Two Simple Things You Can Do for Autistic Persons of All Ages

Many teens and young people with autism have been receiving special services during their school years. They will age out of these services at age 21. What will they do then?

Many poor or minority families don't have access to their state's Medicaid or may not know about it. Their autistic children may not even be diagnosed yet.

A couple have gotten divorced because one spouse was fed up with the other's "weird" ways and seeming inability or refusal to communicate or understand. The spouse has udiagnosed autism.

A family in a poor apartment complex have a child that they don't know what to do with. Neighbors see him as a little brat. This child has undiagnosed autism.

A man has been fired from every job he ever landed because his bosses thought his lack of eye contact was contempt for them. A woman has a history of failed relationships because of a lack of communication skills. Both have undiagnosed autism.

Lack of services or aging out of them are what all these scenarios have in common. Why should we be interested in this? What does this have to do with us? We should be interessted in this because when peopele's basic needs for acceptance and understanding are not met, they may get angry and bitter and take it out on us. They may end up on benefits like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability (SSD) or enter the mental health or even the criminal justice system. In any case, we will all pay. The moral reason we should care is that these are people who also have the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

If you are one who believes that autism is a disease that children outgrow and that there is a cure for it, you should still care about this. The reason is that many poor or minority families, as I already mentioned above, have children who need services though they can't access insurance or pay for these services. You should care because of generations of autistic children who are not yet born.

Click here to sign this autism petition

Click here even if you have signed this petition. Share it!

The American Church by D.W. Glomski

This is a short book. Information on the author is limited, as I have read this book as an e-book. From what I could glean, he was an aspiring pastor but changed his mind. He has been for years with an unconventional group called the Plymouth Brethren, who hold their church meetings in house settings. He was a member of their group for 22 years. This book begins with an Introduction which prepares us for what this book will be about. This book is arranged in ten chapters which each illustrate the points that he desires to make. He then finishes this book with afterwards that contain explanations to various groups. His Afterwards consist of A Word to Pastors, A Word about the Wine and the Wineskin, A Word to the Plymouth Brethren, A Word about the Apostles, A Word about Church and Going to Church, A Word about Change, and A Word about the Number One Problem in the Church. He then ends with a list of books that he suggests to readers for further reading.

This is the first book that I ever have read in e-book form, and so I was ale to quickly go through it. Also, it is a short book, not much over 100 pages. But when I started the first chapter, my hackles already began going up and it was not so much over the author's topic of the book. I was ticked off at his hard-hitting references to people who use any government benefits and how he lumped them into one general category as welfare freeloaders who get their kicks out of living off the system or living lazy lives. While he is right in that some people indeed abuse government benefits by laziness or even by fraud (the second is not referenced), he betrays at least a misunderstanding of how the "welfare" system works in that there have been major cuts and reforms in all means-tested (need-based) government programs. He also betrays ignorance of the fact that programs like Social Security, Social Security Disability and Medicare are not means-tested and so are not considered welfare programs. As for his subject which is general spiritual immaturity, he seems to lump American Christians into one broad category as weak, sickly, spoiled, selfish and bratty Christians. I fully agree that many who attend church fellowships fit this profile and need to grow up spiritually by following Jesus instead of following people. The Bible is full of admonitions to do that and the author does backup much of what he says by using Scripture. I applaud him bringing up matters pertaining to women that are offensive to even devoted believing Christian women, such as the Biblical call to be quiet in formal church fellowship meetings and to wear head coverings in those meetings. We don't like it (I don't like it!) but these calls to women are considered part of the Bible and many of us consider the Bible to be the Word of God. But this author comes off as arrogant in his approach to addressing God's calls to submission for women, and he makes no effort to balance these mandates for female submission with Jesus' honoring women when in His Incarnation and the Biblical principle that we are all equal in personhood if not in function. When I came to the Afterwards which contained messages to certain people groups that are more encouraging than the book itself, I was looking for an Afterward for us women. I did not find it and I was disappointed. I know that the author comes from a place of not having been with any organized church fellowship for decades but he comes off as judgmental and superior in his tone though he says that he has a Pastor's heart toward the modern American Church. Maybe he does have such a heart, but it is easy to feel beat up by this book if you attend organized worship services. I think he also overlooks that many people in these organized worship services may not even have living relationships with Jesus and so may lack the power to mature in a faith that they may not even possess, as the Gospel has been watered down to stress the grace, love and forgiveness of God which we all love to hear about, while excluding the uncomfortable parts like sin, judgment, judgment and hell which all of us (including myself) find uncomfortable and offensive) which are also integral parts of the Biblical message. But this book includes important truths that all believers, especially all those in official leadership positions, badly need to hear and apply to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, he offers few practical ideas of how to put his radically counter-cultural principles into practice. This book left me wanting more.

