of what THEY have done here to help.

I guess its a two way street.
Ok. I will end this now, hope it makes some sense. 
Todd, I am sure you will research this more, as it is so close to your heart. I would Love to know more in way of details if you can find them. If you feel the need to avoid this post, pm me.
Thanks
Niadh

p.s. i don't think anyone will accuse you of posting a sob story. It is obvious we may not all agree, but to so sink so low on something so obviously close to a good member (and mod too) strikes me as, well, not what i have seen here.*


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Ok I lied, I do have more to add. As ,y aged memory kicks in, remember My youth group days at my church. With 2 special needs children (sorry can't remember diagnoses). They are now my cousins by marriage. Possibly this exposure to these "children" (older than me) was part of why I chose Special ed? SO I do readily acknowledge that the learnign from interaction and socializtion goes both ways.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

It seems reasonable to me. Churches require money to share their message. There is rent, electric, water and salaries. If the parishioners are not comfortable at this church they will go elsewhere. 
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or one. Even when that one is unfortunate.
We keep discussing the rights of this one person, what of the rights of the other parishioners?


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

evidently the back of the church was tried

Carol Race said the family of seven, which has attended St. Joseph since 1996, typically sat in the cry room or in the back pew to keep avoid disrupting the services and did not hear a complaint from the parishioners until Walz showed up at their home in June

http://www.examiner.com/a-1396496~Priest_bans_autistic_child_from_church.html


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

niadhf said:


> I am sure you will research this more, as it is so close to your heart. I would Love to know more in way of details if you can find them. If you feel the need to avoid this post, pm me.


I'm definitely going to look into it more.

I've got no need to avoid the post. I simply have nothing new to add. There's not one person that has replied that has been effected by Autism in the extent that I have. I could go round and round forever because I'm sure most feel that I'm being a selfish bastard and not thinking of the others in the church. And you know what, I'm not. This poor kid can't change and can't express compassion and understanding; but the churchgoers (who are supposed to be preaching compassion and love for all) can, and aren't! He's disruptive, he's different, and they want him gone because of it! And I'll say it; I bet mom and dad don't put enough in the collection plate to make them "important" members. If they we plopping a C-Note down each week they'd be treated a whole lot differently! The church has taken his behaviors and twisted them to suit their needs so they can ban him (ex. his incontinence turned into pissing in the church). I'm totally on the side of the parents and that's not going to change. Especially if the article that Bill posted is true about the parents receiving no complaints until the Rev. showed up at their house with the restraining order. If that is true, I hope every rights group in the country comes down on that church and gives them the Armageddon they've been waiting for!


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Old Padawan said:


> http://www.examiner.com/a-1396496~Priest_bans_autistic_child_from_church.html
> 
> 
> > BERTHA, Minn. (Map, News) -
> ...


Thanks Bill for the link. This story seems more balanced than the first.

A few issues at hand here:


Christian compassion towards a family with a disabled member.
Whether the manifestation of the disability is disruptive to the extent of posing a risk to parishioners.
Options available to the family to mitigate risks to others.
Whether a minister has the right to identify and act to protect parishioners from risks to their safety and disruptions to service. And more importantly whether the minister can balance doing so with his obligation to tend to the great spiritual needs of a family dealing with a disability.
Rights of parishioners to choose whether to be exposed to biohazards (urine, spit), have their property violated (cars), and be at risk to hit and run.

As a place of business the church is absolutely correct in prioritizing the safety of its customers. But a church is more than 'just a business'.

As a place of worship, this is a missed opportunity for the minister to provide an object lesson to his flock in christian tolerance, compassion and mercy. To rally the community to support the tragedy disability brings to a family.

According to the second article the family, "would leave during the closing hymn to avoid contact with others." And if the Race family used the 'cry room' or basement consistently is there truly a risk to others? At the crux of the matter, it would seem these steps keep other parishioners from harm. Certainly the family seem sensitive to the needs of others.

I question the decision of Rev.Walz not to be interviewed. His avoidance of the media is in conflict with his public role on the pulpit, weakens his position and ultimately that of the church.

In the end, Walz may win the legal argument, but may lose the moral one.


