Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


What is your opinion
They were right in kicking him out 56%  56%  [ 10 ]
It was a mistake they kicked him out 44%  44%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 18

Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

23 Jul 2011, 9:03 pm

I just read an article about someone with mental issues not being allowed to attend a sinagoge. I know that his issues probably have nothing to do with Asperger. But still the concept is the same. He was not posing any physical threat to anyone. He was simply "different". So his "differences" were not tolerated probably for the same reason as why aspies are not tolerated, either. I believe in both cases people need to be more tolerant.

Here is a link: http://davidabel2.blogspot.com/2005/05/ ... harge.html



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 102,107
Location: In a quiet and peaceful garden where Mick Avory-like Sweet Peas grow

23 Jul 2011, 9:43 pm

I think that they were wrong in kicking him out.


_________________
Mick

Kanye West 2020

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26&start=645


MountainLaurel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,030
Location: New England

23 Jul 2011, 9:54 pm

Quote:
But after a few months - when, temple officials say, he harassed congregants, crashed a wedding, and twice forced them to call the police - they barred him from the synagogue. Most recently, Kapner, who plays music for money in Harvard Square, stood in front of the temple and heckled congregants as they arrived for services.


They didn't kick him out because he was different. They knew he was different the moment he entered and they welcomed him and gave him gifts like the spa membership as a place for him to shower.

They kicked him out because he didn't respect and follow their rules and customs. They kicked him out because he HARASSED people.

Houses of worship are not mental institutes. Only psychiatric institutions are trained to handle the agressive mentally ill.

Do you really want us to believe that aspies are different in the same way that agressive mentally ill folks are?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,039
Location: Stendec

23 Jul 2011, 9:54 pm

I think they were right in kicking him out.

He was disruptive, to say the least...

Here is a link to another article by the same author, including a few replies from Milton "Nathaniel" Kapner himself.

Someone is a few matzohs short of a seder.



littlelily613
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,608
Location: Canada

23 Jul 2011, 10:23 pm

I said that the synagogue was right. Not only did he show up in a crucifix and break the rules of the synagogue (neither of which prevented the congregation from attempting to assist him), he harrassed them and heckled them. Does it say he is mentally ill? It says he was committed to the hospital in the end--it doesn't say a psychiatric facility. It just says he is homeless. Maybe he wasn't mentally ill, and perhaps he was just being a jerk. Even if he was mentally ill, as was pointed out, synagogues and churches are not psychiatric facilities. It seems as though the members of the congregation did their best to include him in the services just as with anyone else, even buying him gifts, services, and food. Despite their generosity and their wish to continue helping him, he has been harrassing the members of their way into services. How on earth are they supposed to deal with it?? I feel fairly certain if he returned with good intentions and behaved himself, he would be permitted to attend! How can they allow someone in the building who is literally chasing the people off the property after services. Come on now! Religious congregations can only do so much, and then they have to be concerned about the safety and well-being of the rest of the people who attend the meetings.


_________________
Diagnosed with classic Autism
AQ score= 48
PDD assessment score= 170 (severe PDD)
EQ=8 SQ=93 (Extreme Systemizer)
Alexithymia Quiz=164/185 (high)


Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

23 Jul 2011, 11:56 pm

I mainly say it is unfair because of the following quote:

littlelily613 wrote:
or the congregants of Young Israel, which like many synagogues is increasingly security-conscious since Sept. 11, Milton Kapner never posed a physical threat. But the fast-talking guest, who told congregants he graduated from Columbia University and lost his home in Needham, began making people feel uncomfortable, even chasing some away from services.


I don't see how telling people about his past personal life can be considered a harassment. It IS, however, "different". So perhaps what happened is that his "differences" made other people uncomfortable, so they left, and then it was interpretted as him "forcing them to leave". But he didn't force them to leave. It was THEM who were too judgmenental to accept him for who he is. There is nothing intrinsically unpleasant in a person talking about himself. But it WILL be unpleasant to the audience who choses to judge him for this behavior.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,039
Location: Stendec

24 Jul 2011, 12:06 am

It is never "too judgmental" to reject anyone for exhibiting symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia or for disrupting traditional religious services with consistently inappropriate behavior.

As much as I despise religion in general, I still say that the troll deserved to be expelled.



Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

24 Jul 2011, 12:12 am

Fnord wrote:
It is never "too judgmental" to reject anyone for exhibiting symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia


This is exactly where I disagree. If the specific symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia do not physically threaten anyone else, then it IS too judgemental to expell such person. I mean think logically: if paranoid schizophrenic does not pose a physical danger, what is so "bad" about having him around? It is bad because it is "unpleasant". Now what does the word "unpleasant" means? It has to do with YOUR taste, not just that person's behavior. So in other words, the difference that is not bad in and of itself will be "Unpleasant" to a judgemental audience. In this respect aspies are unpleasant for the same exact reason paranoid schizophrenics are. Neither an aspie nor paranoid schizophrenic poses physical threat. But they are both unpleasant, so neither are welcome. And I say it is not fair. I think people should refrain from judging others for their personal issues.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,039
Location: Stendec

24 Jul 2011, 12:21 am

To propose a highly-correlative metaphor, what you are doing is essentially coming to the defense of a banned troll, and on a website of which you are not a member. Trolls get banned for being disruptive, with or without a diagnosis of mental instability, since it is bad to allow a troll to disrupt a thread, a forum, or an entire website.

He deserved to be expelled from the synagogue for being disruptive during services.

Deal with it.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 24,682
Location: Pacific Northwest

24 Jul 2011, 12:22 am

I was thinking it was fair they kicked him out but I wasn't sure if I was understanding the article but apparently I was. Harassing people and crashing two weddings, and causing people to call the police twice.



SammichEater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2011
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,903

24 Jul 2011, 12:28 am

I think it's fair. He was being disruptive.


_________________
Remember, all atrocities begin in a sensible place.


Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

24 Jul 2011, 12:35 am

League_Girl wrote:
I was thinking it was fair they kicked him out but I wasn't sure if I was understanding the article but apparently I was. Harassing people and crashing two weddings, and causing people to call the police twice.


There is one problem here: they didn't specify the following details:

1) WHAT did he do to "harass" people?

2) WHAT did he do to "crash two weddings"?

3) WHAT did he do to "cause the people to call a police"?

Now here is what I suspect. What if in all three cases the answer is "him talking about himself too much", as evidenced by the following quote:

League_Girl wrote:
or the congregants of Young Israel, which like many synagogues is increasingly security-conscious since Sept. 11, Milton Kapner never posed a physical threat. But the fast-talking guest, who told congregants he graduated from Columbia University and lost his home in Needham, began making people feel uncomfortable, even chasing some away from services.


Now, I have a good reason to ask the above three questions. I believe that the answers to these questions are crucial when it comes to deciding whether it was his fault or not. And, in particular, if the answers to these three questions have anything to do with him talking about himself, then I would say no it is not his fault. Now you might ask me "isn't crashing a wedding a little more than just talking about oneself?" Well, not necessarily. Let me illustrate one way in which him talking about himself can be behind ALL THREE of the above items:

1) He talkied about himself too much. Others indicated they didn't want to engage in a conversation. He didn't seem to hear them, and continued to push the topic. As a result, they felt "harassed" since they were "forced" to talk about something they didn't want to

2) He was talking about himself during the weddings. As a result, they decided to re-schedule the weddings just so that he won't be around to spoil the situation

3) Other people saw how "weird" he was and, as a result, they have "decided" that he might do something worse, so they called a police. In reality he didn't plan to do anything "worse"; it was merely other people's misinterpretation

Now do you see how, in all of three cases OTHER PEOPLE play key role in making the allegations "real"? Perhaps if he behaved in exact same way while others were a bit more tolerant, then they won't feel "harassed", the weddings won't be "crashed", nor would anyone be "forced to call a police". The problem with NT-s in general is that they don't overanalize all of the why-s. They would typically use some general sounding terms, like the ones above, without dissecting what is behind them. As a result, an audience will automatically side with the NT-s side of the story.



Last edited by Roman on 24 Jul 2011, 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

24 Jul 2011, 12:51 am

Fnord wrote:
To propose a highly-correlative metaphor, what you are doing is essentially coming to the defense of a banned troll, and on a website of which you are not a member. Trolls get banned for being disruptive, with or without a diagnosis of mental instability, since it is bad to allow a troll to disrupt a thread, a forum, or an entire website.

