Re: To Mike re insensitivity

[Guest guest]

paul diener wrote:

> Ken -

>

> You need to read the literature. The lady is 100% right.

,

I think you ought to read the literature. You are dead wrong. Might I suggest

Lifton's " Thought-Reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of

'brainwashing' in China, " Schein et al's " Coercive Persuasion, " and Steve

Hassan's " Combatting Cult Mind Control. "

>

>

> The " brainwashing " idea is hopelessly over-simplistic, and it is not

> accepted in academic psychology nor in religious studies.

>

_Which_ " brainwashing " idea? To tell you the truth, I don't much care what

academic psychology nor those in religious studies say. They are incapable of

being critical of the step groups. If they can't see what is wrong with the

step groups, why should I take their word for anything?

>

> Please, if your are going to claim otherwise, CITE SOURCES!

>

> Your naive idea of 'brainwashing' is very similar to the AA idea of

> 'addiction'. They say people become powerless over their behavior without

> being able to do anything about it. YOU say people become powerless over

> their behavior without being able to do anything about it.

I suppose your attempted hatchet job would be like me saying, there are a lot

of accidents on Dead Man's curve when the road isn't iced and you responding

that I have the same attitude toward highway safety as (powerless) as AA does

about drinking too much. I'm rather disappointed in you, your lack of

integrity here.

>

>

> Your - and AA's - fundamental idea is wrong. People are never powerless

> over what they think.

And who said people are powerless over what they think?

Ken Ragge

> (People certainly can be influenced, but the process

> is a complex one, and the person's own values and choice is always part of

> that process).

>

> Nobody is 'powerless' over an addiction, and nobody is powerless when

> confronted with a would-be 'brainwasher'. Neither the idea of 'addiction',

> nor the idea of 'brainwashing', - and they are very SIMILAR ideas - is

> valid.

>

> Re: To Mike re insensitivity

>

> >

> >

> > MonaHolland@... wrote:

> >

> > > In a message dated 5/18/01 8:58:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > > kenr1@...

> > > writes:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >> As a matter of fact, 12-Step " treatment " and Chinese

> > >> Communist re-education are, for all practical purposes, identical.

> > >

> > > Well, I can only tell you that this is not generally accepted by

> > > students of

> > > the sociology of religion, at least not with regard to most new

> > > religous

> > > movements. (I only know this because that was my BA major.) Chinese

> > > brainwashing techniques, for one thing, are highly overrated, and do

> > > not

> > > result in Manchurian Candidates. That is, people's brains get

> > > " unwashed "

> > > after sufficient time away from their captors.

> >

> > Mona,

> >

> > " Over-rated " ? How so? Where did you get the idea they were trying to

> > make " Manchurian Candidates " ? That was not their goal at all. Their

> > goal was to cure disease, just like AA and the other step groups. While

> > they didn't make Manchurian Candidates, they did create hundreds of

> > millions of believers.

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Certainly some rehabs, those practicing EST-type techniques and such,

> > > are

> > > highly abusive. They cause great psychic harm. But they do not turn

> > > people

> > > into mindless drones.

> >

> > Where do you get your " mindless drones " from? Who suggested that

> > thought-reform/ coercive persuasion/ brainwashing results in mindless

> > drones?

> >

> > I wouldn't call Bill or Marty Mann a mindless drone.

> >

> > > The problem is that in most places, AA is the only

> > > known path to sobriety, so people seldom have an opportunity to grow

> > > out of

> > > the ideas shoved on them in rehab.

> >

> > What do you mean by " path to sobriety " ? Don't you mean abstinence?

> >

> > The very popular Minnesota Model is not big on direct coercion. Not

> > much is _crammed_.

> >

> > > But the vast, vast majority do not stay

> > > in AA and are not still sober one year later, so clearly they were not

> > >

> > > " brainwashed " in rehab a la the conceptions of the way the Chinese do

> > > it.

> > >

> >

> > Because those who go through treatment are unlikely to remain abstinent

> > has nothing to do with it. Has their confidence in their ability to

> > stay abstinent been undermined? (e.g. " tilling the black soil of

> > hopelessness " ) Do they believe (or fear) they have a disease which they

> > can't control? Do they come to believe that " AA is the only way " if

> > they are to remain abstinent?

> >

> > Treatment's goal is a shift in world view toward the AA/Oxford world

> > view. " Alcoholism " is only one of over 1000 possible levers for

> > conversion.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

> >

> > >

> > > --Mona--

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

paul diener wrote:

> Ken -

>

> You need to read the literature. The lady is 100% right.

,

I think you ought to read the literature. You are dead wrong. Might I suggest

Lifton's " Thought-Reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of

'brainwashing' in China, " Schein et al's " Coercive Persuasion, " and Steve

Hassan's " Combatting Cult Mind Control. "

>

>

> The " brainwashing " idea is hopelessly over-simplistic, and it is not

> accepted in academic psychology nor in religious studies.