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

Todd said:


> Especially if the article that Bill posted is true about the parents receiving no complaints until the Rev. showed up at their house with the restraining order. If that is true, I hope every rights group in the country comes down on that church and gives them the Armageddon they've been waiting for!


Todd, I'm a little confused. I thought the restaining order was a recent event and that's why this is now hitting the papers. The article I read said the priest visited the Race's at their home with another church member in June '07, almost a year ago, to discuss the problem and find alternative solutions. Do I have this wrong?


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

Wyatt said:


> Todd, I'm a little confused. I thought the restaining order was a recent event and that's why this is now hitting the papers. The article I read said the priest visited the Race's at their home with another church member in June '07, almost a year ago, to discuss the problem and find alternative solutions. Do I have this wrong?


I just had to re-read it and now I'm confused. It looks like they met to discuss, but it seems a little fuzzy as to when the order was actully filed, especially when they say, "Even after the restraining order was served, the family continued going to the church and would leave during the closing hymn to avoid contact with others, Carol Race said." It seems to be alluding that they've been going for a while now in violation of the order. Otherwise if the order was just filed, they've only been ignoring the order for a couple weeks. :smt017

Still kind of a moot point, IMO, because it still boils down to a church trying to ban a disabled kid, again IMO, on twisted charges that show the priest's ignorance of the symptoms and nuances of Autism.

Good video clip on it here. I, as suspected, agree with the mom's statements. 
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4885322

Sadly, it looks like the church got what they wanted and drummed out the kid that different. Happily though, they found a church that actually practices Christian beliefs and accepted the kid.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

I think you may lack objectivity to this issue. I continue to hear of the rights of this one unfortunate child, but you don’t seem to care about the rights of the other worshipers? Don’t they have the right to a quiet place free of distraction to worship? If they don’t like it should they leave? 
The church has the RESPONSIBILITY to respond to the parishioners. This is not something that occurred over a period of weeks. This took more than a year to develop. 
I would like to add that the basement of many churches are often comfortable area that the church teaches from. The family could have attended as a family detailing one child to sit with the disabled child while the rest of the family sat upstairs. This position could have been rotated with all family members taking their turn. 
Being handicapped is not an entitlement. The churches primary responsibility is to the congregation as a whole, not an individual member.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

Old Padawan said:


> I think you may lack objectivity to this issue.


I've already admitted to that.



Old Padawan said:


> I continue to hear of the rights of this one unfortunate child, but you don't seem to care about the rights of the other worshipers? Don't they have the right to a quiet place free of distraction to worship? If they don't like it should they leave?


Two sides of the coin. Turn around your statement and it fits both ways. _I continue to hear of the rights of this* congregation *but you don't seem to care about the rights of the *child with Autism*? *Doesn't he* have the *right to a place of worship*? If *he *doesn't like it *he* should leave? _



Old Padawan said:


> I would like to add that the basement of many churches are often comfortable area that the church teaches from. The family could have attended as a family detailing one child to sit with the disabled child while the rest of the family sat upstairs. This position could have been rotated with all family members taking their turn.


The mother in one article was quoted as saying that watching the mass from the video feed was the same as watching from home. And I agree. People don't just go to church to hear the sermon. They go for the fellowship and the social aspect as well. They're not going to get that in the basement.



Old Padawan said:


> Being handicapped is not an entitlement.


That has to be one of the most narrow minded, ignorant, and insulting comments I have heard on this forum in a long time! No one is claiming entitlement, just asking for a little compassion, which you clearly lack! You obviously have not had your life affected by someone with a disability, especially your child, because if you had, you would not be so calloused and cavalier with your comments!

I'm done with this one for good before I get even more pissed off than I already am and have to read more insulting and ignorant comments made by certain people that have *no f*#king clue* as to what life is like for this family and the struggles this kid faces on a daily basis, yet feel qualified to criticize them! This thread certainly has been an eye-opener into people's different levels for understanding and compassion for those in our community that aren't "normal".


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

Todd said:


> Two sides of the coin. Turn around your statement and it fits both ways. _I continue to hear of the rights of this* congregation *but you don't seem to care about the rights of the *child with Autism*? *Doesn't he* have the *right to a place of worship*? If *he *doesn't like it *he* should leave? _


I actualy commented on that. You are infering that anyone that doesnt like HIS behavior should leave. So the desires of the one outweigh the desires of the many.