He deserved to be expelled from the synagogue for being disruptive during services.

Deal with it.


Well, we are now talking about real life rather than internet trolling. In the real life, being "kicked out" has a lot more serious consequences for the supposed "troll" and this kind of attitude doesn't do justice to aspies. For example, I had a history of developing bad reputation at the schools I went to. Now, it took me to ONLY spoil opinions of a couple of professors. After having done that, the reputation would spread on its own. Most people would not really care what happened or why. They would pretty much have your attitude: "why defend a troll?" and "why do it on a website they are not a member?" (after all, they didn't interact with me to begin with, so why not just trust an opinion of someone who did). Now as a result of this attitude it was sheer luck I found exactly TWO people (one from each of these two schools) to save me from my career being ruined.

I think "trolls" and "aspies" have a lot in common. Neither of them are real threat; in both cases it is just "nuisance". Now, we all know that aspies are NOT trolls and a lot DO have good intentions, which are misunderstood by NT-s. So, for the same reason, it is also possible that some trolls have good intentions too. Now, yes, there are trolls with bad intentions. But, as they said, a person is "innocent till proven guilty". So for that reason trolls need to be given a chance. In fact trolls should be the first ones to get this chance. Giving a chance to a criminal who would physically hurt others is simply not safe. But a troll doens't even hurt anyone, so why judge?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

24 Jul 2011, 1:19 am

You didn't type what he said to these people. The information was very vague. All we know for sure is he talked about Columbia University and he lost his home in Needham. Maybe he was mean and harsh with people, insulting them or threatening them. You cannot assume the only thing he discussed was himself. There must be more to it than that.



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

24 Jul 2011, 1:24 am

You say "there must be more than that", but why? Because otherwise their response of kicking him out wouldn't make sense? But people do kick others out for reasons just that small... I know; I've had it happen to me, several times.

Now, maybe he really was doing things that made it necessary to ban him. But it is entirely likely that he was just acting in an odd way that made them uneasy and they banned him because they were afraid of that unpredictability. Without more information, we can't tell which; but I think it's likely enough that his behavior wasn't threatening, just odd.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


Jediscraps
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

24 Jul 2011, 2:23 am

Quote:
But the fast-talking guest, who told congregants he graduated from Columbia University and lost his home in Needham, began making people feel uncomfortable, even chasing some away from services.


At first I took the, "even chasing some away from services", literally. I'm not sure if it's saying he literally chased them away or not but then I realized people will say that sort of thing meaning that people don't want to be around someone or something.

Which then made me think, who's place is it to be then?

I thought the article was kind of humorous.

Quote:
For the most part, unless they're disruptive, the needy are welcomed, or at least tolerated.


It seems funny to me to have a group of people like a church who preach about God and his kingdom, who name themselves after the man they follow, the man who said the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That the poor are blessed and theirs is the kingdom of heaven. And who at least for a while, was homeless and had nowhere to lay his head. And his family at some point went to take control of him as they probably considered him crazy. And who was called a glton and drunkard because of having the taxcollector's and "sinner's" (I'd say probably, "outcasts" and "undesirables") who were his friends.



Quote:
At the Park Street Church, one homeless man reached into the collection basket and instead of adding a donation, he grabbed all the cash. Church officials called the police.


Then there's this too. Who are the donations for? It reminded me of some verse where Jesus says he will come like a theif in the night and what I quote below. I guess the church and to pay the religious leaders and Iimagine the poor. I find it an interesting situation where a poor homeless man steals from donations from christians who follow the man who was written to have said,

Quote:
31 “........ 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him,[b] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=NKJV




And there's this.
Quote:
".........Recently, after someone rubbed feces on the wall of one of the bathrooms, they decided to review an old policy of allowing the homeless to use the toilet"


That's pretty gross, but I recall this also from the bible, the old testatment~
Quote:
12 Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13 The LORD said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.”
14 Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign LORD! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No impure meat has ever entered my mouth.”
15 “Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV


I don't have a solution for all this but to me it looks like the "kingdom of heaven" is actually more welcoming to outsiders with supposedly being first in the kingdom, for whatever reason. It just seems church people have this attitude that it's their place and the outsiders are treated as charity or tolerated.

And second, the bible has a lot of people who were written in the bible as having some calling from God and who were also unpleasant to others, including Jesus.