Thread: Dogs in Church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030211
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The thread about worship has a tangent about dogs in Church. I thought it would be interesting to pursue here.

Of course, it is illegal in the UK to refuse access for service dogs to public places. The only exceptions are food preparation kitchens and sterile hospital areas like operating theatres.

My Guide Dog pups come to Church every Sunday. Allowing pups is at the discression of the shop/church/whatever.

All the pups, without exception, stand for the hymns! Bruce was something of a barker but folk just chuckled when he did this.

What is your opinion/experience?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
We have never questioned the idea of service dogs in church. It has not been a problem.

However, it has several times happened that brides wanted their beloved pup to be part of the wedding ceremony. We only permit that for outdoor services.

Unfortunately this summer we had an outdoor service with dog planned and it rained. The bride was inconsolable at not being able to include the pooch, who was huge and shaggy. It made us wonder about our policy.

As a lover of dogs I have often lobbied to have a church service to focus on them, but always get hooted down.
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
My niece, an only child who grew up with at least two to four golden retrievers in the house, chose her beloved Phoebe, as her flower girl at her wedding. Phoebe performed flawlessly, delivering her basket of flowers to the front of the church and going to lie down beside the mother-of-the-bride exactly as rehearsed.

The photographer mentioned that he would keep this church in mind to suggest to other couples as not many were so open about having a dog be part of the ceremony.

I take my dog pretty much everywhere I go and find that I have altered many routines based on where she is welcome or not welcome. I suspect that others have done the same.

When I was doing supply preaching, I brought her with me into church before and after the service but tucked her away for a nap in my car during worship. On very cold days she had a kennel at the back of the church. She's not one to bark or cry so most had no idea she was there. It was about a 140 km drive each Sunday so it made sense to take her with me. On the other hand, another person who does supply there has run into real opposition for having a dog sleeping in the pulpit during worship.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I had problems with someone who insisted on bringing her dog to Evensong as I am allergic to dog hair/dander. This made it very difficult for me to be cantor at the service as I would tend to have an asthma attack. I think this needs to be considered before we open our churches to dogs of all types. Most of the assistance dogs tend to be short haired and less of a problem but the dog which caused me difficulties was long haired and a shedder.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Somebody brought a dog to church at our shack a little while ago: it behaved itself and it was fine. I don't take mine but I'm sure I could if I wanted to. There are just pets, not assistance dogs. Nice big space so no need for anyone to get close to him if they don't want to/ need not to. When I used to go to Hinde St Methodist in London there was a slightly eccentric lady who used to attend regularly with a cat on her shoulder. All part of the glorious variety of the Kingdom of God, if you ask me.
 
Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
Many, many years ago the father of my dad's friend was a minister in the Highlands. (Dad's friend must be pushing 90, and this was before he was born, so probably late 19th C). He used to take his large, black dog to church and let him sleep in the pulpit whilst he preached, until one day cows were heard outside. The dog woke up and sprang out of the pulpit barking, and the congregation fled in hysterics - believing it was the devil.

Personally, I'd be distracted by dogs in church, and I don't know many who would lie down quietly during the service. I suppose it could also be a problem if someone in the congregation had a phobia or a severe allergy.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scots lass:

Personally, I'd be distracted by dogs in church, and I don't know many who would lie down quietly during the service. I suppose it could also be a problem if someone in the congregation had a phobia or a severe allergy.
How would that person then cope with a service dog coming in? Taxi drivers have to have a doctor's letter if they claim severe allergy, and the firm have to send someone else.

Someone once demanded a guide dog owner leave the bus due to their allergy. But the owner didn't leave - easier for the allergic person to get another bus and remember their medication next time.

We have a member of our Church with a severe allergy to dogs - he remembers his medication when he comes to Church/our house and he keeps well away from the dogs (he's a family friend too)

Phobias are another story. Another lady started to scream about a guide dog on a bus asking for it to be removed. Very upsetting to the owner - but, again, she had to remove herself and get another bus.

I have my tiny pups at the back of the Church so that I can see to their needs and they aren't having to settle for too long. Once they are six months old I sit in my usual place and they come up with me for communion etc, just as their owner will if they are church goers.

It's also great practice for the pup as Church is similar to many situations - lots of people sitting quietly listening to someone at the front talking/singing/whatever is similar to many university and job situations. Only one has howled during a hymn!
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
We used to have an old parishioner from Leeds with a Yellow Lab guide dog. Uma was much beloved by the rest of the parish; the only drawback was that she loved to lie in the midst of the nave on the cool concrete floor, which meant that processions had to wind around her.

I currently have a family who raises King Charles Cavalier Spaniels, and they occasionally will bring one to church with them. They're always well-behaved and have never been a problem.

I don't see the need to have a policy about dogs; if a particular animal was causing a problem, we'd need to address that, but it hasn't yet happened.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Service animals, fine.

Personal pets? I see a number of issues.

Will they end up causing trouble for legitimate service animals?

Will they cause people with phobias or allergies discomfort? (This is just a balancing of interests test. Service animals might win, but if it's between someone being able to breath properly for the rest of the day and you bringing your non-service animal in? Human wins.)

If everyone starts bringing his or her dog to church, what happens when an inevitable fight happens (and it will)? People take dog disagreements extremely personally.

I love dogs, but I'm not sure that regular pet dogs (as opposed to service dogs) really need to be invited everywhere.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
As everybody else is saying, it's a balancing act. One way to handle the balance, though, might be to declare one service (if you have multiple) "animal free" (well, except service dogs) so the folks with allergies/phobias can have one situation in which to relax. And of course if you have seat padding or carpeting, to do what you can to see that hair/dander isn't left behind. Or perhaps ask animals to stay in a particular section of the church.

I hear a hint of doubt in some posts about the allergies thing. For some of us, it isn't a matter of "take your medicine, you idiot, and then you'll be fine." Some of us risk anaphylaxis aka death. Some of us can be juiced to the gills with meds and still have a whacking great asthma attack, as I did the night I slept in a home where the cat was accustomed to lying on the guest pillow, and nobody thought to say anything. Purple face does not become me!

There's no need to make these things into a conflict between pet owners and people with medical or psych issues. Generally we can work out a reasonable solution with courtesy and an intent to assume the best of people.
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
Service dogs are fine. In my varied past when I was a church cleaner I could tell when the guide dog had been in worship by the yellow hairs on the floor for me to sweep up! I have also had the very occasional dog at a funeral. And I always think of an aristocratic parishioner in a former parish who took exception to the Council's notice in the cemetery surrounding the church which forbade dogs, "When I die," this lady would proclaim, "Not only the digs, but the horses are coming to the funeral!" She is still alive.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
My autistic friend is an occasional churchgoer and takes his service dog with him. Since he can't speak, the dog acts as an icebreaker for the family, and makes the people around them more comfortable. The dog is always as welcome as my friend, and has the enviable right to sleep through the less inspiring sermons without attracting attention.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scots lass:


Personally, I'd be distracted by dogs in church, and I don't know many who would lie down quietly during the service.
Well, it all comes down to behaviour, doesn't it? If your dog will behave, and not distract you or other worshippers, fine. If not, don't bring him or her in. Might need a rethink if everybody started doing it, but ti's a question of balance.
And presumably people with allergies can't guarantee they'll go through life in an entirely animal-hair free space all the time, anyway.

[ 25. August 2016, 20:44: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And presumably people with allergies can't guarantee they'll go through life in an entirely animal-hair free space all the time, anyway.
I have a bad cat allergy, but I deal with it by not going to houses of people who own cats, or taking a double dose of antihistamine before going over there. I don't have to deal with it in most places, though, because in most public spaces, your cat isn't welcome.

If you had a legitimate service cat, I could be cool about you taking it out into public spaces.

But why do you need to bring it with you on Sunday morning? It was fine at home for a long time now.

Service animals aside, I think there are good reasons why public spaces are generally assumed to be pet free unless otherwise specified.

(This is Purgatory after all, we can disagree. If it was a Heaven thread about lovely animals in church, I wouldn't have said anything.)
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
As a person who has been attacked by dogs, I am very nervous of them; I avoid them whenever I can.

Service dogs are trained well, and are dedicated to their support of humans, but I have discovered that not all domestic pets are well-trained. If their master is with them and has some control over them, this helps, of course. If I found out that domestic pets were more than a very marginal presence at services, I would find myself in a predicament.
 