> The mother in one article was quoted as saying that watching the mass from the video feed was the same as watching from home. And I agree. People don't just go to church to hear the sermon. They go for the fellowship and the social aspect as well. They're not going to get that in the basement.


The basement solution would allow three of the five to attend at any one time with two (including the handicaped teen) being in the other room.



> That has to be one of the most narrow minded, ignorant, and insulting comments I have heard on this forum in a long time! No one is claiming entitlement, just asking for a little compassion, which you clearly lack! You obviously have not had your life affected by someone with a disability, because if you had, you would not be so calloused and cavalier with your comments!


By saying the child is entitled to attend services despite the wishes of the congregation due to his handicap, you are making it an entitlement.

I helped my mother take care of my grandmother through several years of Alzheimer's. My cousin was autistic (it wasn't called that when I was a child). I am familiar with handicaps.

Its not about my compassion for this teen, Its about my compassion for the parishioners that had to make this decision.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Todd said:


> Two sides of the coin. Turn around your statement and it fits both ways. _I continue to hear of the rights of this* congregation *but you don't seem to care about the rights of the *child with Autism*? *Doesn't he* have the *right to a place of worship*? If *he *doesn't like it *he* should leave? _


The other parishioners are not the ones who are hitting kids, knocking around the elderly, urinating and spitting in church, breaking into cars, etc. Again, regardless of the root cause of the behavior, the fact remains that the teen is a violent hazard to his fellow churchgoers. The simple fact that he is afflicted with autism does not grant him permission to physically attack other people, break into their cars, or spit in church - all of which he has done, and even the mother admits it.



> People don't just go to church to hear the sermon. They go for the fellowship and the social aspect as well. They're not going to get that in the basement.


But clearly this teen _can't handle_ the social aspect of the church setting, and his family cannot control him. He acts out in violent and horrendously inappropriate ways. Should he still be permitted to stay - even at the risk of the intense discomfort and possible physical safety of the other parishioners?



> No one is claiming entitlement...


But you are. You think he should be given a special dispensation by the church to attend despite a long history of behavior that is entirely inappropriate in a church (or in any polite company). And the reason you think this is justifiable is because he has autism - a handicap, disability, or whatever you want to call it.



> You obviously have not had your life affected by someone with a disability, because if you had, you would not be so calloused and cavalier with your comments!


I dunno. I generally agree with Bill's comments, which I don't find callous or cavalier, but pretty rational. I grew up with at least weekly contact with a mentally retarded uncle. My brother-in-law has a form of autism. I have a hearing-impaired nephew with whom I am _very_ close. While none of this is like being a parent, I think I have at least reasonable exposure to the disabled.



> This thread certainly has been an eye-opener into people's different levels for understanding and compassion for those in our community that aren't "normal".


Understanding and compassion are good traits, obviously. But in my case, at least, I also feel understanding and compassion for the parishioners who don't deserve to have their Sunday service disrupted, and who deserve to enjoy a service without fearing for their physical safety.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

My initial reaction when I first read about this was along the lines of: why don't these parents take turns staying home with the kid and let the rest of the family and congregation worship in peace?

After some thought, it occurred to me that this is more of the hypocritical conflict between teachings and actions that drove me away form the Catholic Church. In my case, out local parish priest was molesting little boys for over 20 years. When the allegations finally came to light, the only time it was addressed from the pulpit was when the new priest criticized the local news paper for their coverage of the allegations and the churches history of _covering up for this one priest for over 20 years!_

If my Catholic school education still serves me well, Christ welcomed children and helped the sick and the handicapped. The Church doing otherwise for the sake of maintaining quiet and order seems hypocritical, if not sinful.

Another thought, what would the reaction be if the Church closed off Lourdes or any of the other healing shrines to the sick and handicapped in order to maintain a tranquil and peaceful atmosphere?

-kev74, _recovering Catholic_


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Since I'm an atheist, I can't comment intelligently on the "Christian charity" aspects of this issue. I'll leave that for the devout.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> Since I'm an atheist, I can't comment intelligently on the "Christian charity" aspects of this issue. I'll leave that for the devout.