Would I recommend this book? I would with reservations as it offers no advice for practical application. I recommend this book for Pastors and I would encourage them to read the Afterward, addressed to them, to brace themselves for the tough message in this book that shatters long-established values from centuries of tradition. I recommend this book for all Christians who, I promise, will find much of this book offensive. I warn non-Christians to avoid this book as it will inflame the prejudices most already have against the Christian community.

I received this book in e-book form, free of charge, through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for my honest review of this book. I was not required to give a favorable review of this book.

Mooching, Poverty and Giving

As of this writing, I have been reading a book about mooching. Mooching? The premise of this author is that many of us in the US and in the UK are moochers. We think we are entitled to get, get, get while others work for our goods. We want something for nothing. The commodity here? Money. Government money. Taxpayer dollars. What inspires us? Grabbing hold of all the freebies that Big Government is all too happy to hand us, courtesy of the taxpayers. Agreed?

We need to be clear on what programs are actually welfare and what are not. In the US, programs such as Food Stamps, Aid for Families of Dependent Children (AFDC), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and Medicaid are means-tested "welfare" programs. That is, they are based on documented need. They are not "entitlements." Other programs are considered "entitlements" and are not welfare and are not based on financial need, but on other criteria. Social Security Disability (SSD)is for those who have documented disabilities that prevent them from being gainfully employed. Social Security is an entitlement for anyone 65 and over. Veteran's Benefits are for those who have served in the military. Survivor's Benefits go to those who have lost spouses or parents. The programs exist for different needs and situations.

But many people, especially those who subscribe to the conservative viewpoint, tend to see most government programs as "welfare" and agree that we are a "nation of moochers." Much of this is because people who subscribe to the conservative viewpoint disagree with their liberal counterparts about what the government's role in meeting needs should be. In reading the book I have been reading, I wonder if the author changed the names of the "welfare recipients" and "moochers" whom he mentioned by name. It is my hope that he did. As a Christian, I know that we are not to be "moochers" or to have the reputation of being such. We are told that, "If a person won't work, he should not eat." Where the rub is is determining if a recipient of benefits cannot work or will not work. In many cases, even when a person looks able-bodied and so should go get a job, he or she may have an invisible disability that makes getting or holding a job very difficult. Can this person be considered a moocher?

What is the opposite of a moocher? It is a giver. Who can give? Many people labor under the notion that we must have a lot of money to give. Many believe that small financial gifts do not count, and that the "big givers" matter more than the "small givers." But in my Bible, Jesus heaps praise on a destitute widow who dropped two mites in the collection basket. She may have not thought her gift was worth much. But Jesus, seeing the sacrifice that was involved in her gift, lavished praise on her.

I have switched from mooching to giving. I do this because, as good as it is to provide both government "safety net" programs and private aid efforts, we must not neglect those in developing countries. In developed countries, especially the US, the poor usually experience what has been called "relative poverty." But most people in developing countries experience what is called "absolute poverty." While we can do very little about the sea of need in those parts of the world, we can make life better for one child and his or her family. Consider sponsoring a child.

The above two photos are courtesy of Compassion International, Inc.