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :
 
Of course, if Jesus were actually physically present at church, it would solve these problems. He could quell any upstart animals, cure any asthmatics or allergic people, give clever answers to anyone's complaints, use the dogs/cats for parables etc.
On an aside, you know those long stick/pole things that the verger or whoever carry up the aisle when the clergy, choir etc all process up to the altar at the beginning of a service?...apparently they were originally used to chase out (stray, I assume) dogs that would wander into churches. Don't know if true or not.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There are certainly historical accounts of dogs wandering into church services. A famous one is in Tom Sawyer.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I have a bad cat allergy, but I deal with it by not going to houses of people who own cats, or taking a double dose of antihistamine before going over there. I don't have to deal with it in most places, though, because in most public spaces, your cat isn't welcome.
Yeah, me too.

Outdoors is fine - I often encounter cats outdoors, and sometimes stroke them (I like cats, but my immune system doesn't) - but make sure to wash my hands before they go anywhere near my face, but am never unpredictably presented with an indoor catty space.

If your cat is on public transport, it is confined in a cat carrier, and I won't sit near you.

I'm also allergic to dogs, although to a much lesser extent, so normal encounters with dogs are OK (and as has been said upthread, service dogs are well-trained and mind their own business.)

If you own dogs, I can factor that into my decision to visit your home or not. I have no interest in your drooling crotch-sniffer coming anywhere near me in public.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Only one has howled during a hymn!
Was it a protest against the tune, the theology, or the modernising of the words?

When I was a child, my Kelpie used to sometimes wander up to the church, sniff around under the pews until he found us, curl up, and sleep through the sermon, in contumacious defiance of Revelation 22:15 ("OUTSIDE are the dogs").

He is probably now in canine hell with Hitler's dog.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
He is probably now in canine hell with Hitler's dog.
Nope. All dogs go to Heaven.
[Angel]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
ER, what makes you use the word "Asian" in this context?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joesaphat:
[qb] Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
Why do you think it important to qualify the family who hate dogs as "Asian"? [If you're worried about being PC, this usage proves you're not PC at all. Far from it].

Male pronouns? Well, Jesus is male and I think it's pretty good for a church to be accurate.

I think, on reading your list, I'd spare a thought for the congregation. I think you've got some pretty serious work to do.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Joesaphat, as someone who loves incense but is severely allergic to some of them, the family really aren't snowflakes. You may think their breathing is optional, but I promise you, they don't.

I am aware that some people make a huge fuss about incense and aren't allergic, as there are people who fuss about wheat who aren't coeliac, but that just makes it much harder for those people who really do suffer severe consequences from coming into contact with things their immune systems cannot deal with.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
I think your approach is excellent. We often have issues that make it difficult to live and work together, but if we are prepared to go to these lengths to ensure that everyone is included I think that shows a willingness to see the Kingdom of God built on earth. All I can say is - keep up the good work. I would not have your patience.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
Rant away ...

But where is your empathy?

Can you not imagine what it must be like living with any of these conditions?

The incumbent is at work - paid decent money - to provide a service. Inclusive? I would hope so! My work place is inclusive, we are also paid decent money to provide a service.

The thing which people are entitled to is 'reasonable adjustment' of provision. This includes workers and receivers of services on public places.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
At risk of creating a dogpile, please try living with these conditions, particularly in combination, before complaining. For example, both digestive intolerances and allergies are auto-immune diseases, so (as in my case) need for gluten-free wafers and allergy to incense go together. No-one asks for parts of their anatomy not to function, especially several simultaneously, so your gracious forbearance and provision for afflicted members of your congregation is appreciated.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
We have two canine regulars at our place: one is a guide dog, the other is the constant companion of a child on the autistic spectrum.

I have to say that given a choice between these well-behaved creatures and many of our occasional visitors for services like weddings and baptisms, I'll take the dogs any day.

We also have a cat, but only during the summer months when doors are left open. It comes in around the time of the Peace, goes forward to sit near the communion rails at the appropriate time and then follows the celebrant down the aisle at the end.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Dogs are welcome at our church. We have three regulars. The pastor's dog which is a beagle. She tends to get over excited and will be taken out if she starts barking. Another woman has a corgi that comes. He is usually pretty good, but will get bored as the service progresses.. Once in a while I will take care of it because the owner is in choir. Then there is my dog, which is a laid back labrador. Nothing bothers him. His calm presence will help settle the corgi if they are in church together.
Another newer couple has brought their toy poddle a couple of times. It apparently has some separation anxiety issues. But it has not caused problems during worship.

[ 26. August 2016, 14:54: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess),...
When I was a kid anyone with disabilities (too old to climb stairs safely) was expected to cease attending church. Much easier to have a church for the fully able bodied only.

In a broader sense - at what point is someone with special needs unrealistic to expect a church to change it's ways or spend money on equipment or remodeling or change the program to meet a need? Most local churches do not have a place for wheelchair riders except blocking the aisle in violation of fire safety.

Wafers - I thought someone could skip that and just take the wine until I went to a church that does only intinction - no wafer no communion. (And BTW gluten is not the only protein in modern wheat that can cause nasty physical distress, you can have wheat reaction without having celiac).

Hearing loops cost a church money to put in, but hearing aids are really expensive and hard to use effectively in a crowd.

Incense - there are lots of varieties on the market, can't see that it's a big deal to choose one no local person is allergic to.

But also - some kinds of music or lights can trigger some people to migraines, or disrupt people with autism, but to others that kind of music and lights enhances worship.

I wish churches could provide transportation to include those who no longer drive but that costs money and labor most churches don't have.

Church simply cannot be accessible to absolutely everyone, at minimum the contagious cannot come to the group! How are we training people to do church on their own instead of dropping completely when getting to a church or being in a church is too hard?
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
At risk of creating a dogpile, please try living with these conditions, particularly in combination, before complaining. For example, both digestive intolerances and allergies are auto-immune diseases, so (as in my case) need for gluten-free wafers and allergy to incense go together. No-one asks for parts of their anatomy not to function, especially several simultaneously, so your gracious forbearance and provision for afflicted members of your congregation is appreciated.
I do it all, joyfully most of the time, I just wish people were a little less bolshy about it.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Joesaphat, as someone who loves incense but is severely allergic to some of them, the family really aren't snowflakes. You may think their breathing is optional, but I promise you, they don't.

I am aware that some people make a huge fuss about incense and aren't allergic, as there are people who fuss about wheat who aren't coeliac, but that just makes it much harder for those people who really do suffer severe consequences from coming into contact with things their immune systems cannot deal with.
I don't, as I said, I provide all these things, I'm just annoyed because people feel so b...y entitled and aren't very gracious or thankful about it. I've got a dog whom I often take to church myself and I don't do too well on huge quantities of very sweet wine. I think I understand these predicaments, but a parish church's not a restaurant and I'm not a local authority ombudsman.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I do it all, joyfully most of the time, I just wish people were a little less bolshy about it.
I can't speak for your congregation, but believe me, my feeling of gratitude when I discovered that the spiritual heart of my week did not have to leave me feeling horribly unwell was amazing. I still have it every time I receive a gluten-free host at communion.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joesaphat:
[qb] Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
Why do you think it important to qualify the family who hate dogs as "Asian"? [If you're worried about being PC, this usage proves you're not PC at all. Far from it].

Male pronouns? Well, Jesus is male and I think it's pretty good for a church to be accurate.

I think, on reading your list, I'd spare a thought for the congregation. I think you've got some pretty serious work to do.
Like what? I thought it pretty obvious that these are all things I do every week to meet people's needs, and yes, an awful lot of first generation Asian people hate dogs. It's not racism, it's a cultural fact.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I do it all, joyfully most of the time, I just wish people were a little less bolshy about it.
I can't speak for your congregation, but believe me, my feeling of gratitude when I discovered that the spiritual heart of my week did not have to leave me feeling horribly unwell was amazing. I still have it every time I receive a gluten-free host at communion.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Rant: every Sunday: four gluten-free wafers for the coeliacs, hypo-allergenic incense for the snowflake family, two un-confirmed furry members who have to be minded when their owners make their way to the altar rail, apologies for the (yea, Asian) family who don't like dogs, loop-system (fair enough, I guess), profuse apologies for the use of male pronouns, no triggering language about greed for the bulimic (yes, they do complain) and then further apologies for those who complain about PC-ness overtaking everything... anyone spare a thought for the incumbent?
I think your approach is excellent. We often have issues that make it difficult to live and work together, but if we are prepared to go to these lengths to ensure that everyone is included I think that shows a willingness to see the Kingdom of God built on earth. All I can say is - keep up the good work. I would not have your patience.
Thank you, most other answers prove my point to some extent: people are not hugely understanding. You cannot meet the needs of one group without miffing another.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And presumably people with allergies can't guarantee they'll go through life in an entirely animal-hair free space all the time, anyway.
I have a bad cat allergy, but I deal with it by not going to houses of people who own cats, or taking a double dose of antihistamine before going over there.
Maybe depends on building and way it's used. Home: generally comparatively small, lots of soft furnishings, cat with free rein to wander everywhere. Church (if like our place): big, airy, very few soft furnishings, animals occasional visitors and kept under control by owners, not allowed to wander freely.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[qb] And presumably people with allergies can't guarantee they'll go through life in an entirely animal-hair free space all the time, anyway.
Yes, and this is precisely why we ought to take some thought to making church a safe(r) place for them. Someone who is fearfully allergic or asthmatic can't let their guard down anywhere; but it would be a kindness to make church a place they had less to worry about.