I wouldn't call myself devout, but I can see a difference between the teachings and the actions.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

This thread has reminded me of a few rules I set up for myself when I first joined and forgot about. Apparently I got too comfortable here and let them slide. Obviously it's time for me to revisit and update them. 

This is a firearms forum. Posts on firearms related topics only. Avoid any General Discussion areas, except to moderate, as they only lead to arguments. 
Never discuss religion or politics with anyone but your spouse.
People on Internet forums are not your friends; they are acquaintances at best. Chances are they do not share your same belief systems, goals, hopes, or dreams; so do not discuss anything personal. Treat everyone like you would a co-worker. 

[FONT=&quot]Needless to say, I will no longer be starting or replying to any threads that are not related to firearms or 2A, except to moderate when necessary.  [/FONT]


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

kev74 said:


> If my Catholic school education still serves me well, Christ welcomed children and helped the sick and the handicapped. The Church doing otherwise for the sake of maintaining quiet and order seems hypocritical, if not sinful.
> Another thought, what would the reaction be if the Church closed off Lourdes or any of the other healing shrines to the sick and handicapped in order to maintain a tranquil and peaceful atmosphere?
> 
> -kev74, _recovering Catholic_


I doubt if Jesus would have put up with it. He would have promptly healed this unfortunate young man.
We are not talking about "A " visit to Lourdes. We are talking about a weekly visit for some time. The other people and the management have tried to make accommodations. The family rejected these accommodations.
The young man was very disruptive (with understandable reason) for an extended time. The other parishioners have the right to worship without disruption.
It is unfortunate. But what choice did the uncompromising mother leave the congregation?

Here is a question that has not been addressed, Does HE want to go to church, or does SHE want him to go to church?


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Todd said:


> This thread has reminded me of a few rules I set up for myself when I first joined and forgot about. Apparently I got too comfortable here and let them slide. Obviously it's time for me to revisit and update them.
> 
> This is a firearms forum. Posts on firearms related topics only. Avoid any General Discussion areas, except to moderate, as they only lead to arguments.
> Never discuss religion or politics with anyone but your spouse.





or in my case, even my wife.



> [*]People on Internet forums are not your friends; they are acquaintances at best. Chances are they do not share your same belief systems, goals, hopes, or dreams; so do not discuss anything personal. Treat everyone like you would a co-worker.



True, they are not as close as friends, and their beliefs (other than on one or two narrow subjects) are usually not your own. But isn't this also how we grow, and help others grow?





> [FONT=&quot]Needless to say, I will no longer be starting or replying to any threads that are not related to firearms or 2A, except to moderate when necessary.  [/FONT]


I'm personally sorry to hear that Todd. I think you can provide info and ideas other than on firearms and 2A. I understand this thread response has frustrated that though. I have however learned from you as I have from Others, yea even on non firearms related stuff.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

so, are the people who left the keys in their cars getting restraining orders? their behavior can endager those anywhere near the church if someone steals a car and hits a kid or adult? Not to mention that such is illegal; in many states. Even Here in New York (a practice which I do not do, but my wife does) 
I know, i may be taking this too far, but the ....more in depth article that OP posted, well i'm leaning more towards Todd here. Thanks all.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Todd said:


> People on Internet forums are not your friends; they are acquaintances at best. Chances are they do not share your same belief systems, goals, hopes, or dreams; so do not discuss anything personal. Treat everyone like you would a co-worker.


Its not that dire. Just be more vigilant.

After all personal references signed, "Pole Smoking Ass Pirate of Arizona," may have dubious value to your next employer.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

submoa said:


> After all personal references signed, "Pole Smoking Ass Pirate of Arizona," may have dubious value to your next employer.


Ha! As if Bill will ever leave Galco. :mrgreen:


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

kicking and screaming. :anim_lol:


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

niadhf said:


> so, are the people who left the keys in their cars getting restraining orders? their behavior can endager those anywhere near the church if someone steals a car and hits a kid or adult? Not to mention that such is illegal; in many states. Even Here in New York (a practice which I do not do, but my wife does)


If a criminal steals my pistol and shoots someone, should I be arrested?


