Mr. Mephisto, damn right you should be angered. Discrimination in any form is intolerable.
For those of you who suggest that a minister/priest/rabbi/shaman/whatever has the right to remove someone from their service who is causing a disturbance, what exactly do you consider a disturbance? Where is the line crossed to become inappropriate? Would an individual who does not bathe frequently be appropriate to be removed? (Before you jump to the homeless person concept, think about some of the older individuals you have encountered who do not bathe frequently and are able bodied.) Would a new married couple who are very affectionate to each other be a distrubance to others (and I'm not talking about making out or more graphic activity, just holding each other tightly)? What about a same sex couple just sitting next to each other - I know that would disturb many individuals. What exactly is the guidline?
Inidividuals with cognitive disablities can have issues that are not in the norm. But does that make them less of a person? In the USA, laws were passed to afford each individual with the right to pursue their life with equal accomodation. The most common occurence are accessibilty ramps and curbs, along with elevators in public buildings. We have assisted those with physical needs, why shouldn't we assist those with cognitive needs?
In my experience not just as someone who deals with a largely diverse client base, but also a sibling of an individual with cognitive and physical disablilities, individuals and families deal with many challenges, not the least of which is those who do not comprehend the abilities of the disabled. Sure, many poeple have donated time or money to an organization that supports those with need, but do they realize that many individuals are under-served or not served at all. The fact that this individual is able to live in a community setting with the assistance of others is the goal for all in the disability movement. Many states/countries still have institutions that are essentially prisons for people who have committed no crime - they were just born.
Back to topic, any public individual who does not realize that their constituency is everyone in their parish/district/etc., and would willfully exclude an individual because of a disability is wrong. Although the article doesn't give an exact age of the priest, we can assume that since he has been a priest for forty years, he is older. Fortunately, in all walks of life, younger individuals are being trained to accomodate and include all individuals regardless of their abilities. It was right for the entire community and hierachy to chastise his actions; it was wrong.
Speaking for Ourselves is a nonprofit organization that I am familiar with. They are an organization formed by individuals with disablities of various levels who felt that their voices were represented well by others, but was not as poignant as what they had to say themselves. I will leave you with their mission statement:
Quote:
Our mission is to find a voice for ourselves.
Teach the public about the needs and wishes and potential of people with disabilities.
Speak out on important issues and Support each other through sharing, leadership development and helping and encouraging each other.
|