About Government Programs

          The other day I was scrolling through my homepage when a post caught my eye. The poster declared, "So I'm supposed to be outraged at what Mitt Romney does with HIS money? What about what President Obama does with MY tax dollars?" And underneath this poster, four people had hit the "like" button to signal their approval of this poster's sentiment.
          Many months ago, I logged into Facebook one morning and an obviously angry, bitter post jumped out at me. The Facebook user posted with all capital letters, lashing out viciously at "welfare bums" who "live the good life on my tax dollars." This user let her subjects have it with her vitriolic rant. The user finished savagely: "AND YOU CAN GO HOME AND ENJOY YOUR STEAK WHILE I HAVE MY NOODLES!"
          One Facebook user who has been in my social network for a long time, makes no secret of her political leanings and has made clear her resentment for people who use government assistance. One day, I was logged into Facebook and was scrolling through my homepage. One of this user's posts jumped out at me. This user's status went something like: " People who depend on Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid, or other welfare programs are sponging off MY taxes. Mr. President, I'm sick and tired of the way you spend MY tax $$$ to spread the wealth! One day the free ride will end and these welfare bums will have to get out and work!"
          Years ago, when our Missouri Governor Matt Blunt rose to power, he made a package of deep and painful cuts to the Missouri Medicaid program. When he left office, I got involved in circulating a petition to restore Medicaid to its original state, ending those cuts. A good number of people signed the petition but I was struck by the responses of those who would not sign. I circulated the petition at our local church where we were attending at the time. One fellow parishioner refused to sign, declaring: "Sorry but I will not sign this. I hate to punish the children for the sins of the parents but I have seen adults pull out the EBT cards and use them to get alcohol." I approached another person twice and the second time, I was told, "Sorry, I am not signing. I just don't don't believe I'm informed enough about this." One more person I approached said, "No I'm not signing. I agree with some of those cuts." One fellow parishioner simply said, "I'm not interested."
          Over and over, in looking at my Facebook homepage, I have seen this post. It says something like: "Whatever you think of my views, I hope you will have the courage to agree with this: We are in favor of those who apply for public assistance having to submit to drug-testing. Why should our tax dollars have to go to drug addicts who won't work? Those of us who work and earn our money have to submit to drug testing; what about those who want government benefits for nothing?" Every time someone reposts this status, other Facebook users hit the "like" button underneath this post to signal their approval of this status.
          Not long ago, a certain politician, meaning his words as no compliment to President Obama, declared with a measure of contempt, "Our current President is the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
          A few months ago, in Washingtom and in Congress, politicians were battling over the national budget and over the whether or not to make cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And a politician, clearly fed up with this debate, stated: "I think we need to give the poor something. No argument with that. We need to give them the opportunity to pay their way and to know the dignity of personal responsibilty through requring them to get out and work."
          Years ago, I liked a certain ultraconservative talk show host and listened to his radio talk show for a time. I agreed with his sentiments on a number of issues though I thought he bullied those he didn't agree with. One day, though, my opinions on his bullying were confirmed when he ranted about "those welfare bums." This talk show host ranted, "It's high time for these poor, welfare bums to start paying their fair share! It's called paying taxes, people! I say we need to end the free ride once and for all!" Angrily, I turned the radio off.
           One day, I got on Facebook to circulate an online petition calling for President Obama to fight all efforts to make cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the national debt. I posted the petition on a certain Facebook fan page. This proved to be an apparent mistake. Checking my Facebook notifications, I could see that I got prompt comments on the petition. To sum up the comments, Facebook users on that page declared that users of "the big three" were often among the "undeserving poor" who live lives of fiscal irresponsibility, who seek a free ride in life and are social parasites who use the system to their own ends.
           More recently, I scrolled through my homepage one day and saw several Facebook users post an article about one wealthy couple, who collected Food Stamps yet who nevertheless enjoyed hugely extravagant, lavish lifestyles of travel and leisure.
          Years ago, I read an article that fully echoed my sentiments about the hypocritical mind-set that applauds the virtues of stay-at-home mothers, while at the same time despising and trashing as "welfare bums" those moms who use the Temorary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF and was once called Aid to Dependent Children), to stay at home with their children. That article was called, "We Value At-Home Moms Unless They are Poor." About that time, one person said to me and others, "If these moms can't afford to drive they can take their kids with them on the bus and go to work."
          Many years ago, I was viewing a talk show. When it was one troubled guest's time to present her needs, the guest psychologist who was advising her on her situation said something that has stuck in my mind to this day. This woman snapped at the person, "And MY tax dollars will NOT be going to subsidize you staying at home and doing nothing!"