It seems to me that we've got a constant struggle going on between those who want to frame the discussion in terms of rights ("What do we HAVE to do?") and those who look at it more as kindness and courtesy ("What can we do?"). There's some validity to the first frame, but it's almost guaranteed to raise people's hackles on both sides. For bars, airports, supermarkets, etc. that might be appropriate. For church we can do better.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Joesaphat, as someone who loves incense but is severely allergic to some of them, the family really aren't snowflakes. You may think their breathing is optional, but I promise you, they don't.

I am aware that some people make a huge fuss about incense and aren't allergic, as there are people who fuss about wheat who aren't coeliac, but that just makes it much harder for those people who really do suffer severe consequences from coming into contact with things their immune systems cannot deal with.
I don't, as I said, I provide all these things, I'm just annoyed because people feel so b...y entitled and aren't very gracious or thankful about it. I've got a dog whom I often take to church myself and I don't do too well on huge quantities of very sweet wine. I think I understand these predicaments, but a parish church's not a restaurant and I'm not a local authority ombudsman.
You're a Priest and with that comes certain obligations in relation to justice and equity, particularly where the vulnerable and marginalised are concerned.

I find your comments about Asians and references to "snowflake" all the more obnoxious for that very reason. Hiding behind "I accommodate this every week so I'm ok" is a pretty thin excuse in my book.

There are people in my home church whose behaviour and needs are way beyond the boundaries of cultural norms. They are here because they find a welcome and an affirmation, alongside an appreciation that we will move heaven and earth to help them within the context of the broader community.

They don't feel entitled because over many years they have been denied or discriminated against: the little I can do is to make them feel valued and welcome by finding ways to affirm them. I really don't see your approach as doing that - but perhaps I'm misreading you.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
[qb] Joesaphat, as someone who loves incense but is severely allergic to some of them, the family really aren't snowflakes. You may think their breathing is optional, but I promise you, they don't.

I am aware that some people make a huge fuss about incense and aren't allergic, as there are people who fuss about wheat who aren't coeliac, but that just makes it much harder for those people who really do suffer severe consequences from coming into contact with things their immune systems cannot deal with.
I find your comments about Asians and references to "snowflake" all the more obnoxious for that very reason. Hiding behind "I accommodate this every week so I'm ok" is a pretty thin excuse in my book.

There are people in my home church whose behaviour and needs are way beyond the boundaries of cultural norms. They are here because they find a welcome and an affirmation, alongside an appreciation that we will move heaven and earth to help them within the context of the broader community.

They don't feel entitled because over many years they have been denied or discriminated against: the little I can do is to make them feel valued and welcome by finding ways to affirm them.
[Overused]
 
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :
 
[QUOTE[/qb][/QUOTE]I don't, as I said, I provide all these things, I'm just annoyed because people feel so b...y entitled and aren't very gracious or thankful about it. I've got a dog whom I often take to church myself and I don't do too well on huge quantities of very sweet wine. I think I understand these predicaments, but a parish church's not a restaurant and I'm not a local authority ombudsman. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Ah yes, one does get bolshy congregants...one wouldn't believe what some people complain about sometimes...thank goodness I'm not a vicar or any kind of church leader, it must be absolutely ghastly at times...still, perhaps it's good for the soul!
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
[qb] Joesaphat, as someone who loves incense but is severely allergic to some of them, the family really aren't snowflakes. You may think their breathing is optional, but I promise you, they don't.

I am aware that some people make a huge fuss about incense and aren't allergic, as there are people who fuss about wheat who aren't coeliac, but that just makes it much harder for those people who really do suffer severe consequences from coming into contact with things their immune systems cannot deal with.
I find your comments about Asians and references to "snowflake" all the more obnoxious for that very reason. Hiding behind "I accommodate this every week so I'm ok" is a pretty thin excuse in my book.

There are people in my home church whose behaviour and needs are way beyond the boundaries of cultural norms. They are here because they find a welcome and an affirmation, alongside an appreciation that we will move heaven and earth to help them within the context of the broader community.

They don't feel entitled because over many years they have been denied or discriminated against: the little I can do is to make them feel valued and welcome by finding ways to affirm them.
[Overused]
OK, I’ll bite:

Coeliacs and people who don’t like dogs are not marginalized or oppressed. I grew up among Asians, I never said that “I was OK because I do this every week” but to use a trope: yea, most of my mates are Asian. I did my MA in Oriental Studies, I grew up Buddhist and I minister in New Malden, also named Little Seoul, I actually speak Arabic, Hebrew and I’m learning Korean, there are 16,000 of them in or around my parish: they tend to be fine about it (although some of them eat dog, back home) but lots and lots and lots of Asian people have an irrational fear of dogs. I cannot both honour that and the wish of those who want to bring their dogs to church. It’s not racism. ‘Asian’ is not a slur, and you are the one who sounds like a racist. We are an Anglo-Catholic parish: whenever incense is used at High Mass there is always Low Mass at eight or Sung Mass the day before, always without incense. I have no means of knowing who will turn up when or why. No one gives me notice but one or two families hold the entire parish ransom because of their condition. I always consecrate four gluten-free wafers, which is fair enough. I can’t have the wine, at least not in any significant quantity: our Lord is present in both species entire: divinity and all. They could always take communion from the chalice if not enough were consecrated (gluten-free wafers cannot easily be reserved, they turn to cardboard). It would not bother me in the slightest but some even insist that their host be not in contact with other wheaten ones, which several GPs in the congregation tell me is utter bullshit. Nonetheless, I do it. I have to promise solemnly and very publically that I will only use the liturgies authorized by canon: I cannot inclusivize everything, if I do, the traditionalists then complain and remind me of my canonical obligations (ever heard of the Prayer Book Society?), and I really, really fail to understand how Common Worship can be ‘triggering.’ The Bible’s nasty in places, there is nothing I can do about it.

I am glad you move heaven and earth to accommodate ‘behaviour and needs that are way beyond cultural norms,’ I cannot do more. I don’t mean to paint with a wide brush, but these people do not ‘feel entitled because over many years they have been denied or discriminated against,’ they’re perfectly Middle-class, suburban families. Most are nice but some are as brown-shirty as you sound about it.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
And there is a huge difference between a home church and a CofE parish of several hundreds in what is arguably one of the most diverse areas of London.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I am wondering about the theology of keeping one's host out of contact of everyone else's. Sharing in one bread? I get the gluten free need. But no touching?

[ 27. August 2016, 08:00: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Joesaphat, you don't need to 'move heaven and earth'. You simply need to make reasonable adjustments, after that it's up to people to keep themselves safe.

My [Overused] to ExclamationMark was because he genuinely seems to want people to feel valued, affirmed and welcome. This attitude goes a long way, even if perfect accommodation can't happen for one reason or another.

Your attitude seems rather 'humph, this is all a lot of hard work for me'. You are not a volunteer, you are decently paid to perform these duties, I presume?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I am wondering about the theology of keeping one's host out of contact of everyone else's. Sharing in one bread? I get the gluten free need. But no touching?
For coeliacs, no touching is essential. That sounds extreme, but it's true.

The practical, to my mind, emphasises the theological. God feeds all of his children. He also knows his children individually better than they know themselves, and feeds them in ways that provide for the needs of their individuality. The common symbol of that is the eucharist, but where necessary (and I stress where necessary - this is my reason for not favouring individual provision as a default), the realising of that symbol can be as individual as God's love.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Forgive the double posting, but this gives you some idea of the variants and associated difficulties.

