|
Post by katiekat on Jun 1, 2008 19:19:43 GMT -5
A church has placed a restraining order on a 13 year old autistic boy. Read the entire story here:
edited due to link being out of date
|
|
|
Post by misty on Jun 1, 2008 19:24:08 GMT -5
KK, did you vote on that web page?? I voted that I was against banning him & after you vote the results pop up. I was astonished that so far more people support the decision! 53% support it....47% against it.
|
|
|
Post by katiekat on Jun 1, 2008 19:26:12 GMT -5
I saw that too when I voted that I was against it. Even worse are the ignorant comments that people made below the story.
|
|
|
Post by misty on Jun 1, 2008 19:31:50 GMT -5
I just read some of them! I couldn't believe my eyes! It so saddens me that people don't try and learn about a person's disability & try to understand that it is not the boy's fault & you'd think a religious facility would be more tolerant & understanding!
|
|
|
Post by charliegirl on Jun 1, 2008 23:47:52 GMT -5
I voted that he shouldn't have been banned but I have to admit that it sounds to me like the church officials tried to find a way to allow him to go without being as disruptive as he apparently was. The more I think about it, the more I feel they felt they had no other options left.
It didn't sound to me like the parents were willing to make any concessions other than to sit in the back. If they had been keeping an eye on him, he wouldn't have been able to get into a stranger's car and start it.
As parents we do have to take responsibility for our kids and consider how disruptive they can be. I chose to attend a small church without a nursery and there were times I left when my kids were small because they were acting up.
Many parents take their kids out of the service when they act up and any good parent will keep an eye on their children when they are at the age where they will find ways to get in trouble or get hurt. Just because that boy was 12 didn't mean he should be unattended when its obvious that he needs constant supervision in a place like that. He is autistic and needs structure and stability. His parents knew that he would get stirred up by all the activity around him. They have to accept some accountability.
I'm finding that the more I think about it, the more I side with the church. As much as they want to support that family, there are many other families who have to be considered. If that boy had put the car in gear, how many people would he have run over and injured? The article didn't mention anything the parents suggested which might work. All the parents apparently wanted was for the entire church and congregation to make concessions for them at the risk of the safety of others.
|
|
|
Post by lillian on Jun 2, 2008 11:11:26 GMT -5
I have a tendency to agree with CG about this. I saw these parents interviewed, and they seemed unwilling to make any concessions. When asked about their son's hitting other children during mass, the response was, "He's never hurt anybody." If my autistic son was hitting other children in mass, he wouldn't be sitting near other children. I think we are only hearing little bits and pieces of this story. I'd like to hear the whole thing before I say whom I agree with, but I have the feeling this child's behaviors are very, very disruptive, and the parents response is, "So. He has autism. There isn't anything we can do about it." There needs to be a middle ground here.
|
|
|
Post by jill on Jun 3, 2008 6:06:07 GMT -5
I say they are not very good church goers. I do not think the Lord would want prejudices going on.
|
|