Putting embarrassment in its place

Good commentary,
I think AS and autistic people who have read it might see embarrassment over social faux pas as a significant handicap. Wouldn't it be nice to go through life and not have it brought to an utter standstill by saying something socially inappropriate? That is what SOME people on the autistic spectrum are able to do every day.
In today's world of ever-shifting and somewhat arbitrary social rules, doesn't it make sense that maybe everyone lighten up a tad and try more to accept people for who they are.
For those who are interested in learning more about autism, there are free downloadable audio podcasts at www.mic.mypodcast.com

I wonder when the time will come when your son is charged with a crime like sexual harrassment or a restraining order put on him because someone considers his social errors as intention to harm? This is precisely why I am fighting the battle with St. Joseph's church in Bertha. My son is not capable of speech, however his very attempts at language in the forms of grunts are considered a distraction deserving of a harrassment restraining order. As our kids get older and their actions are no longer just "cute" there will be a tidal wave of people who have no tollerance for people who are different coming forth to put our kids away where they belong. this is more likely to start happening in the rural areas, but it will spread if the restraining order statutes in MN law are not challenged as unconstitutional since they do not take into consideration comments or actions done out of mental incompetence rather than intent of the will.

Carol Race wrote:

I wonder when the time will come when your son is charged with a crime like sexual harrassment or a restraining order put on him because someone considers his social errors as intention to harm? This is precisely why I am fighting the battle with St. Joseph's church in Bertha. My son is not capable of speech, however his very attempts at language in the forms of grunts are considered a distraction deserving of a harrassment restraining order. As our kids get older and their actions are no longer just "cute" there will be a tidal wave of people who have no tollerance for people who are different coming forth to put our kids away where they belong. this is more likely to start happening in the rural areas, but it will spread if the restraining order statutes in MN law are not challenged as unconstitutional since they do not take into consideration comments or actions done out of mental incompetence rather than intent of the will.

Mrs. Race, I welcome you. Much has been said about your son and your church. As a caretaker of a young autistic man of size, I understand some of the prejudices of which you speak. I wonder, though, how does Adam feel about being in church? You more than anyone can interpret his behaviors and vocalizations, do you think Adam is having a nice time in church? Sometimes we would take my son to places with the best intentions, only to find that they were too stimulating, too lengthy, too boring, too whatever. Ultimately, Adam's happiness is your goal and with that in mind you must be aware of every situation from his perspective. I'm very certain he has felt the frustration of the situation, carried through you like a tuning fork. Are you sure you aren't offering your son as a martyr for the larger cause of rights for persons with disabilities?

I realize that what you are saying is reasonable. I want you to know that Adam has always wanted to go to Church. There are a number of places he does not want to go to, and there is no way I would even get him in the door. On some occasions when I have wanted to go to an "extra" mass, for example, Midnight Mass at Christmas where I would go a second time in the morning with Adam, he has in fact insisted on getting dressed and coming with me in the car. The same has happened several times for the Easter Vigil Mass. Adam is usually smiling and happy to get ready for church. He uses the sign for church and clearly knows what it means.
The larger issue is, though, that our kids are growing up and as they display behaviors that are "objectively" harrassing by MN statute, they will be vulnerable to Restraining orders and more and more people will use restraining orders to avoid the inconveniences of having autistic people in our communities.
This by the way could also apply to other types of situations such as epilepsy where seizures are not under control. all it takes is one instance of a seizure for someone to say that the person with epilepsy posed a danger and a restraining order can be sought. The constitutionality of this statute needs to be challenged. This law needs to be amended to take into account those who have involuntary actions which may be perceived by others as harrassment.

Carol Race wrote:

I realize that what you are saying is reasonable. I want you to know that Adam has always wanted to go to Church. There are a number of places he does not want to go to, and there is no way I would even get him in the door. On some occasions when I have wanted to go to an "extra" mass, for example, Midnight Mass at Christmas where I would go a second time in the morning with Adam, he has in fact insisted on getting dressed and coming with me in the car. The same has happened several times for the Easter Vigil Mass. Adam is usually smiling and happy to get ready for church. He uses the sign for church and clearly knows what it means.
The larger issue is, though, that our kids are growing up and as they display behaviors that are "objectively" harrassing by MN statute, they will be vulnerable to Restraining orders and more and more people will use restraining orders to avoid the inconveniences of having autistic people in our communities.
This by the way could also apply to other types of situations such as epilepsy where seizures are not under control. all it takes is one instance of a seizure for someone to say that the person with epilepsy posed a danger and a restraining order can be sought. The constitutionality of this statute needs to be challenged. This law needs to be amended to take into account those who have involuntary actions which may be perceived by others as harrassment.

