Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost
After sleeping on this subject and re-reading through some of the posts I've come to the conclusion that he should in fact not have been removed.
But I also think that you're statements aren't particularly constructive since you're practically accusing everyone who supported removing a disruptive man discriminatory.
|
I agree with what you're saying here.
Mr. Mephisto:
It doesn't seem right to me that you claimed to want to only discuss this as an example of a trend, rather than the details. So a few people in here are saying that a priest ought to be able to remove a disruption from the service--regardless of whether the disruption comes from a person with disabilities or not.
Yet, then you uses the actual incident to label those few people as wholly intolerant because they don't disagree with the actions of this particular priest (or at least, didn't say so at first).
So you seem to have conflicting goals: either we talk about these types of incidents or we talk about this particular indicent--but not use one's opinion of a particular incident to chastise them over an entire group of incidents, in general.
For myself, I too think priests are acting appropriately if they feel the need to remove a disturbance from the pews to protect their congregation. I don't see christianity as inclusively as some others do. I think a church protects its congregation--nothing more. If those people were part of the congregation, then I would agree that the priest doesn't have any rationale for removing someone. If some bums wander in off the street and hover around for communion wine and start making a commotion while being "guests", I think the priest has to make a similar decision between the needs/safety of his congregation and those of visitors to the church.
The statements above could have widely divergent meaning. While some members of the congregation were livid, we don't know which incident they were livid about. That is, were they livid at the disturbance or were they livid at the removal. We don't know, and possibly even the person who supplied that information to the newspaper doesn't know. But it really doesn't matter to me, either.
I'm capable of reserving outrage toward an incident I wasn't a party to. If I happen to be in a situation where someone is disrespected, I will make my views known if I feel the desire to do so. But I don't feel I need to voice disapproval of a particular incident that doesn't involve me and that I don't know the details of, and has already occurred regardless in order to feel like a decent human being on an anonymous internet forum.