>

_Which_ " brainwashing " idea? To tell you the truth, I don't much care what

academic psychology nor those in religious studies say. They are incapable of

being critical of the step groups. If they can't see what is wrong with the

step groups, why should I take their word for anything?

>

> Please, if your are going to claim otherwise, CITE SOURCES!

>

> Your naive idea of 'brainwashing' is very similar to the AA idea of

> 'addiction'. They say people become powerless over their behavior without

> being able to do anything about it. YOU say people become powerless over

> their behavior without being able to do anything about it.

I suppose your attempted hatchet job would be like me saying, there are a lot

of accidents on Dead Man's curve when the road isn't iced and you responding

that I have the same attitude toward highway safety as (powerless) as AA does

about drinking too much. I'm rather disappointed in you, your lack of

integrity here.

>

>

> Your - and AA's - fundamental idea is wrong. People are never powerless

> over what they think.

And who said people are powerless over what they think?

Ken Ragge

> (People certainly can be influenced, but the process

> is a complex one, and the person's own values and choice is always part of

> that process).

>

> Nobody is 'powerless' over an addiction, and nobody is powerless when

> confronted with a would-be 'brainwasher'. Neither the idea of 'addiction',

> nor the idea of 'brainwashing', - and they are very SIMILAR ideas - is

> valid.

>

> Re: To Mike re insensitivity

>

> >

> >

> > MonaHolland@... wrote:

> >

> > > In a message dated 5/18/01 8:58:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > > kenr1@...

> > > writes:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >> As a matter of fact, 12-Step " treatment " and Chinese

> > >> Communist re-education are, for all practical purposes, identical.

> > >

> > > Well, I can only tell you that this is not generally accepted by

> > > students of

> > > the sociology of religion, at least not with regard to most new

> > > religous

> > > movements. (I only know this because that was my BA major.) Chinese

> > > brainwashing techniques, for one thing, are highly overrated, and do

> > > not

> > > result in Manchurian Candidates. That is, people's brains get

> > > " unwashed "

> > > after sufficient time away from their captors.

> >

> > Mona,

> >

> > " Over-rated " ? How so? Where did you get the idea they were trying to

> > make " Manchurian Candidates " ? That was not their goal at all. Their

> > goal was to cure disease, just like AA and the other step groups. While

> > they didn't make Manchurian Candidates, they did create hundreds of

> > millions of believers.

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Certainly some rehabs, those practicing EST-type techniques and such,

> > > are

> > > highly abusive. They cause great psychic harm. But they do not turn

> > > people

> > > into mindless drones.

> >

> > Where do you get your " mindless drones " from? Who suggested that

> > thought-reform/ coercive persuasion/ brainwashing results in mindless

> > drones?

> >

> > I wouldn't call Bill or Marty Mann a mindless drone.

> >

> > > The problem is that in most places, AA is the only

> > > known path to sobriety, so people seldom have an opportunity to grow

> > > out of

> > > the ideas shoved on them in rehab.

> >

> > What do you mean by " path to sobriety " ? Don't you mean abstinence?

> >

> > The very popular Minnesota Model is not big on direct coercion. Not

> > much is _crammed_.

> >

> > > But the vast, vast majority do not stay

> > > in AA and are not still sober one year later, so clearly they were not

> > >

> > > " brainwashed " in rehab a la the conceptions of the way the Chinese do

> > > it.

> > >

> >

> > Because those who go through treatment are unlikely to remain abstinent

> > has nothing to do with it. Has their confidence in their ability to

> > stay abstinent been undermined? (e.g. " tilling the black soil of

> > hopelessness " ) Do they believe (or fear) they have a disease which they

> > can't control? Do they come to believe that " AA is the only way " if

> > they are to remain abstinent?

> >

> > Treatment's goal is a shift in world view toward the AA/Oxford world

> > view. " Alcoholism " is only one of over 1000 possible levers for

> > conversion.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

> >

> > >

> > > --Mona--

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

It would be a total waste of time to communicate with someone who

" doesn't give a shit what is happening in Colombia. " I have more important

things to do than waste my time.

I will let you get back to narcissistic whining.

Re: To Mike re insensitivity

>

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > >

> > > > Assaults, including rape, occur in the United States.

> So?

> > > >

> > > > Are you suggesting that the existence of rape in the U.S.

> > > justifies

> > > > middle-class feminists who ignore the invasion of Colombia, the

> mass

> > > poverty

> > > > of most of the world, the homelessness of millions of women AND

> men,

> > > and so

> > > > on?

