So much for Bring me the poor people, the crippled, the blind, and the lame

[Padraig]

The mother should know better than to bring a disruptive child to church. Or at least left as soon as he started misbehaving.

I agree with this as I have a 1 year old and have removed ourselves from church several times due to the unhappy little guy making way too much noise and becoming a disruption.

But this sounds like it's WAY beyond that. This child is bigger than me! And whether his actions are due to autism or whatever else, his parents have the responsibilty to control him to the point of not putting others in harm's way, whether in Wal Mart, Ohio Stadium, or Church. If they cannot, they are obligated to remove him / not put him in a situation or environment where they cannot control him.

If my kids got pissed on or my mother got knocked over by this boy, then you can be sure those parents would have a lawsuit on their hands. And if the church stands by and continues to allow a dangerous situation like this to escalate then they would be legally liable as well I would think.

If the parents were asked to do somthing about the situation and did not then I see nothing wrong with what the church's actions were.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I guess I missed the whole fucking point of a Church existing.

What would Jesus do? I guess remove the kid for fear of a lawsuit.

 

[JCOSU86]

I guess I missed the whole fucking point of a Church existing.

What would Jesus do? I guess remove the kid for fear of a lawsuit.

The church exists so an uncontrollable kid can harm others?

Yeah, you missed the point.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

What would Jesus do? I guess remove the kid for fear of a lawsuit.

He'd heal the autistic kid. Duh.

 

[BUCKYLE]

The church exists so an uncontrollable kid can harm others?

Yeah, you missed the point.

No. It exists so anyone that wants to worship Christ can. But whatever. I don't really give a shit. It's what alot of churches do today. Shun members if they aren't in the same economic class, not allowing someone to attend that OBVIOUSLY needs some sort of help.

 

[BayBuck]

No. It exists so anyone that wants to worship Christ can. But whatever. I don't really give a shit. It's what alot of churches do today. Shun members if they aren't in the same economic class, not allowing someone to attend that OBVIOUSLY needs some sort of help.

I'm sure the church would be willing to help out this family in some other way, but allowing their uncontrollable child to continually disrupt regular church services is not helping anybody. Your anti-church rant is out of place here.

 

[JCOSU86]

No. It exists so anyone that wants to worship Christ can. But whatever. I don't really give a shit. It's what alot of churches do today. Shun members if they aren't in the same economic class, not allowing someone to attend that OBVIOUSLY needs some sort of help.

What the fuck does economics have to do with this situation? It's not like they are barring someone from entering because they are dressed like shit. The kid is a threat to others. It is owed to others to prevent a dangerous person from entering. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Our church has a variety of parishoners/attendees who have a wide range of disabilities. They are welcomed and there are no problems. During Easter, a person attended who made loud, disruptive sounds and was threatening those around him. He was asked to leave and didn't. The cops were called. They removed him. I see no problem with that.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I'm sure the church would be willing to help out this family in some other way, but allowing their uncontrollable child to continually disrupt regular church services is not helping anybody. Your anti-church rant is out of place here.

Besides BK, can no one seriously answer my question?

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? If you tell me he'd tell the family to get lost, it'll be my last post in this thread. Otherwise, it's all bullshit.

 

[Padraig]

No. It exists so anyone that wants to worship Christ can.

The kid isn't there "to worship Christ". Whether that's his "fault" or not isn't really the issue. He's there causing harm to others on a regular basis, and it is getting worse as he gets older and bigger / stronger.

What would Jesus do? I obviously can't say exactly, but I don't believe for a second that he'd stand by and allow the child to urinate on, knock down, or otherwise hurt people on a regular basis who were there to hear Him speak.

Probably heal the kid as said already, but not stand by and allow others to continue to get abused like his parents seem to be doing.

 

[Muck]

The kid isn't there "to worship Christ". Whether that's his "fault" or not isn't really the issue. He's there causing harm to others on a regular basis, and it is getting worse as he gets older and bigger / stronger.