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Sorry I'm jumping into this post so late... as the second person in the "room" who lives daily with an Autistic. Grab somthing to drink, or move on... this is a long one.

This is a no-win situation between an overly permissive parent of an unfortunately afflicted child, and a church trying to make all the people happy all the time, with no tact.

My take:
My almost-son, Mark, is 15. He is 5'10" and around 190lbs. He is every bit a man physically. His mother is 5'4" and 108lbs, and she is COMPLETELY in control of her son.

Granted, like Todd's son, we are lucky that Mark is less afflicted than many as "behaviors" go. In fact... 15 years later, he's a hell of a lot better behaved than MOST non-afflicted 15 year-olds. That said, this has NOT always been the case.

Not so many years ago, until age 12 or 13, Carla had to sometimes DRAG Mark into a shower, and restrain him to bathe him. He WAS disruptive in church, the grocery store, and elsewhere. She would have to take him outside, in the summer, in Miami, and calm him until he could return to a "normal" environment. If he was “in a mood”, he would sit down, make a fuss in public, VOMIT, or scream and bang his head on the floor… in public. Being the parent of any disabled child, is a HUGE challenge, is NOT understood by most, and is an extremely frustrating task.

That said, many parents of these children refuse to take the responsibilities for their own children's actions (like the parents of many “normal kids”), and refuse to accept that their children ARE different, and that their children CANNOT interact normally in public which is often a very confusing, scary, and "behavior-inducing" environment to them. The parents of this child, and he IS very much a child, even at 225lbs, must understand that there are things that they CAN DO. Enabling a child’s behaviors only makes life HARDER for themselves, the parents, who will have to deal with this for LIFE if they do not TAKE control now. Imagine this child at 25? With a sex drive?

Accepted Therapies:
1) It is very common that weight calms these kids, and simply introducing a weighted vest or sand-filled lap-weight, can control this in public. You don't need to sit on them. Pockets are as effective as "straps" IF the parents reinforce the therapy, day, after day, after day, for YEARS. And start EARLY, and FIRMLY.
2) Autistic children often are not "potty trained" until age 18, 19, or 20. Mark wore diapers until age 8, when they were taken away (at home), and he constantly ASKED for them. He was given the choice to use a toilet, or deal with soiled clothes for the rest of the day. Harsh? Abusive? That's subjective. Effective? Yes. He learned, and he’s fine now.
3) Autistic children thrive in a rhythmic, consistent, patterned, and structured environment. Change disrupts them, as they live very much within their own mind. They chant repeated phrases that CAN be disruptive, and their situational awareness is virtual non-existent. They do not fear traffic, threatening people, or unsafe places. But constant work helps. They must be spoken to, not ignored. They must be prompted, in a good environment, and worked with. Very quickly, Mark improves. (Just today, Carla asked him to help bring in the groceries from the car. She stayed outside to clean it up for a minute. When she came in, the groceries were put away… un-prompted, correctly, and without fuss. Mark decided re could, an liked the “order” of doing it “right”.) But should Carla chose a different route from the routine, brining him home from school, it is unsettling. Before: tantrum. Now: “Where are we going?” Explanation. “O-Kay”. PROGRESS.

They need MORE attention, and constant correction, but eventually, they learn. They are extremely eager to please, and extremely loving, but often completely un-affectionate. You have to get Mark's attention and ask him for a hug, but when he does hug you, you know it.


In THIS case, it seems that:
A. The church has tried to do a LOT to make their environment both accommodating to the family of the Autistic child, and safe and comfortable for the rest of the congregation, for a YEAR.
B. The parents of the child have MOSTLY accepted the limitations of their child’s behaviors, and previously used the cry-room, or the back of the church for a YEAR, with varying success. But have recently, for whatever reason chosen the victim mentality, instead of working on the behaviors they have to continually control…
C. It also seems that a typically INFLAMATORY (story-before-morals) media has fanned this issue and written biased reporting from both sides… to sell a story.

The result: a potentially law-suit-happy mother, who has been wrongly “advised” by one side that her child MUST be accommodated, and that the church must “deal”, when in reality she IS obligated to take special steps, and accept special limitations, of the hand she and her child has been dealt.