> > >

> > > No. I was suggesting that by your continual focus on Columbia and

> > > " world " problems you were overlooking the shit happening in your

> own

> > > back yard. Personally, I don't give a fuck about what is

> happening in

> > > Columbia. I can't afford to, whatever you may think. The kicker

> is,

> > > neither do you. Here, there or anywhere.

> > >

> > > <snip STRAWMAN AFTER STRAWMAN>

> > > >

> > > > Let us set the record straight. Nobody criticized Rita for

> > > presenting

> > > > FACTS. (I, for one, have in the past complimented her on her

> > > succcinct

> > > > presentation of her case.

> > >

> > > I sure missed that one.

> > >

> > > Many others have described similar cases,

> > > of

> > > > course, and lots of people have LOST jobs, so Rita's case is

> hardly

> > > unique

> > > > or extreme.)

> > > >

> > > > What Rita was criticized for was EXAGGERATION and HYPERBOLE.

> > >

> > > This is the living end! FUCK YOU! Comparing Rita's actions in

> the

> > > matter of ending 12-step coersion in her workplace to Germans

> becoming

> > > Nazis is not HYPERBOLE to you....? IMO, you chose that

> specifically

> > > because you do know that she is Jewish.

> > >

> > > Your words in these last few posts do not convince me that you

> have

> > > an interest in helping anyone or in any sort of " social

> > > responsibility. " You seem to be interested only in

> browbeating...I do

> > > have to applaud Rita for her measured and reasoned response to

> you.

> > >

> > > Hicks

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

It would be a total waste of time to communicate with someone who

" doesn't give a shit what is happening in Colombia. " I have more important

things to do than waste my time.

I will let you get back to narcissistic whining.

Re: To Mike re insensitivity

>

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > >

> > > > Assaults, including rape, occur in the United States.

> So?

> > > >

> > > > Are you suggesting that the existence of rape in the U.S.

> > > justifies

> > > > middle-class feminists who ignore the invasion of Colombia, the

> mass

> > > poverty

> > > > of most of the world, the homelessness of millions of women AND

> men,

> > > and so

> > > > on?

> > >

> > > No. I was suggesting that by your continual focus on Columbia and

> > > " world " problems you were overlooking the shit happening in your

> own

> > > back yard. Personally, I don't give a fuck about what is

> happening in

> > > Columbia. I can't afford to, whatever you may think. The kicker

> is,

> > > neither do you. Here, there or anywhere.

> > >

> > > <snip STRAWMAN AFTER STRAWMAN>

> > > >

> > > > Let us set the record straight. Nobody criticized Rita for

> > > presenting

> > > > FACTS. (I, for one, have in the past complimented her on her

> > > succcinct

> > > > presentation of her case.

> > >

> > > I sure missed that one.

> > >

> > > Many others have described similar cases,

> > > of

> > > > course, and lots of people have LOST jobs, so Rita's case is

> hardly

> > > unique

> > > > or extreme.)

> > > >

> > > > What Rita was criticized for was EXAGGERATION and HYPERBOLE.

> > >

> > > This is the living end! FUCK YOU! Comparing Rita's actions in

> the

> > > matter of ending 12-step coersion in her workplace to Germans

> becoming

> > > Nazis is not HYPERBOLE to you....? IMO, you chose that

> specifically

> > > because you do know that she is Jewish.

> > >

> > > Your words in these last few posts do not convince me that you

> have

> > > an interest in helping anyone or in any sort of " social

> > > responsibility. " You seem to be interested only in

> browbeating...I do

> > > have to applaud Rita for her measured and reasoned response to

> you.

> > >

> > > Hicks

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

It would be a total waste of time to communicate with someone who

" doesn't give a shit what is happening in Colombia. " I have more important

things to do than waste my time.

I will let you get back to narcissistic whining.

Re: To Mike re insensitivity

>

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > >

> > > > Assaults, including rape, occur in the United States.

> So?

> > > >

> > > > Are you suggesting that the existence of rape in the U.S.

> > > justifies

> > > > middle-class feminists who ignore the invasion of Colombia, the

> mass

> > > poverty

> > > > of most of the world, the homelessness of millions of women AND

> men,

> > > and so

> > > > on?

> > >

> > > No. I was suggesting that by your continual focus on Columbia and

> > > " world " problems you were overlooking the shit happening in your

> own

> > > back yard. Personally, I don't give a fuck about what is

> happening in

> > > Columbia. I can't afford to, whatever you may think. The kicker

> is,

> > > neither do you. Here, there or anywhere.

> > >

> > > <snip STRAWMAN AFTER STRAWMAN>

> > > >

> > > > Let us set the record straight. Nobody criticized Rita for

> > > presenting

> > > > FACTS. (I, for one, have in the past complimented her on her

> > > succcinct

> > > > presentation of her case.

> > >

> > > I sure missed that one.