To the sensitive digestive system, gluten is gluten. Consecration makes not a jot of difference. This can, of course, have its own theological implications, but it is true.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
When I was a kid anyone with disabilities (too old to climb stairs safely) was expected to cease attending church. Much easier to have a church for the fully able bodied only.

In a broader sense - at what point is someone with special needs unrealistic to expect a church to change it's ways or spend money on equipment or remodeling or change the program to meet a need? Most local churches do not have a place for wheelchair riders except blocking the aisle in violation of fire safety.

Wafers - I thought someone could skip that and just take the wine until I went to a church that does only intinction - no wafer no communion. (And BTW gluten is not the only protein in modern wheat that can cause nasty physical distress, you can have wheat reaction without having celiac).

Hearing loops cost a church money to put in, but hearing aids are really expensive and hard to use effectively in a crowd.

Incense - there are lots of varieties on the market, can't see that it's a big deal to choose one no local person is allergic to.

But also - some kinds of music or lights can trigger some people to migraines, or disrupt people with autism, but to others that kind of music and lights enhances worship.

I wish churches could provide transportation to include those who no longer drive but that costs money and labor most churches don't have.

Church simply cannot be accessible to absolutely everyone, at minimum the contagious cannot come to the group! How are we training people to do church on their own instead of dropping completely when getting to a church or being in a church is too hard? [/QB]
Is it all so complicated?

When we found that H was an extreme coeliac, it was just 'Okay, and there may be others, so we'll always put a wee dish with rice wafers'.

We put in a ramp when the regulations required it – I know there are ancient churches where this just can't be done but if some contriving were needed there would be a rush of people to help.

Someone can no longer drive? Well, there'll be more than one offer to pick her up.

Someone really can no longer come to church? Then I hope they'll be visited.

A church is a community of people, looking after one another, isn't it?

GG
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I reacted at the implication that I am a snowflake for being allergic to some forms of incense. I would suggest that it was the use of such pejorative language that triggered the reaction on this thread. I construe from your phrasing that you are reluctantly meeting these needs whilst being dismissive of the people who identify as having difficulties.

The problem for coeliacs is that they really cannot tolerate any gluten without becoming ill and severely damaging their intestines. A common cup with others intincting is enough for them to not be able to partake in communion in this form.

A way I have seen of dealing with this is a separate smaller cup for the coeliacs with a separate patten and a request to receive at one end of the altar rail, or asking those who are coeliac to come up first so they can receive in both kinds before anyone else and don't risk contamination.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Forgive me, Joesaphat, but those GPs sound like those whose "advice" I had to wade past to stop wasting my life feeling like crap the whole time. Epidemiology is not medicine, and this is something they seem not to realise: outlying cases happen, and they can arise anywhere, even in their practice - see super-sensitive and refractory coeliac disease, and some of the less explicable gluten-sensitive enteropathies. Epidemiologically they are not significant, because there are not huge numbers of them; medically they are, because they affect the lives of sufferers significantly.

Are coeliacs oppressed? It can take three weeks for them to get over exposure to gluten, so if their weekly communion sets them off, then they are never well. Is that oppression?

I'm sorry if this sounds stupid or extreme. In fact it may well do. But having seen what chronic untreated coeliac disease does - and that's what is created if attacks are triggered every single week - does, that's pretty extreme too.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
P.S. as a partially recovering anglo-catholic myself, I have seen the huge range of stuff that gets projected onto the clergy. I'm not sure, and I don't expect an answer, but it wouldn't surprise me if an element of Joesephat's reactions on this thread were an expression of weariness with the sheer range and oddity of some of those projections. Asking clergy to accommodate everything that everyone brings with them to church is no small thing, even if it does feel essential to those whose burdens are in play.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I am wondering about the theology of keeping one's host out of contact of everyone else's. Sharing in one bread?
Well, to be honest, it seems to me that the theology of sharing in one bread is already compromised by the use of individual hosts, rather than pieces of bread broken or cut from one loaf. (Ditto wee cuppies.)

FWIW, I am aware of some Presbyterian congregations that avoid the no-touching and "how do I get the gluten-free bread" issues by using nothing but gluten-free bread. I realize this isn't an option for those in traditions that have stricter rules regarding bread ingredients than we have.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Forgive me, Joesaphat, but those GPs sound like those whose "advice" I had to wade past to stop wasting my life feeling like crap the whole time. Epidemiology is not medicine, and this is something they seem not to realise: outlying cases happen, and they can arise anywhere, even in their practice - see super-sensitive and refractory coeliac disease, and some of the less explicable gluten-sensitive enteropathies. Epidemiologically they are not significant, because there are not huge numbers of them; medically they are, because they affect the lives of sufferers significantly.

Are coeliacs oppressed? It can take three weeks for them to get over exposure to gluten, so if their weekly communion sets them off, then they are never well. Is that oppression?

I'm sorry if this sounds stupid or extreme. In fact it may well do. But having seen what chronic untreated coeliac disease does - and that's what is created if attacks are triggered every single week - does, that's pretty extreme too.
You sound like a pretty extreme case, and if you'd come and say that before any celebration, of course I'd consecrate something separately.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
And OK, please accept my apologies for using the word snowflake. As for the harrumphing though, I'm sorry but it's true: people are not very gracious about their idiosyncrasies, liturgical, physical or aesthetic... and it can make clergy life pretty miserable. I'm not supposed to be a cop or a constant mediator between adults whose preferences or needs clash and should be able to talk to one another.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
P.S. as a partially recovering anglo-catholic myself, I have seen the huge range of stuff that gets projected onto the clergy. I'm not sure, and I don't expect an answer, but it wouldn't surprise me if an element of Joesephat's reactions on this thread were an expression of weariness with the sheer range and oddity of some of those projections. Asking clergy to accommodate everything that everyone brings with them to church is no small thing, even if it does feel essential to those whose burdens are in play.
Talking about the sheer range of oddities, in another parish (discretion must be maintained and I've already ranted too openly) I was asked not to say the word 'come' as some people could not cope with the sexual connotation... now I defy anyone to preside for an hour and a half and do that.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And OK, please accept my apologies for using the word snowflake.
About time. Snowflake has other connotations besides someone being a bit precious.

Why, incidentally do you see that I'm coming across as racist? In attempting to deflect the (in my view) valid criticism that's come your way, you resort to comments that are along the lines of "my best friends are black/gay/female"

I agree that ministry isn't a breeze and it has its frustrations. People are people and none of us is perfect - yet.

You and I aren't where e are and serving in the way we do, for our own benefit or to prove any kind of point other than that of the gospel. FWIW I can't think of anyone in my home church who fits the "I think I'm entitled middle class" caricature you present.

I happen to be part of an inner city faith community in one of the most deprived wards of the area, with a very wide cultural, ethnic and social mix: our church make up reflects exactly the local community where 35% of the people don't speak English as a 1st language. We offer free language classes and our services will soon be translated into 3 other languages on the fly. We don't have any GP's but we have a few drug deals going on in the Car park.

It isn't easy trying to work through what is sometimes messy, but it can work.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I'm not supposed to be a constant mediator between adults whose preferences or needs clash and should be able to talk to one another.
Make every effort to keep the bond of peace. Surely it's exactly what a Priest is supposed to be doing?

Perhaps the people you work with have a little more to be precious about than those I happen to serve.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Thank you for explaining about the reality of the danger of contact with gluten for coeliacs. I had not realised how small the amount capable of triggering serious consequences could be.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Actually, it varies. I once inadvertently communicated one of my coeliacs with the wrong host and, upon apologising, was told, very graciously, that once in a while was manageable but she would prefer the correct host in future. I did say that it wasn't profane to hiss instructions to me if I looked about to give her the wrong host in future!
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I think dogs in church should be no problem as long as they are seen and not heard. It's up to the parents to be respectful of their congregation and quietly remove the animals if they cause a disturbance. Marking one's pew should be right out, and parents should always bring a small tote bag containing cleaning products, small plastic bags and medical equipment in case of a bite.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I'm not supposed to be a constant mediator between adults whose preferences or needs clash and should be able to talk to one another.
Make every effort to keep the bond of peace. Surely it's exactly what a Priest is supposed to be doing?

Perhaps the people you work with have a little more to be precious about than those I happen to serve.
Pau's advice is addressed to every Christian: this is what every worshipper should be doing, and I do do it, constantly, hence the frustration.. But thanks for the advice.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Fortunately our church is happy to use gluten-free bread for Communion, but some of the other problems for coeliacs mentioned here are familiar.

