Does anyone else think this story is being told so that we don't ever learn the actual facts? (Not that that's unusual; it's just a good example of the problem.) The situation is set up by the Strib as church vs. mom, and those are the only PoVs we get; they don't really give a sense of whether the kid really is horribly disruptive in church. Seems like a lot of words to throw out there just to avoid the heart of the matter.
Lack of context aside, I get a bad taste in my mouth almost every time the mother is quoted. To wit: I feel bad for causing a disruption when our toddler occasionally makes scenes in church or a store. In fact, we spent yesterday's entire service in the "quiet room" because The Boy fell down as he entered the nursery and didn't want mommy to leave him there with a fat lip. And he's just not ready to sit in church quietly yet. So it's hard to imagine, say, asking people to clear aisles while my family leaves church.
Where can I go to get brainwashed into thinking it's OK to expect everyone else to make big sacrifices -- including, possibly, their safety -- just so I can feel normal? Because it would make my life a whole lot easier: "Please ignore The Boy's screeching, whining, crying, kicking of your seat backs, and pulling of your wife's hair. He's too young to have a long attention span, and doesn't know how to handle boredom yet. So we've decided to make that your problem instead of ours, and we'd just like you to know that we're feeling pretty good about that. Oh, and if The Baby urps spoiled milk down the back of your neck, well, that's just what he does and I think that's going to have to be accomodated as well."
There are accommodations, and then there is going too far. All I'm saying is, I wish there was enough info in these TWO FEATURE ARTICLES IN A MAJOR-MARKET NEWSPAPER to tell me which is the case. I guess that's asking for too much for the paper that employs Nick Coleman and Lori Sturdevant.