> > >

> > > Many others have described similar cases,

> > > of

> > > > course, and lots of people have LOST jobs, so Rita's case is

> hardly

> > > unique

> > > > or extreme.)

> > > >

> > > > What Rita was criticized for was EXAGGERATION and HYPERBOLE.

> > >

> > > This is the living end! FUCK YOU! Comparing Rita's actions in

> the

> > > matter of ending 12-step coersion in her workplace to Germans

> becoming

> > > Nazis is not HYPERBOLE to you....? IMO, you chose that

> specifically

> > > because you do know that she is Jewish.

> > >

> > > Your words in these last few posts do not convince me that you

> have

> > > an interest in helping anyone or in any sort of " social

> > > responsibility. " You seem to be interested only in

> browbeating...I do

> > > have to applaud Rita for her measured and reasoned response to

> you.

> > >

> > > Hicks

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Not that I'm never critical (of Psychology in particular), but I

think Mona makes a good point. I got a lot of opinions in AA about

what a lot of hogwash academics were. I wasn't exactly discouraged

from pursuing a college degree, but I certainly wasn't encouraged

either. It wasn't until I returned to college and began taking

courses in Psychology, Ethics, and Religious Studies that I was

introduced to many of the ideas that eventually brought me to this

list. In these courses, I read Szasz and Fingarette and others. It

was the first time I had ever heard anyone dare to question the

disease concept of addiction. There weren't listservs then. Academics

was where it was happening. I'm certainly glad I was there.

Joan

>

> >>To tell you the truth, I don't much care what

> academic psychology nor those in religious studies say.  They are

incapable of

> being critical of the step groups.  If they can't see what is

wrong with the

> step groups, why should I take their word for anything?<<

>

>

> Ken, that statement truly disturbs me, since it smacks of an

> anti-intellectualism I have learned is the proud attribute of the

Steppers.

> The fact is, students of religion very definitely do recognize XA

as a

> " cult, " and the aadeprogramming site has a link to an index

maintained by the

> University of Virginia designating AA as a cult/new religious

movement, and

> explaining why it has the hallmarks of one.

>

> Further, 16 years ago when I took a fascinating course

entitled " Cults in

> America, " the very bright prof, Judith Weightman (who went on to

make a

> bundle on Jeopardy, and who knows more about Jim and

town than

> anyone I know) became a friend of mine. She was in AA at the time,

and not

> only insisted that it was a " cult " as that term is meant in her

area of

> study, but she taught that it was. The thing is, she does not use

that term

> pejoratively.

>

> Weightman further taught †" and assigned scholarly articles

in support of

> this view †" that " brainwashing " is a largely discredited concept

that simply

> is not a useful term vis-a-vis religious groups. By the standards

most

> people use when applying the word, parochial schools, convents, and

> monasteries constitute cults in which brainwashing occurs.

>

> The word cult simply mean: a religion I don't like.

Brainwashing means:

> indoctrination that I don't like, in a religion that I don't like.

>

> Now, I have not read Hassan's work, but the anti-cult movement

promotes

> all sorts of unscholarly nonsense, that is not accepted by most

students of

> religion. They frequently do this to justify their own criminal

behavior

> that has been rejected by the courts. Behavior such as kidnaping

adults and

> holding them prisoner to " deprogram " them.

>

> AA is a religious movement. Many in AA deny that almost

hysterically,

> but they are in, um, denial. I spend quite a bit of time in

ab.alcohol

> debating with Steppers, and when I posted the link to the UVA site

they were

> majorly pissed, and said they didn't care what the " airy fairy "

thinking of

> academics was. I believe critics of AA should care. It separates

us from

> the obscurantism and anti-intellectualism of the Steppers, and

thereby should

> give us credibility.

>

> AA is most problematic as a by-product of: (1) it usually being

the only

> game in town that is presented as the " only way " in nearly every

clinical

> setting, and by AA itself at the grassroots level, and (2) coerced

> attendance. By contrast, if AA was only one of, say, four equally

respected

> routes to learning how to conquer problem drinking/drug abuse, we

all would

> have a lot less animus toward it. It simply would not then be in a

position

> to cause all the harm that it does.

>

> After all, what's it to you or me if some self-described

alcoholics wish

> to follow a neo-Calvinist path of sin and redemption to get sober?

As long

> as vulnerable people in detox are not told they must follow that

path, and

> courts ane employers don't insist that they do, there is no harm

and no foul,

> except the harm done to those who voluntarily subject themselves to

it. But

> as it stands, it is a somewhat cruel joke to describe AA

as " voluntary, "

> since one is informed that it is AA v. death, jail or institutions,

and

> frequently there is a judge standing behind that threat ready and

willing to

> make sure that at least jail is, indeed, a consequence of rejecting

AA.