I'm always getting well-meaning hosts assuring me that there is only a little bit of wheat in the food they are offering me, and just the other day I saw some cakes in a shop labelled "low gluten".

Once when we asked about whether some food in a cafe contained gluten. the proprietor indignantly produced a container of his flour and invited us to examine it - we suspect that he thought gluten was some sort of insect infestation.

Then there are the people who ask me whether I am gluten-free, a question which, I tell them, is of interest only to a cannibal.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Various:

--Galloping Granny's church sounds great!

--Joesaphat: It sounds like it's really wearying and wearing for you. I know that interpersonal matters in a church can be...difficult. People want power, or don't like each other, or know secrets about each other. My childhood church nearly split once. And some churches are very much congregation vs. clergy, particularly if the congregation disagrees with something the clergy does or believes, whether on the job or personally. Something developed between my childhood pastor and some members of the congregation. I never found out what it was, or who caused it. Maybe there were things on both sides. But the pastor was kind of abandoned, and wound up leaving. Friends who were PKs (preacher's kids) told me of other situations.

Being the person living with health problems, disabilities and special needs, phobias, non-inclusive language, cultural differences, etc. is wearying and wearing, too. Especially when your disabilities are invisible, and people disbelieve you because they think you don't look sick. (Those two links might be helpful for you, BTW.)

FWIW: Would any of the congregation be up for an informal meeting, talking and learning about each other's differences, and trying to find ways to make things more safe and comfortable for everyone? YMMV!

--Re gluten and communion: Some years back, there was a rather heated thread in Ecclesiantics about that. Attitudes about "preciousness" came into it, and I think it spread out into sensitivity to incense. I think some light did eventually come out of all the heat.

--Animals in church: Service animals should be allowed. (Though that could get complicated with animals other than dogs and cats. Some people have service monkeys. Though, in Laura Pedersen's novel "Beginner's Luck", there's a chimp that puts on a suit and goes happily to RC mass every week--and seems to get something out of it.) Service dogs are well-trained, and can sit or lie down quietly.

Lots of people have allergies to dogs, or fear them. ISTM that if the sanctuary isn't tiny, and there are only a few service animals, they might be able to sit separately enough to make it manageable. (Unless someone simply can't be in the same room as a dog.)

Theoretically, I'm not necessarily against pets in church. (I'm not a pet person; but I think animals are wonderful in general, and have enjoyed some St. Francis celebrations where people brought pets--and teddy bears!--to church for blessing.) But...with allergies, fear, noise, getting loose, cleaning up...and how many pets would you allow, anyway? I think it really isn't practical. And is it fair to the pets to have to sit quietly through a service, which can last an hour or more?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Personally I am against pets in Church. Not least because it would likely be a distraction for service dogs (thus possibly causing things to be unsafe for their owner)

Ditto in shops etc.

People rarely keep their pet dogs under good control and often use those extending leads, the bane of Guide Dog owner's lives.

My pet Lab Tatze would be useless in Church. She's at home in house and garden, fields and woods, not in crowds of people.

[ 28. August 2016, 10:43: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think dogs in church should be no problem as long as they are seen and not heard. It's up to the parents to be respectful of their congregation and quietly remove the animals if they cause a disturbance. Marking one's pew should be right out, and parents should always bring a small tote bag containing cleaning products, small plastic bags and medical equipment in case of a bite.
Haha! I imagine this was said tongue in cheek?

But welcome to my Sunday mornings! My Guide Dog pups come with me to Church from eight weeks old and - at that age - it entails quite a bit of cleaning up! One bloke cuddled a pup (I warned him that they are crocodiles at this age, he laughed and said he was used to dogs) she nipped his ear and drew blood!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I have no problem with service dogs, adult or learners. But - as a non-dog owner - I am puzzled as to why those with dogs feel they can't just leave them at home sometimes.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
people are not very gracious about their idiosyncrasies... ...adults whose preferences or needs clash and should be able to talk to one another.
Sounds like you're saying that you do sympathize with and try to accommodate those with particular and unusual needs. Including those who feel they have a need to have their dog present (service dogs) and those who feel they have a need to have no dog present (allergies, phobias).

But you'd appreciate some little show of gratitude for the special efforts that you make ?

Rather than people acting as if they had a right to have those needs met regardless of the consequences to others ?

"Entitlement culture" can be hard to swallow...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
people are not very gracious about their idiosyncrasies... ...adults whose preferences or needs clash and should be able to talk to one another.
Sounds like you're saying that you do sympathize with and try to accommodate those with particular and unusual needs. Including those who feel they have a need to have their dog present (service dogs) and those who feel they have a need to have no dog present (allergies, phobias).

But you'd appreciate some little show of gratitude for the special efforts that you make ?

Rather than people acting as if they had a right to have those needs met regardless of the consequences to others ?

"Entitlement culture" can be hard to swallow...
I don't even know if it's a new thing or a "culture" so much as human nature. I think when we find ourselves uncomfortable, excluded, or marginalized because of a special need/disability, when accommodations are first made we tend to be quite grateful. The problem is, over time we take the accommodations for granted . We come to count on them as part of the fragile web that helps us navigate life. So we forget to say "thanks"-- or resent having to say thanks to simply be able to function like everyone else. And if, for some reason, those accommodations are withdrawn or compromised-- even in a momentary lapse (as with the non-gluten host mentioned above)-- all sorts of feelings that look like "entitlement" arise. All the more complicated by the fact that it's hard for someone on the outside to realize, as noted above, just how urgent or important any particular accommodation might be.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Guide dogs strap line is "We will not rest until people who are blind or partially sighted can enjoy the same freedom of movement as everyone else."

I doubt that anyone would bat an eyelid about allowing a wheelchair into a public space. Guide dogs do for blind and VI people what wheelchairs do for the physically disabled.

I don't think they need to be in the least grateful for people accommodating their dogs - it should be a given, an entitlement. In fact it is, in law.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have no problem with service dogs, adult or learners. But - as a non-dog owner - I am puzzled as to why those with dogs feel they can't just leave them at home sometimes.
P.S. Just to clarify - by the latter I meant the owners of PET dogs. It would be outrageous to ban Guide Dogs etc.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
people are not very gracious about their idiosyncrasies... ...adults whose preferences or needs clash and should be able to talk to one another.
Sounds like you're saying that you do sympathize with and try to accommodate those with particular and unusual needs. Including those who feel they have a need to have their dog present (service dogs) and those who feel they have a need to have no dog present (allergies, phobias).

But you'd appreciate some little show of gratitude for the special efforts that you make ?

Rather than people acting as if they had a right to have those needs met regardless of the consequences to others ?

"Entitlement culture" can be hard to swallow...
I don't even know if it's a new thing or a "culture" so much as human nature. I think when we find ourselves uncomfortable, excluded, or marginalized because of a special need/disability, when accommodations are first made we tend to be quite grateful. The problem is, over time we take the accommodations for granted . We come to count on them as part of the fragile web that helps us navigate life. So we forget to say "thanks"-- or resent having to say thanks to simply be able to function like everyone else. And if, for some reason, those accommodations are withdrawn or compromised-- even in a momentary lapse (as with the non-gluten host mentioned above)-- all sorts of feelings that look like "entitlement" arise. All the more complicated by the fact that it's hard for someone on the outside to realize, as noted above, just how urgent or important any particular accommodation might be.
Yes, you both put your finger on it. I should remind myself of this whenever frustrations arises, I'm just not mindful enough.
 
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
One church in our area has a large dog which comes with his Master every Sunday to church. The only problem seems to be that people want to offer him to many cookies at fellowship time following the service.

My own church has many people visit who are on vacation so we have had several people come with their dogs. Some in carriers some not. It has not been a problem so far.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Guide dogs strap line is "We will not rest until people who are blind or partially sighted can enjoy the same freedom of movement as everyone else."
Yet you are denying that freedom to allergy sufferers.
I'm not certain there is a perfect solution to such competing rights, but the automatic preference of one over the other is, frankly, wrong.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I don't have a pet dog, but I imagine that if you do have one and have to leave it at home during the working week you probably want to enjoy its company at the weekend.

More generally, this thread highlights the challenge of providing for today's demanding society, where individuals expect their needs to be met.

It must be difficult for the clergy to take so many medical and psychological etc. issues into account, but the alternative is probably an emptier church. The message is, be careful what you wish for. Mo' worshippers = mo' problems, to coin a phrase!
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't have a pet dog, but I imagine that if you do have one and have to leave it at home during the working week you probably want to enjoy its company at the weekend.