          Currently, I have been a frequent visitor to this one website for a nonprofit organization that awards grants to individuals who have short-term, one-time financial needs which can't be met anywhere else. In taking note of the anonymous applicationsthat are posted, I have noticed a trend. At this website, donors get to recommend the applications that they would like to see get funded first. It seems that the applications that are prioritized by the nonprofit, that get most recommended by donors for faster funding and therefore tend to get funded fastest, are the ones placed by employed applicants. The applicants who are listed as using government assistance seem to get fewer donor recommendations for funding and seem to take more time getting funded.
          All these examples and many, many more, only underscore how those who use government programs as their source of income are perceived by society. Yes, I know that this one blog isn't going to make any dent in changing how many people see government programs and those who use them. The resentment is too deep-seated and widespread for that. It's just that I'm seeing so much of this resentment that amounts almost to behaving like people actually get rich using the programs and use the programs as a ticket to "the good life."
          Now I'm fully aware, as much as anyone, that there are people who abuse the system and government assistance, just as there are people who will abuse any good or service. This is why the use of these government programs, especially means-tested, need-based programs, come with a set of strict rules for screening, benefits and carry strict penalties if these terms are found to be violated. Persons who "use the system" for their own ends and are caught only increase the stigma of using these programs for all other users. Lazy people who are unwilling to work have always been with us. That's why the Bible says, "If a man will not work, let him not have the right to eat."
          Here's what everyone needs to know about Social Security and Medicare. These two programs are "entitlement" programs for all those age 65 and over where they draw off their own work records or off the work record of a spouse. These programs are a "safety net" for senior citizens when they retire. These "entitlement programs" are unlike the more stigmatizing programs where users must must follow many more rules to become eligible for these programs and to remain eligible and where they must be periodically "reviewed." Survivor's Benefits and the Veteran's Administration (VA) are also "entitlement programs with little stigma.
           Social Security Disability (SSD) is also an "entitlement program" for people whose disabilities are documented as ones that render them unable to get and keep a job. People who use SSD are also covered under Medicare. Use of this program comes with period reviews that are meant to prove that the user is still disabled." This program carries more stigma than Social Security for seniors as it's for younger people under 65. SSD is incredibly difficult to be approved for and calls for much paperwork and standard procedures to be followed. Attempts to get and keep employment can endanger SSD benefits and signal that the user "can work and therefore is not disabled."
          Supplementary Security Income (SSI) is needs-based and for people who are documented as living below the poverty level and/or have a documented disability. These things hold true for the federal Food Stamp program and Medicaid, which is administered by each of the 50 states. WIC (Women, Infants and Children) covers children age 5 and under and who are born to moms using the TANF program.These government programs carry the most stigma of all, came attached with many rules to follow for eligibility and can change at any time. Users must be "reviewed" on a regular basis. These are programs no one wants to need but they serve as lifesavers if needed to survive.
          I know that many people are fortunate enough to be in life circumstances where they have never had to use any government programs and have the $$$ to not need them, whatever their circumstances. I would not wish them to need these programs. However, we never know what life will hold for us and if we will need any of these programs at any given time. People who trash "welfare bums" and the users of needs-based programs do not realize that any of us at any time can find ourselves in situations where we may be compelled to use these needs-based programs or even so-called entitlements like SSD or Survivor's Benefits. And if we US citizens are blessed enough to live to turn age 65, we will use Social Security and Medicare.
          Despite the stories of wealthy people who collect government programs and others who apply for benefits under false pretenses, these are exceptions, not the rule. We ought not to make our judgments on anything based on exceptions. The overwhelming majority of people who use entitlements like SSD or means-tested programs like SSI, Food Stamps, Medicaid and others, do not get wealthy on these programs. Not by any means! People who use these programs do so just to survive and benefits cover bare needs and not frills or extras. There is little to no incentive to save $$$ as there is often not enough money for the entire month. And married people who use these programs get penalized which reflects the value, or lack of it, that the US government places on marriage. Most users would much rather, if they had the choice, be gainfully employed instead of using these programs. Also, we must never forget that these programs keep many people from life in the streets who would other wise be homeless. Medicare and even Medicaid reduce the number of uninsured people who add to ever-rising healthcare costs.
          And now our US government wants to make cuts to these programs, not only to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but also to all the needs-based programs. All in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the deficit! Even Catholic Bishops are taking note of the current debate and are decrying these proposed cuts as immoral and inhumane.
          If you are among those who tend to feel contempt for those who use government assistance and especially the needs-based variety, remember that you or a loved one may one day find yourselves in circumstances where you need such assistance.