>

> In sum: it is the de facto monopoly that AA has on " recovery, "

and the

> coercion embraced by the legal and employment sectors, that are

the

> problems. But for those facts, it would just be a recovery

option

> conducive only to those who actually want what it peddles. We

don't need to

> employ inflammatory terms like " cult " or " brainwashing " to reject

the fact

> that AA is a religious movement that indoctrinates people into

falsely

> believing it is the only way to get and stay sober.

>

> †" Mona--

[Guest guest]

Not that I'm never critical (of Psychology in particular), but I

think Mona makes a good point. I got a lot of opinions in AA about

what a lot of hogwash academics were. I wasn't exactly discouraged

from pursuing a college degree, but I certainly wasn't encouraged

either. It wasn't until I returned to college and began taking

courses in Psychology, Ethics, and Religious Studies that I was

introduced to many of the ideas that eventually brought me to this

list. In these courses, I read Szasz and Fingarette and others. It

was the first time I had ever heard anyone dare to question the

disease concept of addiction. There weren't listservs then. Academics

was where it was happening. I'm certainly glad I was there.

Joan

>

> >>To tell you the truth, I don't much care what

> academic psychology nor those in religious studies say.  They are

incapable of

> being critical of the step groups.  If they can't see what is

wrong with the

> step groups, why should I take their word for anything?<<

>

>

> Ken, that statement truly disturbs me, since it smacks of an

> anti-intellectualism I have learned is the proud attribute of the

Steppers.

> The fact is, students of religion very definitely do recognize XA

as a

> " cult, " and the aadeprogramming site has a link to an index

maintained by the

> University of Virginia designating AA as a cult/new religious

movement, and

> explaining why it has the hallmarks of one.

>

> Further, 16 years ago when I took a fascinating course

entitled " Cults in

> America, " the very bright prof, Judith Weightman (who went on to

make a

> bundle on Jeopardy, and who knows more about Jim and

town than

> anyone I know) became a friend of mine. She was in AA at the time,

and not

> only insisted that it was a " cult " as that term is meant in her

area of

> study, but she taught that it was. The thing is, she does not use

that term

> pejoratively.

>

> Weightman further taught †" and assigned scholarly articles

in support of

> this view †" that " brainwashing " is a largely discredited concept

that simply

> is not a useful term vis-a-vis religious groups. By the standards

most

> people use when applying the word, parochial schools, convents, and

> monasteries constitute cults in which brainwashing occurs.

>

> The word cult simply mean: a religion I don't like.

Brainwashing means:

> indoctrination that I don't like, in a religion that I don't like.

>

> Now, I have not read Hassan's work, but the anti-cult movement

promotes

> all sorts of unscholarly nonsense, that is not accepted by most

students of

> religion. They frequently do this to justify their own criminal

behavior

> that has been rejected by the courts. Behavior such as kidnaping

adults and

> holding them prisoner to " deprogram " them.

>

> AA is a religious movement. Many in AA deny that almost

hysterically,

> but they are in, um, denial. I spend quite a bit of time in

ab.alcohol

> debating with Steppers, and when I posted the link to the UVA site

they were

> majorly pissed, and said they didn't care what the " airy fairy "

thinking of

> academics was. I believe critics of AA should care. It separates

us from

> the obscurantism and anti-intellectualism of the Steppers, and

thereby should

> give us credibility.

>

> AA is most problematic as a by-product of: (1) it usually being

the only

> game in town that is presented as the " only way " in nearly every

clinical

> setting, and by AA itself at the grassroots level, and (2) coerced

> attendance. By contrast, if AA was only one of, say, four equally

respected

> routes to learning how to conquer problem drinking/drug abuse, we

all would

> have a lot less animus toward it. It simply would not then be in a

position

> to cause all the harm that it does.

>

> After all, what's it to you or me if some self-described

alcoholics wish

> to follow a neo-Calvinist path of sin and redemption to get sober?

As long

> as vulnerable people in detox are not told they must follow that

path, and

> courts ane employers don't insist that they do, there is no harm

and no foul,

> except the harm done to those who voluntarily subject themselves to

it. But

> as it stands, it is a somewhat cruel joke to describe AA

as " voluntary, "

> since one is informed that it is AA v. death, jail or institutions,

and

> frequently there is a judge standing behind that threat ready and

willing to

> make sure that at least jail is, indeed, a consequence of rejecting

AA.

>

> In sum: it is the de facto monopoly that AA has on " recovery, "

and the

> coercion embraced by the legal and employment sectors, that are

the

> problems. But for those facts, it would just be a recovery

option

> conducive only to those who actually want what it peddles. We

don't need to

> employ inflammatory terms like " cult " or " brainwashing " to reject

the fact

> that AA is a religious movement that indoctrinates people into

falsely

> believing it is the only way to get and stay sober.