More generally, this thread highlights the challenge of providing for today's demanding society, where individuals expect their needs to be met.

It must be difficult for the clergy to take so many medical and psychological etc. issues into account, but the alternative is probably an emptier church. The message is, be careful what you wish for. Mo' worshippers = mo' problems, to coin a phrase!
There is a difference between a community and a market. The church must be about building a community, not satisfying (or creating) a market.

The outcome to worry about is a fractured community, not a smaller market. If the community is fractured by competing, partially unsatisfied entitlements, then it will eventually fall apart completely. To my mind the urgent challenge is for the church as a whole to find ways of enshrining in its life the expectation that its members will wash each other's feet, rather than demanding that the service be provided in every case by the clergy.

Looking at the list of incompatible demands Joseaphat has mentioned, the question of non-service dogs is indeed the one which screams out for dialogue between members of the community. Unless the two elements acknowledge each other and reach an accommodation, they can't be part of the same community, since one side requires its valued companion animals to be honoured, and the other requires vermin to be excluded from its place of worship.

The other demands fall on the clergy because they are specifically liturgical. Of course, if lay celebrants are used, those demands fall on those lay celebrants, but it will be a cold day in hell (I pretty confidently predict) before lay celebrants lead an anglo-catholic congregation in any celebration of the eucharist other an exceptional mass of the pre-sanctified.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[qb] And presumably people with allergies can't guarantee they'll go through life in an entirely animal-hair free space all the time, anyway.
Yes, and this is precisely why we ought to take some thought to making church a safe(r) place for them. Someone who is fearfully allergic or asthmatic can't let their guard down anywhere; but it would be a kindness to make church a place they had less to worry about.

It seems to me that we've got a constant struggle going on between those who want to frame the discussion in terms of rights ("What do we HAVE to do?") and those who look at it more as kindness and courtesy ("What can we do?"). There's some validity to the first frame, but it's almost guaranteed to raise people's hackles on both sides. For bars, airports, supermarkets, etc. that might be appropriate. For church we can do better.
So the kindness and courtesy to the lonely and eccentric lady who is inseperable from her cat and insists on taking it with her wherever she goes is shown by....what?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
There is a difference between a community and a market. The church must be about building a community, not satisfying (or creating) a market.

The outcome to worry about is a fractured community, not a smaller market. If the community is fractured by competing, partially unsatisfied entitlements, then it will eventually fall apart completely. To my mind the urgent challenge is for the church as a whole to find ways of enshrining in its life the expectation that its members will wash each other's feet, rather than demanding that the service be provided in every case by the clergy.

Looking at the list of incompatible demands Joseaphat has mentioned, the question of non-service dogs is indeed the one which screams out for dialogue between members of the community.
I agree that a dialogue and an accommodation is required. However, someone is going to have to be the mediator in the process. Perhaps the CofE can provide assistance from elsewhere, if the minister needs it?

ISTM that the CofE in particular has to work hard to create a community out of very diverse groups of people - especially in a city like London. (And I don't suppose there's much of a 'market' mentality for Anglo-Catholics.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So the kindness and courtesy to the lonely and eccentric lady who is inseperable from her cat and insists on taking it with her wherever she goes is shown by....what?
People being kind and supportive so she does not need a substitute?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think dogs in church should be no problem as long as they are seen and not heard. It's up to the parents to be respectful of their congregation and quietly remove the animals if they cause a disturbance. Marking one's pew should be right out, and parents should always bring a small tote bag containing cleaning products, small plastic bags and medical equipment in case of a bite.
Haha! I imagine this was said tongue in cheek?

But welcome to my Sunday mornings! My Guide Dog pups come with me to Church from eight weeks old and - at that age - it entails quite a bit of cleaning up! One bloke cuddled a pup (I warned him that they are crocodiles at this age, he laughed and said he was used to dogs) she nipped his ear and drew blood!
Great story!
[Razz] and yes, I was definitely taking the mickey.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[qb] And presumably people with allergies can't guarantee they'll go through life in an entirely animal-hair free space all the time, anyway.
Yes, and this is precisely why we ought to take some thought to making church a safe(r) place for them. Someone who is fearfully allergic or asthmatic can't let their guard down anywhere; but it would be a kindness to make church a place they had less to worry about.

It seems to me that we've got a constant struggle going on between those who want to frame the discussion in terms of rights ("What do we HAVE to do?") and those who look at it more as kindness and courtesy ("What can we do?"). There's some validity to the first frame, but it's almost guaranteed to raise people's hackles on both sides. For bars, airports, supermarkets, etc. that might be appropriate. For church we can do better.
So the kindness and courtesy to the lonely and eccentric lady who is inseperable from her cat and insists on taking it with her wherever she goes is shown by....what?
As I said: Frame it in terms of "what can we do?" and not "how can we turn this into a nasty rights' conflict?"

Some options that leap to mind are:

Discover whether your congregation even HAS any cat-allergic people. If not, problem solved.

Talk to the cat-allergics and see whether this cat's presence is in fact causing them any difficulty. If their allergies are mild, they may very well say "no, not at all."

See whether the lady herself is aware of the potential problem, and ask if she has ideas to offer (she may not be as unyielding as you seem to posit).

See if the two groups can talk it out. They may choose to frequent separate services or to sit very distant from one another.

If you start from the assumption that kindness and courtesy is the default (as it ought to be, in the body of Christ), people will often surprise you. We worked out a far worse scenario which had two people (a disturbed woman and the family whose lives she had endangered) through this kind of give and take, for the sake of the two children involved. They ended by going to separate services so as to allow each child to maintain the worship situation he was used to while simultaneously feeling safe and welcome.

[ 29. August 2016, 01:50: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So the kindness and courtesy to the lonely and eccentric lady who is inseperable from her cat and insists on taking it with her wherever she goes is shown by....what?
I'm not sure this lady actually exists - the church may well welcome her cat, but I doubt the supermarket would.

I'm even less certain that the cat exists - most cats I've known wouldn't tolerate being carted around as luggage by an eccentric old lady, however lonely.

But suppose for the sake of argument I stipulate your scenario. It is likely, in a church of any size, that there will also be people who are allergic to the precious puss. How to accommodate both sets of people? Well, if the old lady keeps her puss confined - whether in a carrier, old-lady shopping trolley or whatever - and she and the cat-allergic arrange to not sit near each other, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect your feline to be free-range, though.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Just this Sunday a very fluffy dog was brought into church and as a result I had a massive asthma attack and was forced to leave and go home. The reaction of one of the deacons was "why don't you just take a pill"? which shocked me. People without allergies fail to realise how scary and dangerous reactions can be. If dogs must be brought to church, then maybe they can wait for their owners in a special place and not in the midst of the congregation. Then again, maybe I'll bring a pet crocodile with me next Sunday and everyone can smile at it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There are various answers to "take a pill", most of which aren't possible at the time because you're breathing through a straw and it's taking all the oxygen you can absorb to stand up and leave:

"Well, I've already taken my full allowance of inhaled steroids and long term reliever today plus the full dose of short term reliever so I can stand up and leave. The asthma nurse has chosen not to prescribe me the antihistamine steroid asthma medication because there are contraindications: bone thinning and other problems, and it needs taking regularly to work. I was rather hoping that my usual tactics of minimising my exposure to triggers was going to avoid having to take additional measures."

"I've taken my anti-histamine pill and will now be taking my asthma steroids to help my lungs recover for the next week. If I do not leave now I will be leaving in an ambulance on a nebuliser."

