Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 WOW I really appreciate all the quick responses on this issue. And a big hat's off to Tommy and Mona for the offered help and url's to reference from. I'll be going tomorrow to have the case motioned up in court to see what can be done about this. as some of you have suggested. my biggest worry now is if they do offer an alternative, how does someone with no license get there? guess that'll be on my things to do list. LOL Anyway it's really a sigh of relief to find others with similar interests on this issue. thanx for being here for people in my situation. i'll let ya know what tomorrow brings. Harley > > In a message dated 5/7/01 4:12:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > > harleygraffix@n... writes: > > > > > > > just recently I learned from my probation officer that I was court > > > ordered to attend AA once a week. > > > > > > > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If > you like, I > > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the 7th > circuit > > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois, but > they might > > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if > they are not > > willing to take it on themselves. > > > > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could > discuss by > > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just the > sort of > > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout. > > > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 WOW I really appreciate all the quick responses on this issue. And a big hat's off to Tommy and Mona for the offered help and url's to reference from. I'll be going tomorrow to have the case motioned up in court to see what can be done about this. as some of you have suggested. my biggest worry now is if they do offer an alternative, how does someone with no license get there? guess that'll be on my things to do list. LOL Anyway it's really a sigh of relief to find others with similar interests on this issue. thanx for being here for people in my situation. i'll let ya know what tomorrow brings. Harley > > In a message dated 5/7/01 4:12:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > > harleygraffix@n... writes: > > > > > > > just recently I learned from my probation officer that I was court > > > ordered to attend AA once a week. > > > > > > > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If > you like, I > > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the 7th > circuit > > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois, but > they might > > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if > they are not > > willing to take it on themselves. > > > > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could > discuss by > > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just the > sort of > > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout. > > > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 I said that it is hypocritical to agree to AA as a condition of probation, if you are not willing to meet the conditions of probation. I think it is hypocritical to make ANY kind of agreement with no intent of honoring the agreement you make. I said they should have told the judge if they objected to AA, and perhaps make some other kind of probations conditions agreement with the court. To say Yes sir, I will go to the judge and then beef about it later makes no sense to me. Don't you understand that the vast majority of people do not realize what AA is all about? I had *NO* clue, until it was introduced to me in rehab. If I had ever been picked up for DUI, I would have agreed to go to AA meetings because I thought it was just a support group where drunks sat around discussing how to stay sober. Imagine the surprise of someone believing that is what they are agreeing to, and subsequently finding themselves in a room full of people saying the Lord's Prayer and talking about the character defects their Higher Power is removing. And being given a big book full of neo-Calvinist theology about what filthy wretches we have been and how God is saving us from insanity and turning our lives around. If the accused feels s/he has been unwittingly sentenced to religious services in lieu of jail, they are right. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 Mike I never knew anything about that condition and it's been allmost a year since i was sentenced. i've met all requirements which i was aware of including paid fines,jail time,vip,aids class,and 75 hours of intensive outpatient. now i'm doing 75 hours of aftercare. it's really not a matter of what was agreed or not agreed, the fact is and allways will be that AA is nothing but a religous cult in my eyes and if I did agree to it (which i did not)and went into it blind not knowing what it really was i would still have come to this conclusion. Myself not being a religous person should not be forced into such without prior knowledge of what AA was really about. Let's say I did agree to it and then was totally turned off by the thaught of using a coffee cup(as quoted in a previous message)as my higher power. That's just screwed up. sure there's alot of people who do gain from the meetings I'm not knocking the people who gain from it, but that's not right to allow someone to force this on anyone especially when from what i've read they should have offered me an alternative. I really thaught this list was here for giving and receiving advice on the issue but it seems you're only here to put people down and from what it seems (praise AA). thanx for your input mike but with everyone else on this list who are willing to lend a helping hand i really dont feel the need for your assistance anymore mike. thanx anyway. Harley In 12-step-free@y..., " Mike " <mikdan7@h...> wrote: > I said that it is hypocritical to agree to AA as a condition of probation, > if you are not willing to meet the conditions of probation. I think it is > hypocritical to make ANY kind of agreement with no intent of honoring the > agreement you make. I said they should have told the judge if they objected > to AA, and perhaps make some other kind of probations conditions agreement > with the court. To say Yes sir, I will go to the judge and then beef about > it later makes no sense to me. > Re: forced into AA > > > > > > Wrong attribution, Nick. It was Mona who offered to help and > > steered the person to the Illinois CLU. The poster " mikdan " > > criticised her and the original poster, claiming people > > are " hypocrites " if they fight against coerced AA when they " agreed " > > to attend to stay out of prison. > > > > ~Rita > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/8/01 6:51:01 AM, mikdan7@h... writes: > > > > > > << > > > > > > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If > > you like, > > > I > > > > > > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the > > 7th circuit > > > > > > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois, > > but they > > > might > > > > > > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if > > they are > > > not > > > > > > willing to take it on themselves. > > > > > > > > > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could > > discuss by > > > > > > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just > > the sort of > > > > > > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout. > > > > > > > > > --Mona-- >> > > > > > > Loud applause! This is just the kind of assistance people need to > > take on the > > > steppers in high places. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 Your position was one that served to discredit AA when I sued over forced AA. It was ruled that AA was the " immediate cause " of the violation of my 1st Amendment rights because they lied to me about AA not being religious- telling me that it is " spiritual not religious " . This lie denied me the ability to make a knowing decision as to whether I would attend AA as a condition of probation. AA told me that they are not a religious organization- it was proven they are " deeply religious " . You can't tell someone you are giving them a glass of water and then criticize them for refusing to drink it when they find out you've handed them a glass of vinegar. Re: forced into AA > > > > > > Wrong attribution, Nick. It was Mona who offered to help and > > steered the person to the Illinois CLU. The poster " mikdan " > > criticised her and the original poster, claiming people > > are " hypocrites " if they fight against coerced AA when they " agreed " > > to attend to stay out of prison. > > > > ~Rita > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/8/01 6:51:01 AM, mikdan7@h... writes: > > > > > > << > > > > > > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If > > you like, > > > I > > > > > > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the > > 7th circuit > > > > > > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois, > > but they > > > might > > > > > > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if > > they are > > > not > > > > > > willing to take it on themselves. > > > > > > > > > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could > > discuss by > > > > > > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just > > the sort of > > > > > > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout. > > > > > > > > > --Mona-- >> > > > > > > Loud applause! This is just the kind of assistance people need to > > take on the > > > steppers in high places. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 Your position was one that served to discredit AA when I sued over forced AA. It was ruled that AA was the " immediate cause " of the violation of my 1st Amendment rights because they lied to me about AA not being religious- telling me that it is " spiritual not religious " . This lie denied me the ability to make a knowing decision as to whether I would attend AA as a condition of probation. AA told me that they are not a religious organization- it was proven they are " deeply religious " . You can't tell someone you are giving them a glass of water and then criticize them for refusing to drink it when they find out you've handed them a glass of vinegar. Re: forced into AA > > > > > > Wrong attribution, Nick. It was Mona who offered to help and > > steered the person to the Illinois CLU. The poster " mikdan " > > criticised her and the original poster, claiming people > > are " hypocrites " if they fight against coerced AA when they " agreed " > > to attend to stay out of prison. > > > > ~Rita > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/8/01 6:51:01 AM, mikdan7@h... writes: > > > > > > << > > > > > > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If > > you like, > > > I > > > > > > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the > > 7th circuit > > > > > > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois, > > but they > > > might > > > > > > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if > > they are > > > not > > > > > > willing to take it on themselves. > > > > > > > > > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could > > discuss by > > > > > > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just > > the sort of > > > > > > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout. > > > > > > > > > --Mona-- >> > > > > > > Loud applause! This is just the kind of assistance people need to > > take on the > > > steppers in high places. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 5/8/01 5:51:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > mikdan7@... writes: > > > >> If you don't like it, tell the judge, and tell him that if necessary >> you >> will do the jail time.Don't blame it on the judge, not if you signed >> the >> paper saying you would go there. Anything less is hypocritical. > > But, if he was given the alternative of either AA or jail, that is > unconstitutional. He must also be given secular alternatives. > Otherwise, > the choice is no different from ordering him to either go to jail, or > attend > services at The First Church of Those Saved By the Blood of Jesus. > > How was he to know when he signed it that AA was a religion? However, > I do > agree he should simply make a motion for modification, first. Give > the > probation dept and the judge a chance to do the constitutional thing. > > --Mona-- Mona, I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives " being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment " changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are permissible thoughts and permissible feelings. For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. " (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me. The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation? Just some thoughts on the subject. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 5/8/01 5:51:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > mikdan7@... writes: > > > >> If you don't like it, tell the judge, and tell him that if necessary >> you >> will do the jail time.Don't blame it on the judge, not if you signed >> the >> paper saying you would go there. Anything less is hypocritical. > > But, if he was given the alternative of either AA or jail, that is > unconstitutional. He must also be given secular alternatives. > Otherwise, > the choice is no different from ordering him to either go to jail, or > attend > services at The First Church of Those Saved By the Blood of Jesus. > > How was he to know when he signed it that AA was a religion? However, > I do > agree he should simply make a motion for modification, first. Give > the > probation dept and the judge a chance to do the constitutional thing. > > --Mona-- Mona, I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives " being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment " changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are permissible thoughts and permissible feelings. For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. " (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me. The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation? Just some thoughts on the subject. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 5/8/01 5:51:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > mikdan7@... writes: > > > >> If you don't like it, tell the judge, and tell him that if necessary >> you >> will do the jail time.Don't blame it on the judge, not if you signed >> the >> paper saying you would go there. Anything less is hypocritical. > > But, if he was given the alternative of either AA or jail, that is > unconstitutional. He must also be given secular alternatives. > Otherwise, > the choice is no different from ordering him to either go to jail, or > attend > services at The First Church of Those Saved By the Blood of Jesus. > > How was he to know when he signed it that AA was a religion? However, > I do > agree he should simply make a motion for modification, first. Give > the > probation dept and the judge a chance to do the constitutional thing. > > --Mona-- Mona, I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives " being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment " changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are permissible thoughts and permissible feelings. For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. " (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me. The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation? Just some thoughts on the subject. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 <snip> Hi Harley, <re Mike's posts> > I really thaught this list was here for giving and receiving advice > on the issue but it seems you're only here to put people down and > from what it seems (praise AA). > thanx for your input mike but with everyone else on this list who are > willing to lend a helping hand i really dont feel the need for your > assistance anymore mike. > thanx anyway. > Harley I am very sympathetic to your situation and I feel that you have come to the right place. However, I didn't see that Mike's questioning of your situation smacked of steppism or putting people down. I do think he may have made an assumption about your situation that was unwarranted, that you agreed to AA, but that doesn't equate in my mind to praising AA. If his assumption had turned out to be correct, then I do think he has a point. That said, I know that many many people don't know what AA is all about until they're sucked into it bigtime. Mike, I know you're new on the list too. Maybe an introduction so that we knew where you were coming from would help. Hicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 <snip> Hi Harley, <re Mike's posts> > I really thaught this list was here for giving and receiving advice > on the issue but it seems you're only here to put people down and > from what it seems (praise AA). > thanx for your input mike but with everyone else on this list who are > willing to lend a helping hand i really dont feel the need for your > assistance anymore mike. > thanx anyway. > Harley I am very sympathetic to your situation and I feel that you have come to the right place. However, I didn't see that Mike's questioning of your situation smacked of steppism or putting people down. I do think he may have made an assumption about your situation that was unwarranted, that you agreed to AA, but that doesn't equate in my mind to praising AA. If his assumption had turned out to be correct, then I do think he has a point. That said, I know that many many people don't know what AA is all about until they're sucked into it bigtime. Mike, I know you're new on the list too. Maybe an introduction so that we knew where you were coming from would help. Hicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 > there was never anything signed stating anything about AA. > I did 30 days jail time on a 60 day sentance. > to just assume i signed anything is just plain wrong on your behalf Thank you for clarifying this. Like , I'm not following the list closely these days and I'm not familiar with Mike either, so I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. But red flags go up for me whenever someone tells their story, and someone else comes along and re-tells it in a significantly different way. That is exactly what happened to me with 12 step treatment. You came to the right place for advice. Welcome and best of luck. judith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 > there was never anything signed stating anything about AA. > I did 30 days jail time on a 60 day sentance. > to just assume i signed anything is just plain wrong on your behalf Thank you for clarifying this. Like , I'm not following the list closely these days and I'm not familiar with Mike either, so I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. But red flags go up for me whenever someone tells their story, and someone else comes along and re-tells it in a significantly different way. That is exactly what happened to me with 12 step treatment. You came to the right place for advice. Welcome and best of luck. judith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 > there was never anything signed stating anything about AA. > I did 30 days jail time on a 60 day sentance. > to just assume i signed anything is just plain wrong on your behalf Thank you for clarifying this. Like , I'm not following the list closely these days and I'm not familiar with Mike either, so I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. But red flags go up for me whenever someone tells their story, and someone else comes along and re-tells it in a significantly different way. That is exactly what happened to me with 12 step treatment. You came to the right place for advice. Welcome and best of luck. judith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 > > I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives " > being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious > dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment " > changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has > of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a > time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies > like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for > crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are > permissible thoughts and permissible feelings. > > For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting > arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus > or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a > women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She > broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a > religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's > apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But > what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would > any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an > evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be > allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo > -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the > problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. " > (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The > whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me. > > The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to > restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not > even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a > acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation? > > Just some thoughts on the subject. > > Ken Ragge -------------- Right on, Ken! I too am very leery of any type of coerced " therapy. " I know that I did not feel very much " less oppressed " when as part of the settlement of my lawsuit, I was ordered to attend SMART instead of AA. I didn't want or need ANY recovery groups! Yet I not only had to attend SMART and get slips signed, but was grilled by my oppressors (EAP) who demanded I explain what " things " SMART was teaching me about " how to stay sober " and who in SMART would I contact if I got an urge to drink, etc. The assumption of " powerlessness " was pervasive and neverending. I would not have been allowed back to work if I was " rigorously honest " about the fact that I know perfectly well how to be sober and wasn't learning anything at all in SMART. Unfortunately, the right to be sober and responsible without outside " help " is not guaranteed at this time. The best we can fight for right now is the right to not have " help " consist of religious indoctrination. In that regard, SMART is certainly a better alternative than AA -- neither religious nor anti-intellectual. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 > > I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives " > being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious > dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment " > changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has > of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a > time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies > like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for > crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are > permissible thoughts and permissible feelings. > > For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting > arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus > or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a > women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She > broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a > religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's > apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But > what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would > any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an > evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be > allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo > -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the > problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. " > (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The > whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me. > > The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to > restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not > even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a > acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation? > > Just some thoughts on the subject. > > Ken Ragge -------------- Right on, Ken! I too am very leery of any type of coerced " therapy. " I know that I did not feel very much " less oppressed " when as part of the settlement of my lawsuit, I was ordered to attend SMART instead of AA. I didn't want or need ANY recovery groups! Yet I not only had to attend SMART and get slips signed, but was grilled by my oppressors (EAP) who demanded I explain what " things " SMART was teaching me about " how to stay sober " and who in SMART would I contact if I got an urge to drink, etc. The assumption of " powerlessness " was pervasive and neverending. I would not have been allowed back to work if I was " rigorously honest " about the fact that I know perfectly well how to be sober and wasn't learning anything at all in SMART. Unfortunately, the right to be sober and responsible without outside " help " is not guaranteed at this time. The best we can fight for right now is the right to not have " help " consist of religious indoctrination. In that regard, SMART is certainly a better alternative than AA -- neither religious nor anti-intellectual. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 > > I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives " > being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious > dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment " > changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has > of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a > time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies > like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for > crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are > permissible thoughts and permissible feelings. > > For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting > arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus > or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a > women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She > broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a > religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's > apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But > what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would > any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an > evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be > allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo > -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the > problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. " > (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The > whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me. > > The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to > restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not > even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a > acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation? > > Just some thoughts on the subject. > > Ken Ragge -------------- Right on, Ken! I too am very leery of any type of coerced " therapy. " I know that I did not feel very much " less oppressed " when as part of the settlement of my lawsuit, I was ordered to attend SMART instead of AA. I didn't want or need ANY recovery groups! Yet I not only had to attend SMART and get slips signed, but was grilled by my oppressors (EAP) who demanded I explain what " things " SMART was teaching me about " how to stay sober " and who in SMART would I contact if I got an urge to drink, etc. The assumption of " powerlessness " was pervasive and neverending. I would not have been allowed back to work if I was " rigorously honest " about the fact that I know perfectly well how to be sober and wasn't learning anything at all in SMART. Unfortunately, the right to be sober and responsible without outside " help " is not guaranteed at this time. The best we can fight for right now is the right to not have " help " consist of religious indoctrination. In that regard, SMART is certainly a better alternative than AA -- neither religious nor anti-intellectual. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 I hope anyone making the case against coerced treatment whether in a legal suit, op-ed, petition, etc. will take advantage of the fact that in an AA publication (Grapevine) an AA board member (Vaillant) admits that 60 percent of recovery takes place outside of AA. (And this might be an understatement) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 I hope anyone making the case against coerced treatment whether in a legal suit, op-ed, petition, etc. will take advantage of the fact that in an AA publication (Grapevine) an AA board member (Vaillant) admits that 60 percent of recovery takes place outside of AA. (And this might be an understatement) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 I was coerced into AA by my professional body . I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? The alternative was to say no and be suspended . I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to an expensive appeal . I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , AA included . I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . I had a row and got my way ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 I was coerced into AA by my professional body . I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? The alternative was to say no and be suspended . I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to an expensive appeal . I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , AA included . I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . I had a row and got my way ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 It's amazing to me how brainwashed everyone (including me, at one time) has been into thinking that you do need a recovery group. I remember how relieved I felt when I suddenly realized that this was a baseless assumption. Yet I had believed it for years, probably before ever going to tx, without even thinking about it, because that's what this society believes. (Sounds like Rita's counselor's were trying to make SMART into some kind of ersatz AA.) > I was coerced into AA by my professional body . > I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? > The alternative was to say no and be suspended . > I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to > an expensive appeal . > I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , > AA included . > I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' > When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted > me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . > I had a row and got my way ! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 It's amazing to me how brainwashed everyone (including me, at one time) has been into thinking that you do need a recovery group. I remember how relieved I felt when I suddenly realized that this was a baseless assumption. Yet I had believed it for years, probably before ever going to tx, without even thinking about it, because that's what this society believes. (Sounds like Rita's counselor's were trying to make SMART into some kind of ersatz AA.) > I was coerced into AA by my professional body . > I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? > The alternative was to say no and be suspended . > I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to > an expensive appeal . > I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , > AA included . > I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' > When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted > me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . > I had a row and got my way ! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 It's amazing to me how brainwashed everyone (including me, at one time) has been into thinking that you do need a recovery group. I remember how relieved I felt when I suddenly realized that this was a baseless assumption. Yet I had believed it for years, probably before ever going to tx, without even thinking about it, because that's what this society believes. (Sounds like Rita's counselor's were trying to make SMART into some kind of ersatz AA.) > I was coerced into AA by my professional body . > I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? > The alternative was to say no and be suspended . > I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to > an expensive appeal . > I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , > AA included . > I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' > When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted > me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . > I had a row and got my way ! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 Hi . I accidentally fell over your mail, and it set off a stream of thoughts that I would like to "share" with you. It's been some kind of discussion about differences on opinion amongst people opposing AA. I do think there is some similarities, but also very different expressions of this similarity. This, I think, is because AA is floating over it's natural banks, and is touching several institutions and beliefs in society that will eventually fight back. But when they do they almost exclusively gets an experience that confirms their view. No matter if you're an former problem drinker, journalist, psychiatrist, psychologist, lawyer, soldier, woman, politician, police man, different, etc. I think I joined 12-step-free for about 3 years ago, but have been in and out. When I read your mail I thought. "That's it. That's what they are doing to everyone, and that's exactly what scares me!" It's like I've heard the same melody in so many voices. They're not only mistaken, they are hurting really living people when they try to defend their human dignity. You always start out with thinking they're wrong, but if you voice it you'll discover that they are not only wrong. They represent evil too. I've been interested in AA since 1978 from an academically point of view, but in 1988 it got this second emotion when I discovered that an article I wrote in a Danish paper resulted in attempts of character murder and disguised threats about physical injury. Personally I'm more a coward than a hero, but the nazis gave my mother a life sentence, and my father smuggled weapons into the Norwegian mountains from the coast. When discovered he fled to Sweden and from there to Scotland by plane. Therefore I feel some obligation to fight back, even though I could easily have a calm and decent life forgetting it all. Actually my 'resistance' could possibly jeopardize my present living conditions, but I just thought AA should know that they picked the wrong guy when they threatened me. I think I owe this to my parents. But honestly speaking I would rather be without my knowledge/experience. Your mail kicked these thoughts off. Best Bjørn Re: Re: forced into AA I was coerced into AA by my professional body . I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? The alternative was to say no and be suspended . I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to an expensive appeal . I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , AA included . I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . I had a row and got my way ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.