>

> †" Mona--

[Guest guest]

Not that I'm never critical (of Psychology in particular), but I

think Mona makes a good point. I got a lot of opinions in AA about

what a lot of hogwash academics were. I wasn't exactly discouraged

from pursuing a college degree, but I certainly wasn't encouraged

either. It wasn't until I returned to college and began taking

courses in Psychology, Ethics, and Religious Studies that I was

introduced to many of the ideas that eventually brought me to this

list. In these courses, I read Szasz and Fingarette and others. It

was the first time I had ever heard anyone dare to question the

disease concept of addiction. There weren't listservs then. Academics

was where it was happening. I'm certainly glad I was there.

Joan

>

> >>To tell you the truth, I don't much care what

> academic psychology nor those in religious studies say.  They are

incapable of

> being critical of the step groups.  If they can't see what is

wrong with the

> step groups, why should I take their word for anything?<<

>

>

> Ken, that statement truly disturbs me, since it smacks of an

> anti-intellectualism I have learned is the proud attribute of the

Steppers.

> The fact is, students of religion very definitely do recognize XA

as a

> " cult, " and the aadeprogramming site has a link to an index

maintained by the

> University of Virginia designating AA as a cult/new religious

movement, and

> explaining why it has the hallmarks of one.

>

> Further, 16 years ago when I took a fascinating course

entitled " Cults in

> America, " the very bright prof, Judith Weightman (who went on to

make a

> bundle on Jeopardy, and who knows more about Jim and

town than

> anyone I know) became a friend of mine. She was in AA at the time,

and not

> only insisted that it was a " cult " as that term is meant in her

area of

> study, but she taught that it was. The thing is, she does not use

that term

> pejoratively.

>

> Weightman further taught †" and assigned scholarly articles

in support of

> this view †" that " brainwashing " is a largely discredited concept

that simply

> is not a useful term vis-a-vis religious groups. By the standards

most

> people use when applying the word, parochial schools, convents, and

> monasteries constitute cults in which brainwashing occurs.

>

> The word cult simply mean: a religion I don't like.

Brainwashing means:

> indoctrination that I don't like, in a religion that I don't like.

>

> Now, I have not read Hassan's work, but the anti-cult movement

promotes

> all sorts of unscholarly nonsense, that is not accepted by most

students of

> religion. They frequently do this to justify their own criminal

behavior

> that has been rejected by the courts. Behavior such as kidnaping

adults and

> holding them prisoner to " deprogram " them.

>

> AA is a religious movement. Many in AA deny that almost

hysterically,

> but they are in, um, denial. I spend quite a bit of time in

ab.alcohol

> debating with Steppers, and when I posted the link to the UVA site

they were

> majorly pissed, and said they didn't care what the " airy fairy "

thinking of

> academics was. I believe critics of AA should care. It separates

us from

> the obscurantism and anti-intellectualism of the Steppers, and

thereby should

> give us credibility.

>

> AA is most problematic as a by-product of: (1) it usually being

the only

> game in town that is presented as the " only way " in nearly every

clinical

> setting, and by AA itself at the grassroots level, and (2) coerced

> attendance. By contrast, if AA was only one of, say, four equally

respected

> routes to learning how to conquer problem drinking/drug abuse, we

all would

> have a lot less animus toward it. It simply would not then be in a

position

> to cause all the harm that it does.

>

> After all, what's it to you or me if some self-described

alcoholics wish

> to follow a neo-Calvinist path of sin and redemption to get sober?

As long

> as vulnerable people in detox are not told they must follow that

path, and

> courts ane employers don't insist that they do, there is no harm

and no foul,

> except the harm done to those who voluntarily subject themselves to

it. But

> as it stands, it is a somewhat cruel joke to describe AA

as " voluntary, "

> since one is informed that it is AA v. death, jail or institutions,

and

> frequently there is a judge standing behind that threat ready and

willing to

> make sure that at least jail is, indeed, a consequence of rejecting

AA.

>

> In sum: it is the de facto monopoly that AA has on " recovery, "

and the

> coercion embraced by the legal and employment sectors, that are

the

> problems. But for those facts, it would just be a recovery

option

> conducive only to those who actually want what it peddles. We

don't need to

> employ inflammatory terms like " cult " or " brainwashing " to reject

the fact

> that AA is a religious movement that indoctrinates people into

falsely

> believing it is the only way to get and stay sober.

>

> †" Mona--

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland@... wrote:

> Ken wrote:

>

> >>To tell you the truth, I don't much care what

> academic psychology nor those in religious studies say. They are

> incapable of

> being critical of the step groups. If they can't see what is wrong

> with the

> step groups, why should I take their word for anything?<<

>

>

> Ken, that statement truly disturbs me, since it smacks of an

> anti-intellectualism I have learned is the proud attribute of the

> Steppers.