(That's my version of asthma and my daughter's brittle asthma)

People die of asthma, particularly brittle asthma and uncontrolled normal asthma. I am permanently balancing up how much medication I take to be able to live reasonably normally and can deal with the triggers I usually encounter. Adding new triggers unexpectedly can move a controlled asthmatic to an uncontrolled asthmatic on their way to hospital.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Just this Sunday a very fluffy dog was brought into church.
I'm finding this a bizarre conversation. I've been a Minister for 30 years and I've NEVER had anyone bring a dog into church, except for "blind" dogs and, once or twice, homeless "men of the road". Am I living in the wrong country or just moving in the wrong ecclesiastical circles?
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I think you must lead a sheltered life.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'd like to see the crocodile. I believe that very few people have allergies to them.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Perhaps churches should have a 'church dog certification program'. Like therapy dog certification this would guarantee that dogs are certified not to bite, pee/poop on the floors, scratch, jump up on people, snap up dropping communion hosts as if they were dog treats. We'd also want them not run through crowds, bowling the unstable over. Howling could improve hymn singing. Barking and whining might add to the amening and hallelujahing in charismatic churches.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps churches should have a 'church dog certification program'. Like therapy dog certification this would guarantee that dogs are certified not to bite, pee/poop on the floors, scratch, jump up on people, snap up dropping communion hosts as if they were dog treats. We'd also want them not run through crowds, bowling the unstable over. Howling could improve hymn singing. Barking and whining might add to the amening and hallelujahing in charismatic churches.
All helpful, I'm sure, but wouldn't address the key problem which is allergies. I think the only way forward is was suggested above-- doing the hard work of getting the parties together to negotiate something workable, whether that's attending different services or sitting on different sides of the church. Often churches have a section for parents with small children, located near a "nursing moms room". Much as I hate it, I imagine there are those who purposely sit far apart from that section because they don't like the disturbance. We may need a section for people with service animals, which those who are allergic can (for far more understandable reasons) avoid.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I think you must lead a sheltered life.
No, it's very rare indeed in the UK. Pets are allowed in very few public places.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
--Kaplan: LOL re the cannibal!

--The LDS/Mormon Church site has a Disability Resources section. I've only skimmed parts of it. But it looks like they tried hard to do a thorough job, yet kept the writing accessible to lay people. The Disability List breaks down into various types of disabilities, with tips for helping and teaching people. From what I've seen so far, they offer some sensible tips. YMMV.

ETA: Just saw that the Chronic Illness section acknowledges invisible disabilities! And lists chronic fatigue syndrome. Yay! Go, Mormons! [Smile]

[ 30. August 2016, 03:46: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The problem with separating the allergic from the dogs and owners by time is that someone who is allergic will not be able to sit in the same seat later as the dog hairs and dander will still be there to trigger a reaction. It may well require an agreement about times and areas.

We had a Guide who was so allergic to cats we had to organise dormitories and tents by those who had no cats at home and could guarantee no cat hair on their clothes and equipment and the rest.

The Calmac ferries have pet areas set aside for dog owners, a row of seating in semi-circles with, hopefully, space for a dog in each section. Last time I saw this, there were too many dogs for the spaces and a certain amount of negotiation was taking place.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with separating the allergic from the dogs and owners by time is that someone who is allergic will not be able to sit in the same seat later as the dog hairs and dander will still be there to trigger a reaction. It may well require an agreement about times and areas.
Yes, I've been wondering if a church that allows pets would be willing to do the necessary clean-up after every service, every single time. And keep in mind that dog hair and dander won't necessarily stay where the dog was.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Just this Sunday a very fluffy dog was brought into church.
I'm finding this a bizarre conversation. I've been a Minister for 30 years and I've NEVER had anyone bring a dog into church, except for "blind" dogs and, once or twice, homeless "men of the road". Am I living in the wrong country or just moving in the wrong ecclesiastical circles?
I've been thinking the same thing. Other than service dogs, I've never heard of anyone taking a pet to church, or wanting to.
 
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
Many years ago my sons began attending an AOG church down here. They came home and related the tale of an old woman and Boy. She asked the pastor to pray for Boy. He was very ill. The pastor assumed Boy to be a son and prayed long and loudly for him. Boy however was a very ill cat she was carrying around in a fabric shopping bag. Boy lived.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
We regularly have dogs in church - often several of them. I would never bring my dogs to church - not because I don't like dogs in church but because mine would misbehave. They wouldn't just sit or lie down placidly.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So the kindness and courtesy to the lonely and eccentric lady who is inseperable from her cat and insists on taking it with her wherever she goes is shown by....what?
I'm not sure this lady actually exists - the church may well welcome her cat, but I doubt the supermarket would.

I'm even less certain that the cat exists - most cats I've known wouldn't tolerate being carted around as luggage by an eccentric old lady, however lonely.

But suppose for the sake of argument I stipulate your scenario. It is likely, in a church of any size, that there will also be people who are allergic to the precious puss. How to accommodate both sets of people? Well, if the old lady keeps her puss confined - whether in a carrier, old-lady shopping trolley or whatever - and she and the cat-allergic arrange to not sit near each other, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect your feline to be free-range, though.
TBF the lady I had in mind wasn't that old and I don't know whether she was lonely or not, but she was eccentric and did bring her cat to church. it sat on her shoulder and was certainly not free-range.
Actually I wouldn't suggest that one should routinely bring pets to church. But equally I know that occasionally people do and I think that provided they are kept under control we should be able to cope with that. It's part of taking the rough and smooth of life.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I mentioned above that I was one of that cohort of the population which has been attacked by dogs. Unless I can see clearly that a dog is on a firmly-held short leash, or is an obvious service dog, I cannot assume that it is safe for me, and will therefore have to leave the service.

While I am allergic (very) to cats, I don't mind sharing space with them-- it is the prospect of danger which bothers me. If I see Fluffy sitting there without being firmly kept close, I am out of there rather than risk their teeth.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And you cannot - or will not- try to get over your fear of dogs? There are quite a lot of them around, you know. You might find it made life easier if you could.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So the kindness and courtesy to the lonely and eccentric lady who is inseperable from her cat and insists on taking it with her wherever she goes is shown by....what?
I'm not sure this lady actually exists - the church may well welcome her cat, but I doubt the supermarket would.

I'm even less certain that the cat exists - most cats I've known wouldn't tolerate being carted around as luggage by an eccentric old lady, however lonely.

But suppose for the sake of argument I stipulate your scenario. It is likely, in a church of any size, that there will also be people who are allergic to the precious puss. How to accommodate both sets of people? Well, if the old lady keeps her puss confined - whether in a carrier, old-lady shopping trolley or whatever - and she and the cat-allergic arrange to not sit near each other, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect your feline to be free-range, though.
TBF the lady I had in mind wasn't that old and I don't know whether she was lonely or not, but she was eccentric and did bring her cat to church. it sat on her shoulder and was certainly not free-range.
Actually I wouldn't suggest that one should routinely bring pets to church. But equally I know that occasionally people do and I think that provided they are kept under control we should be able to cope with that. It's part of taking the rough and smooth of life.
For values of rough that include asthma attacks, uncontrolled allergic reactions and other joys, I presume.

This reminds me of discussions about church as a safe space. Safe for whom, from what? For eccentric elderly ladies whose cat is their constant companion, or for sufferers of auto-immune diseases who need not to be exposed to unexpected triggers?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And you cannot - or will not- try to get over your fear of dogs? There are quite a lot of them around, you know. You might find it made life easier if you could.
And you cannot - or will not - control your dog? A the A quite clearly said that he was OK if you had your dog firmly secured.

My kids are scared of dogs. This is quite rational behaviour - dogs are mostly larger and stronger than them, and have sharp teeth suited to ripping meat apart. Children are made of meat.

So if I see your dog not under your direct control and in the vicinity of my children, I will be identifying things that I can use as weapons and planning how I can disable or kill your dog should it show signs of attacking.

Very much the same as the response I'd have to Lamb Chopped showing up with her pet crocodile, in fact, although I'd fancy my chances against a dog rather more than I would against a crocodile.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I wouldn't take my dog anywhere without having him under control. In his case, because although he's good tempered and harmless, he's not been very amenable to more than rather basic training, that means having him on the lead (and I mean a proper short lead not one of those stupid extending things) all the time unless we are somewhere with lots of space and clear sightlines and I am confident I can physically get him back before any trouble arises.
Dog owners who don't realise that there are people out there who don't like dogs, and dogs out there who may not like or be liked by their own dog, are a menace. But most of the dogowners I know do realise this and behave accordingly. Those who don't need to be put in their place and have it made clear to them that their behaviour is not acceptable and their dogs aren't welcome unless and until they (owners) change their ways.
But to see some of the posts on this thread you would think that 'bringing your dog to church' = 'letting packs of savage rottewilers roam the church at will'.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And you cannot - or will not- try to get over your fear of dogs? There are quite a lot of them around, you know. You might find it made life easier if you could.
As my fear of dogs is based on experience of their nature as animals trained to defend territory or people, or untrained and irrational, I deal with my fear by avoiding them. As a back-up mechanism, I carry a (legally permitted in Canada) spray, which I will use in my defence should it be needed.

I should also note, for those who feel that I am entirely antidog, that there are some dogs whose company I very much like-- in these cases, the master have introduced me to the dogs, who have their various greeting customs. But I cannot trust a dog I do not know and I have learned the hard way.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Hm.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Somebody I think once said that you can't please all the people all of the time. Even those who've disagreed with Joesaphat must identify with his exasperation about being expected to.