What would Jesus do? I obviously can't say exactly, but I don't believe for a second that he'd stand by and allow the child to urinate on, knock down, or otherwise hurt people on a regular basis who were there to hear Him speak.

Probably heal the kid as said already, but not stand by and allow others to continue to get abused like his parents seem to be doing.

I'll bet that the priest would be willing to minister to the kid in a forum more appropriate to his needs.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Besides BK, can no one seriously answer my question?

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? If you tell me he'd tell the family to get lost, it'll be my last post in this thread. Otherwise, it's all bullshit.

I think BayBuck did answer your question. From the accounts in the Gospels, we can reasonably conclude that Jesus would have likely welcomed the family unto him and to tend to their most immediate needs (whatever those might be).

However, this does not mean Jesus would have tolerated the child disrupting the reading of Torah or the Prophets in the synagogue on the Sabbath. Nor does it mean, Jesus would have advocated the child's right to go into the areas of the Temple Complex that would have forbade him entrance.

When asking the WWJD question, we must always take into account the full complexity of Jesus as being both perfect in love and holiness.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I'll bet that the priest would be willing to minister to the kid in a forum more appropriate to his needs.

I would hope so as I would argue that scripture reveals this to be the answer to the WWJD question.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

Besides BK, can no one seriously answer my question?

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? If you tell me he'd tell the family to get lost, it'll be my last post in this thread. Otherwise, it's all bullshit.

Nobody knows, and nobody can know. What we do know is that there is a safety risk present at church on Sunday mornings. The church has a legal obligation to remove said risk. God's word (Bible) teaches that we must obey the law of the land, unless it is in direct contradiction to his word. Seems to me the kid has to go, unless and until he no longer presents a viable threat to others.

It seems you're taking this a little far....I understand what you're trying to say, but there is a time and a place for everything. Bringing this kid to Sunday service is obviously not the time and place for him. My guess is the priest/pastor/whatever likely offered to meet with the family at a more private time and conduct services for them, but the family refused. Shame on them. If not, then shame on the priest/pastor for not attempting to do what he can. But your argument is that the kid should be allowed to continue to attend the services, and legally, for obvious safety concerns, he should not be.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Nobody knows, and nobody can know. What we do know is that there is a safety risk present at church on Sunday mornings. The church has a legal obligation to remove said risk. God's word (Bible) teaches that we must obey the law of the land, unless it is in direct contradiction to his word. Seems to me the kid has to go, unless and until he no longer presents a viable threat to others.

It seems you're taking this a little far....I understand what you're trying to say, but there is a time and a place for everything. Bringing this kid to Sunday service is obviously not the time and place for him. My guess is the priest/pastor/whatever likely offered to meet with the family at a more private time and conduct services for them, but the family refused. Shame on them. If not, then shame on the priest/pastor for not attempting to do what he can. But your argument is that the kid should be allowed to continue to attend the services, and legally, for obvious safety concerns, he should not be.

Fair enough.

I think more than anything the quote by the priest or lawyer or whomever describing the kids behavior reeked of bullshit...

Adam struck a child during mass, nearly knocks elderly parishioners over when he hastily exits the church, spits and sometimes urinates in church and fights when he is being restrained.
He also one time assaulted a girl by pulling her onto his lap and,

Those two words imparticular struck me as bullshit. Sounds like he took a creative writing course. I mean, the kid is 225 lbs, and he only "nearly" knocks over seniors when running out of the building?

I guess it just seems to me that this family is at witts end dealing with this child. Even if they are being somewhat irrational, the last thing the church should do is file a damn restraining order. Maybe it is the last thing. I don't know.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

My guess is the church, knowing what kind of publicity such a move would produce, tried everything else they could think of prior filing the restraining order. Additionally, the fact that the kid needs to be restrained, as evidence by your quote above, shows that he is physically abusive. Intent doesn't matter when it comes to negligence. This church is obviously aware of the potential for injury, and their failure to act would constitute negligence, making the church liable for any damages/injuries resulting from this "child's" behavior.