Mona,

Want a real shock? I don't much care what phlebotomists or astrologers

think either.

>

> The fact is, students of religion very definitely do recognize XA as a

>

> " cult, " and the aadeprogramming site has a link to an index maintained

> by the

> University of Virginia designating AA as a cult/new religious

> movement, and

> explaining why it has the hallmarks of one.

>

In this environment it is more or less taken for granted that when we

say " cult " we are talking about a " destructive cult. " I don't see

where it is relevant that some people at the University of Virgina

designate AA as a cult meaning " new religious movement. "

>

> Further, 16 years ago when I took a fascinating course entitled " Cults

> in

> America, " the very bright prof, Judith Weightman (who went on to make

> a

> bundle on Jeopardy, and who knows more about Jim and town

> than

> anyone I know) became a friend of mine. She was in AA at the time,

> and not

> only insisted that it was a " cult " as that term is meant in her area

> of

> study, but she taught that it was. The thing is, she does not use

> that term

> pejoratively.

>

> Weightman further taught – and assigned scholarly articles in

> support of

> this view – that " brainwashing " is a largely discredited concept

> that simply

> is not a useful term vis-a-vis religious groups. By the standards

> most

> people use when applying the word, parochial schools, convents, and

> monasteries constitute cults in which brainwashing occurs.

That has not been my experience. I would say most people mean something

more akin to Steve Hassan's " destructive cult. "

>

>

> The word cult simply mean: a religion I don't like. Brainwashing

> means:

> indoctrination that I don't like, in a religion that I don't like.

>

Don't you take whether indoctrination is accomplish by lying and

deceit? Don't you think there is a huge distance between a woman who

goes to a nunnery to become a nun coming out with a set of beliefs that

she was expecting to have going in and someone going to a weekend

retreat to work for world peace and coming out believing Rev. Moon is

Jesus Incarnate?

>

> Now, I have not read Hassan's work, but the anti-cult movement

> promotes

> all sorts of unscholarly nonsense, that is not accepted by most

> students of

> religion.

Nonsense like what? Besides, not all cults are religious. The can also

be political and business.

> They frequently do this to justify their own criminal behavior

> that has been rejected by the courts. Behavior such as kidnaping

> adults and

> holding them prisoner to " deprogram " them.

Then obviously you have _not_ read anyone of significance in the

anti-cult movement.

>

>

> AA is a religious movement. Many in AA deny that almost hysterically,

>

> but they are in, um, denial. I spend quite a bit of time in

> ab.alcohol

> debating with Steppers, and when I posted the link to the UVA site

> they were

> majorly pissed, and said they didn't care what the " airy fairy "

> thinking of

> academics was. I believe critics of AA should care. It separates us

> from

> the obscurantism and anti-intellectualism of the Steppers, and thereby

> should

> give us credibility.

>

> AA is most problematic as a by-product of: (1) it usually being the

> only

> game in town that is presented as the " only way " in nearly every

> clinical

> setting, and by AA itself at the grassroots level, and (2) coerced

> attendance. By contrast, if AA was only one of, say, four equally

> respected

> routes to learning how to conquer problem drinking/drug abuse, we all

> would

> have a lot less animus toward it. It simply would not then be in a

> position

> to cause all the harm that it does.

>

> After all, what's it to you or me if some self-described alcoholics

> wish

> to follow a neo-Calvinist path of sin and redemption to get sober? As

> long

> as vulnerable people in detox are not told they must follow that path,

> and

> courts ane employers don't insist that they do, there is no harm and

> no foul,

> except the harm done to those who voluntarily subject themselves to

> it. But

> as it stands, it is a somewhat cruel joke to describe AA as

> " voluntary, "

> since one is informed that it is AA v. death, jail or institutions,

> and

> frequently there is a judge standing behind that threat ready and

> willing to

> make sure that at least jail is, indeed, a consequence of rejecting

> AA.

>

> In sum: it is the de facto monopoly that AA has on " recovery, " and the

>

> coercion embraced by the legal and employment sectors, that are the

> problems. But for those facts, it would just be a recovery option

> conducive only to those who actually want what it peddles. We don't

> need to

> employ inflammatory terms like " cult " or " brainwashing " to reject the

> fact

> that AA is a religious movement that indoctrinates people into falsely

>

> believing it is the only way to get and stay sober.

>

AA didn't always have a monopoly on " recovery. " They have worked hard

to gain it through front groups like NCADD, ASAM, professional groups

and H & I committees..