Is it fair to say that one has to have some sort of hierarchy as to which needs must be accommodated and which should be expected to defer to other needs that are higher? Even this will produce incompatible conflicts, but at least might reduce them.

How about the following?

1. The needs which should take priority are those that derive from a physical (i.e. medical) condition. So, churches and other places must accommodate e.g.
a. guide dogs for those that are dependent on one.
b. those who really cannot eat or be exposed to certain items of food etc.
c. those who cannot negotiate steps etc.

2. We should try to provide for needs that are desirable or optional but they will have to defer to those that are essential. If there is someone in a congregation who is seriously allergic to dogs, a person who is not dependent on a guide dog but insists on bringing their dog on the basis 'love me, love my pooch' has a spiritual problem that it may be the clergy's pastoral duty to engage with them personally about.

3. Those whose needs are being accommodated must try to fit in in a helpful way. They may not adopt either a demanding or a passive aggressive attitude. For example, those in wheel chairs shouldn't insist that ALL doors are accessible because they want to go in through that particular door, as long as one door is. We've recently had a variant of that one. And nobody is entitled to expect other people to guess what their needs are if they haven't told them. 'They should know', 'they should guess' or 'they should be taking every possible need into account just in case' are not acceptable attitudes.

4. Nobody should be expected to accommodated needs, even medical ones, of people who aren't there, just on the off chance that somebody might turn up who has them - and particularly not unusual allergies. So taking allergies to dogs, incense, gluten or whatever into account only arises if there is somebody present who actually is allergic to dogs, incense or gluten.

5. From time to time, there will be sensitivities that we simply say we are not going to accommodate. An extreme example would be somebody who insists that although they accept it's wrong, unChristian and irrational, because they were brought up in apartheid South Africa, they still find it psychologically impossible to share the common cup with a black person. So the church should provide them with a wee cuppy even though that's not the practice of the denomination.
 
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And you cannot - or will not- try to get over your fear of dogs? There are quite a lot of them around, you know. You might find it made life easier if you could.
As my fear of dogs is based on experience of their nature as animals trained to defend territory or people, or untrained and irrational, I deal with my fear by avoiding them. As a back-up mechanism, I carry a (legally permitted in Canada) spray, which I will use in my defence should it be needed.

I should also note, for those who feel that I am entirely antidog, that there are some dogs whose company I very much like-- in these cases, the master have introduced me to the dogs, who have their various greeting customs. But I cannot trust a dog I do not know and I have learned the hard way.
I perfectly understand your fear. I'm also wary of dogs. If I'm out walking or whatever, I try and weigh any dogs up if I see them...are they returning to the owner when called?..if they attack me, will they only be able to reach to my knee, or will they (especially in the case of a several stone large dog,) be able to knock me off my feet and rip my throat out? People do get killed by dogs, or severely injured. Might not be so bad if you're a big bloke wearing steel-capped boots and maybe be able to give them a hefty kick and wrestle them off, but a child or someone short like me who's probably only wearing sandals, I don't rate the chances.
I used to cycle home regularly late at night and en route there used to be a man who would be walking his rottweler. Fortunately he was aware that this dog really had something against pushbikes, so if he saw someone with one, he would hold the dog really tightly on its lead until the cyclist went by. If I saw him in time, I would take a longer route round, as I was pretty scared that thw dog, being so poerful, might escapoe from the owner one day, and heaven knows what would have happened.

[ 30. August 2016, 22:21: Message edited by: cornflower ]
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Just this Sunday a very fluffy dog was brought into church.
I'm finding this a bizarre conversation. I've been a Minister for 30 years and I've NEVER had anyone bring a dog into church, except for "blind" dogs and, once or twice, homeless "men of the road". Am I living in the wrong country or just moving in the wrong ecclesiastical circles?
I've been thinking the same thing. Other than service dogs, I've never heard of anyone taking a pet to church, or wanting to.
There are two in my parish alone, and mine sometimes comes along as well, when no one's around because he likes to run down the aisle and back.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And you cannot - or will not- try to get over your fear of dogs? There are quite a lot of them around, you know. You might find it made life easier if you could.
As my fear of dogs is based on experience of their nature as animals trained to defend territory or people, or untrained and irrational, I deal with my fear by avoiding them. As a back-up mechanism, I carry a (legally permitted in Canada) spray, which I will use in my defence should it be needed.

I should also note, for those who feel that I am entirely antidog, that there are some dogs whose company I very much like-- in these cases, the master have introduced me to the dogs, who have their various greeting customs. But I cannot trust a dog I do not know and I have learned the hard way.
My eldest son is the same. When he was four he witnessed his younger brother bitten in the face by a dog. His younger brother, who received the bite, was unaffected psychologically. But his older brother (30 years old) now has a lifelong fear of dogs. He's fine with dogs he knows, but will go a long route to avoid unknown dogs. Luckily, here in the UK, we no longer have stray dogs on the streets.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
If Boogie and her box o' puppies was anywhere near me in church I would be in such agony that tears would stream down my cheeks, because the desire to look at the the puppies, pick them up and snuggle them against my neck, and receive milky puppy kisses on my lips, would completely overtake my sense of decorum and self control and all my attention would be directed at keeping an iron grip on myself. There's that side of it.

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
no triggering language about greed for the bulimic
This is the one I'm curious about. As a person who could benefit from a good strong sermon about gluttony, I think the desire of the bulimic not to be triggered is problematic. Would talking about greed mean she had to run out and be greedy. Gluttony is one of those "lesser," sins that we don't hear much about, and when we do the pastor tends to emphasize all the other meanings of gluttony besides the plain old pigging out one. It's an embarrassing subject because, unlike, say the gambling addict, or the adulterers, we guilty gluttonous parties are usually quite obvious. But to say we can't talk about this sin (or problem or whatever,) because it might trigger someone, closes the door on all sorts of subjects we might need to address. Does talking about gambling or coveting your neighbor's designer dress trigger people to go to the casino or the mall?

Maybe you could call the bulimic woman and warn her to stay home rather than eliminating all talk of greed.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As my fear of dogs is based on experience of their nature as animals trained to defend territory or people, or untrained and irrational, I deal with my fear by avoiding them.
I sympathise with this. It's how I often feel about people. Harder to avoid, though.

More seriously, I think some dog-owners should be more aware that many people, for whatever reason, are wary or afraid of dogs, and keep their dogs under proper control. I'm a dog-owner myself, but even when I see a mutt I'd love to say 'hello' to I always ask the owner first. And I dislike seeing dogs in public places off-lead, because of past bad experiences of this.

I have a particular beef with some owners of small dogs, who for some reason think these common sense considerations don't apply to them because Foofy-fluffums is no bigger than a carpet-slipper. I'm fed up with my much larger dogs being run at, nipped and tormented by unruly little guys, just because their owners are too stupid to care.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I once walked my sheepdog on a leash past a house with the family sitting on the porch. Their loose, tiny dog rushed out, menacing me and mine, and actually drew blood from my dogs throat, while they all laughed!

My dachshund is overly fierce, but at least I admit it and keep her either in the house or inside her very own $3000 picket fence overlaid with lattice work, enclosing the back yard.

My Episcopalian pastor has a pet blessing service every year. I told her why my dog couldn't attend and she offered to perform an exorcism. [Smile]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And you cannot - or will not- try to get over your fear of dogs?
As my fear of dogs is based on experience of their nature as animals trained to defend territory or people, or untrained and irrational, I deal with my fear by avoiding them. <<snip>> I should also note, for those who feel that I am entirely antidog, that there are some dogs whose company I very much like.
My feelings precisely. I was bitten as a child by a neighborhood dog, and ever since I've preferred to avoid dogs I don't know and who don't know me. When I visit people who own dogs, I find that if you ignore the dogs, they'll pretty much ignore you.

I find that pet owners in general share a trait that parents of small children suffer under: they assume (mistakenly) that other people are as interested in their pets/children as they are.

I do, however, actually like the occasional dog. When I was of high school age, there was a neighborhood dog named Teddy who was one of the most intelligent creatures I have ever encountered. He never jumped/sniffed/licked, but liked to hang around. He seemed to take a personal interest in everyone.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
... I think some dog-owners should be more aware that many people, for whatever reason, are wary or afraid of dogs, and keep their dogs under proper control. I'm a dog-owner myself, but even when I see a mutt I'd love to say 'hello' to I always ask the owner first....
Dog 101.

[ 03. September 2016, 19:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0