The original article was written to inflame parents of Autistic children, like Todd, and he was justifiably pissed. With new, maybe more complete reporting/information, and in the hindsight of raising HIS son, and those challenges… we all learn a little. With the 24-hr media as the source… we must ALWAYS question the SOURCE first, the history second, and the motive third. I can feel his frustration and pain. I see Mark “looked down on” every day, by those who do not understand. But my guess is, that Todd’s child behaves relatively well in public, and hopefully will not face these issues.

We’ve all seen the kid in K-Mart we’d just LOVE to strangle… With the whole story, we may feel different… even be ashamed of our knee-jerk thoughts, but we’ve all been there.


Todd,
Thank you for being the loving, and protective father of an amazing kid.
Thank you for being an outspoken advocate for a misunderstood condition.
Thank you for making the rest of us think critically, before acting.
If you’re religious, may God grant you the patience to raise a good young man, and to deal with the idiots of the world who refuse to accept/understand him. If you’re not religious, like me… good f_ing luck buddy!!! I hope your wife is as strong as mine… Mark and I are BOTH lucky.

LOL
JeffWard


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

*Mike,* If you leave that pistol out, loaded, in public, yes. For negligence. And MANY states have laws to prosecute you if you do that. Some will even do so if you leave your keys in a car and it is stolen, and the thief injures or kills someone.
I have SERIOUS doubts that an autistic child either stole the keys from a purse, or hot wired the car.

*Jeff.* Great post. Thank you for saying learly (and from a much closer relationship point also) what i was fumblingly trying to say. And you hit on a VERY impotrtant factor, both of the child in the story (and i don't dispute he is, man sized,, but still child developed) and your step son (almost son i believe you said).......12/13. heck I remember those years as hard. puberty sucks. i CAN NOT imagine that from their perspective. 
And good points on alternate methods of using the same behavior mods.


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

The reality as I see it is that both sides are very wrong.

The church is being completely rational in their struggle to please everybody. I would not want to attend church and be disrupted, hit, peed upon, or spat at. Nobody wants that and I think everybody here will admit to that.

The family of the boy want to be able to attend church, more or less, like any other family despite their son who is not normal in a developmental sense. That, also, is perfectly rational and everybody here would probably admit to wanting that in their shoes.

Now we get to the tough part, the solution that please everybody to the fullest extent possible. The boy should not be allowed to run amuck, as he is apparently doing now. I understand that autism is treatable with the right approach and it doesn't seem to me that sitting on him and binding his limbs is the right approach, but what do I know. I think the congregation should take a more active role in the boy's and the family's life. Not only should the family be allowed to attend services but the congregation should adapt to accept them. I don't know much about autism but I understand that it hinges fairly heavily on social rituals and routines. Church could be an important social routine as long as everyone involved understands that and approaches their interactions with him in the proper way that leads to healthy social interaction and over time an increase in the boy's functionality.

It's not a quick fix (which is probably why it wouldn't work out) but it seems like the right thing to do and the best thing all around.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

PanaDP said:


> I think the congregation should take a more active role in the boy's and the family's life.





> It's not a quick fix (which is probably why it wouldn't work out) but it seems like the right thing to do and the best thing all around.


Funny though, often churches and congregations are whom people will turn to for help with their otherwise acting out teens. And many churches specificaly have programs for such.

Definitely a touchy, non black and white subject. At least with me.


----------



## VegasEgo (Jul 10, 2006)

Ill chime in on this, coming from a person who believes in god, but does not believe in organized religion. In reality, since working for a church for 2 years. I relized that all the church Christian and Catholic, care about is money. 

So on that note. I understand where todd is coming from. Just because he is autistic, doesnt mean he should be punished, the parent should work with the church to make him more comfortable, also im sure there are kids, and people who sit and stare at the poor kid. Maybe make fun of them. Im sure some of the kids who were spit on, or kicked or punched probably deserved it. Parents dont take responsibility in there own. They blame everyone elses kid for their kids behavior. 

Now the flip side. If the kid truly is uncontrolable the parent should work with the kid and maybe the church to keep him calm, maybe just have him stand in the back. Teach the church and the kids in the church that they should treat him equally, maybe thatll make him feel more like family.

BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG. The church did the wrong thing, and the parent needs to control their son, autistic or not.


----------