Ken Ragge

>

> –Mona--

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland@... wrote:

> Ken wrote:

>

> >>To tell you the truth, I don't much care what

> academic psychology nor those in religious studies say. They are

> incapable of

> being critical of the step groups. If they can't see what is wrong

> with the

> step groups, why should I take their word for anything?<<

>

>

> Ken, that statement truly disturbs me, since it smacks of an

> anti-intellectualism I have learned is the proud attribute of the

> Steppers.

Mona,

Want a real shock? I don't much care what phlebotomists or astrologers

think either.

>

> The fact is, students of religion very definitely do recognize XA as a

>

> " cult, " and the aadeprogramming site has a link to an index maintained

> by the

> University of Virginia designating AA as a cult/new religious

> movement, and

> explaining why it has the hallmarks of one.

>

In this environment it is more or less taken for granted that when we

say " cult " we are talking about a " destructive cult. " I don't see

where it is relevant that some people at the University of Virgina

designate AA as a cult meaning " new religious movement. "

>

> Further, 16 years ago when I took a fascinating course entitled " Cults

> in

> America, " the very bright prof, Judith Weightman (who went on to make

> a

> bundle on Jeopardy, and who knows more about Jim and town

> than

> anyone I know) became a friend of mine. She was in AA at the time,

> and not

> only insisted that it was a " cult " as that term is meant in her area

> of

> study, but she taught that it was. The thing is, she does not use

> that term

> pejoratively.

>

> Weightman further taught – and assigned scholarly articles in

> support of

> this view – that " brainwashing " is a largely discredited concept

> that simply

> is not a useful term vis-a-vis religious groups. By the standards

> most

> people use when applying the word, parochial schools, convents, and

> monasteries constitute cults in which brainwashing occurs.

That has not been my experience. I would say most people mean something

more akin to Steve Hassan's " destructive cult. "

>

>

> The word cult simply mean: a religion I don't like. Brainwashing

> means:

> indoctrination that I don't like, in a religion that I don't like.

>

Don't you take whether indoctrination is accomplish by lying and

deceit? Don't you think there is a huge distance between a woman who

goes to a nunnery to become a nun coming out with a set of beliefs that

she was expecting to have going in and someone going to a weekend

retreat to work for world peace and coming out believing Rev. Moon is

Jesus Incarnate?

>

> Now, I have not read Hassan's work, but the anti-cult movement

> promotes

> all sorts of unscholarly nonsense, that is not accepted by most

> students of

> religion.

Nonsense like what? Besides, not all cults are religious. The can also

be political and business.

> They frequently do this to justify their own criminal behavior

> that has been rejected by the courts. Behavior such as kidnaping

> adults and

> holding them prisoner to " deprogram " them.

Then obviously you have _not_ read anyone of significance in the

anti-cult movement.

>

>

> AA is a religious movement. Many in AA deny that almost hysterically,

>

> but they are in, um, denial. I spend quite a bit of time in

> ab.alcohol

> debating with Steppers, and when I posted the link to the UVA site

> they were

> majorly pissed, and said they didn't care what the " airy fairy "

> thinking of

> academics was. I believe critics of AA should care. It separates us

> from

> the obscurantism and anti-intellectualism of the Steppers, and thereby

> should

> give us credibility.

>

> AA is most problematic as a by-product of: (1) it usually being the

> only

> game in town that is presented as the " only way " in nearly every

> clinical

> setting, and by AA itself at the grassroots level, and (2) coerced

> attendance. By contrast, if AA was only one of, say, four equally

> respected

> routes to learning how to conquer problem drinking/drug abuse, we all

> would

> have a lot less animus toward it. It simply would not then be in a

> position

> to cause all the harm that it does.

>

> After all, what's it to you or me if some self-described alcoholics

> wish

> to follow a neo-Calvinist path of sin and redemption to get sober? As

> long

> as vulnerable people in detox are not told they must follow that path,

> and

> courts ane employers don't insist that they do, there is no harm and

> no foul,

> except the harm done to those who voluntarily subject themselves to

> it. But

> as it stands, it is a somewhat cruel joke to describe AA as

> " voluntary, "

> since one is informed that it is AA v. death, jail or institutions,

> and

> frequently there is a judge standing behind that threat ready and

> willing to

> make sure that at least jail is, indeed, a consequence of rejecting

> AA.

>

> In sum: it is the de facto monopoly that AA has on " recovery, " and the

>

> coercion embraced by the legal and employment sectors, that are the

> problems. But for those facts, it would just be a recovery option

> conducive only to those who actually want what it peddles. We don't

> need to

> employ inflammatory terms like " cult " or " brainwashing " to reject the

> fact

> that AA is a religious movement that indoctrinates people into falsely

>

> believing it is the only way to get and stay sober.

>

AA didn't always have a monopoly on " recovery. " They have worked hard

to gain it through front groups like NCADD, ASAM, professional groups

and H & I committees..

Ken Ragge

>

> –Mona--