This may be a bit off topic, but Mrs Race, it sounds like church is a soothing place for Adam. Is this so? Have you tried this reasoning with your church? I have never had any contact with an autistic person, and like ZenBirdist says you are the one who can probably determine through his attempts at speech and by his actions what it is he needs and wants. Have you spoken to people who specialize in autism, have you asked them to explain things to your priest, or the court? I admit I have not followed your story very closely, if you have not already tried any of these things, maybe you could. Best of luck to you, Adam, and the rest of your family.

Carol Race wrote:

I realize that what you are saying is reasonable. I want you to know that Adam has always wanted to go to Church. There are a number of places he does not want to go to, and there is no way I would even get him in the door. On some occasions when I have wanted to go to an "extra" mass, for example, Midnight Mass at Christmas where I would go a second time in the morning with Adam, he has in fact insisted on getting dressed and coming with me in the car. The same has happened several times for the Easter Vigil Mass. Adam is usually smiling and happy to get ready for church. He uses the sign for church and clearly knows what it means.
The larger issue is, though, that our kids are growing up and as they display behaviors that are "objectively" harrassing by MN statute, they will be vulnerable to Restraining orders and more and more people will use restraining orders to avoid the inconveniences of having autistic people in our communities.
This by the way could also apply to other types of situations such as epilepsy where seizures are not under control. all it takes is one instance of a seizure for someone to say that the person with epilepsy posed a danger and a restraining order can be sought. The constitutionality of this statute needs to be challenged. This law needs to be amended to take into account those who have involuntary actions which may be perceived by others as harrassment.

Carol, thank you for your candor! It seems from your description that Adam does like to go to church, which is the most important part of the discussion.

So if I may offer some advice based on watching my autistic stepson's mother do many things right? As I had come from a teaching background when I met him, my approach to his behaviors were focused on him and on modifying his behaviors to suit his situations. His mother, who was having much more success with him during outings than was I, used humor to its infinite power. When people were uncomfortable with her son's grunts, shrieks, and gestures (one of which had been an enthusiastic middle finger) she was able to use humor to break the ice. She would translate his behavior for those who witnessed it. She rejected the idea that she should bind his hands because his behavior might be misunderstood. She was careful not to put him into situations where was no 'out', she was always flexible and had a Plan B as well as a C and probably a D plan. She used honey instead of vinegar when it came to getting other people accustomed to my stepson's way of relating to his world. I just can't express how important humor is in that equation.

Zen

What a touching story. Thank you for bringing tears to my eyes and a smile on my face.

You know it's not the first time I have been judged as clueless, or nuts. It seems to me the people who do this have no heart or humanness in them. So go ahead keep judging me this way. You have to live with yourself. Adam Race is a human being, it is his parents' responsibility to fight for him, since he is not in a position to do this for himself. Stay in your tiny little world, where nothing bad or wrong can touch you. You are the ones who are really out of touch with reality.

Cindy Stainker wrote:

You know it's not the first time I have been judged as clueless, or nuts. It seems to me the people who do this have no heart or humanness in them. So go ahead keep judging me this way. You have to live with yourself. Adam Race is a human being, it is his parents' responsibility to fight for him, since he is not in a position to do this for himself. Stay in your tiny little world, where nothing bad or wrong can touch you. You are the ones who are really out of touch with reality.

Cindy, I found your comment to be heartfelt and helpful. I get a lot of unflattering judgments myself, don't take it personally. I just consider those our less literate fans, leaving us a little hello.

Keep posting, I enjoy your remarks!

Zen

ZenBirdist wrote:

<quoted text>
Cindy, I found your comment to be heartfelt and helpful. I get a lot of unflattering judgments myself, don't take it personally. I just consider those our less literate fans, leaving us a little hello.
Keep posting, I enjoy your remarks!
Zen

Thank you Zen, I enjoy yours as well.

I am very aware of Carol Race's situation as I have spent time with her son, attended her church and the hearing where the priest's attorney stated the church had the right to exclude anyone they wanted. The judge explained several times that the state statue states if someone attends a public event multiple times after being informed that their presence is not wanted, that person is is can be charged with harassment.

So if you've attended say a church for 10 years and a new priest is assigned who is bothered by your handicap (or family member's handicap), race, etc. he can tell you you are not welcome and then claim harassment when you keep attendeding church.

Adam Race, the sutistic boy who was banned from church, is a gentle, intelligent boy. I’ve attended the church that banned him. It was a noisy service with all of the crying and fussing babies and kids. Adam’s non-verbal expressions are quietier. The priest stated under oath that Adam is not noisier, just different, so that’s disruptive.

I was at the hearing where the priest admitted about 8 of the 10 accusations in his restaining order were based on hearsay. What other people have said Adam did in the past 2 1/2 years. The priest could not verifiy the accusations nor did he have wittnesses. On the otherhand, there were may wittnesses who tesified that many of the accusations were false.

The church lawyer stated they can choose to exclude anyone they want. Wonder who is next?