Re: Reasonably and thoughtfully

August 21, 2001

Hello Joe,

You appear to miss the deeper points i have tried to make by

responding so emotionally. The criticisms you level against AA can be said

of almost any organisation whether voluntary or professional. Though this

does not excuse the abuses it gives the situation some perspective. Some may

choose to work within the organisation, rather than without, and may

sincerely hold the belief that is the manner in which reform has to be

tackled. There are more ways than one to peel an orange.

The individual can not, should not, be held responsible for all that goes

wrong within any organisation and there are sincere, honest and responsible

people trying their best within AA. The way forward, as i see it, is to

present these people with reasonable options, via more credible views and

information as to what is available, and not just to provide avenues in

which they can vent their ire. Flailing against windmills has not stood the

test of time. Rather than looking to what others must do, one can also look

to oneself and see what they can do in a positive sense.

SheilaP

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: Sheila 12-step-free >

>Subject: Reasonably and thoughtfully

>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:44:28 +0100

>

>Tuesday, August 21, 2001, 11:24:48 AM, you wrote:

>

> > I have little doubt that many honest and well intentioned people are

> > currently members of AA and issuing ferverent attacks on what they hold

>to

> > be the truth at this moment in time, might well alienate rather than

>inform.

>

>If I found someone abusing my child, I would not be overly concerned

>with offending him by intervening! My first priority would be to stop

>the abuse and make him responsible. AA, by giving misleading

>information and by the psychological manipulation of the vulnerable

>commits many abuses, and stopping that and making AA responsible is

>what matters.

>

> > Addressing the individual concerns reasonably and thoughtfully appears

>to be

> > a more fruitful way forward and all concerned may learn from the

>experience.

>

>It may appear so to you.

>

>It is AA's responsibility to stop the abuses their fellowship and

>program are perpetuating. But they don't seem to be doing so. It thus

>falls to persons outside to highlight these abuses, which is what is

>happening. Your vision of AA changing by dint of others'

>reasonableness and thoughtfulness is cosy but not realistic.

>

> > I have heard frequently that many members of AA have visited alternative

> > sites and have beeen repelled by the language used and the

>aggressiveness of

> > the approaches on view.

>

>Oh dear! Yes, I think we must protect these worthy burghers of AA from the

>distress they experience when they visit these unfriendly sites. I

>think the first step must surely be to take down all these alternative

>sites so that AA members are no longer upset. Then maybe we can write

>a nice letter to AA asking them to stop all the abuses. That should do

>the trick.

>

> > I think this is a very sad state of affairs and feel

> > that the situation as it stands could be furthered more productively by

> > constructive engagement rather than by fevered attacks.

>

>I'm obviously missing something, but I can't see quite what is so sad

>about AA members being upset by reading angry criticisms of AA. Surely

>if these people had a bean of common sense or integrity they would be

>asking themselves WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

>

> > Of course I may be

> > wrong, I often am.

> > It is natural that, when a persons belief system is attacked, they

>respond

> > strongly but, if truth is indeed on ones side, then no such intemperate

> > language needs to be used and it is, in fact, injurious to the cause. I

> > sincerely hope my views have not upset anyone as that is not my aim.

>

> > SheilaP

>

>OTOH it could be quite useful to AA to actually see the public

>relations disaster it has created for itself. It isn't as if the

> " intemperate language " wasn't a result of many, many serious abuses.

>

>Here's an idea. These AA members who are so shocked by the negative

>publicity AA has earned itself can apply their own program and look

>for " AA's part in it " . That should keep them busy for a while.

>

>Joe B.

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 21, 2001

Sheila wrote:

> Hello Joe,

> You appear to miss the deeper points i have tried to make by

> responding so emotionally. The criticisms you level against AA can be said

> of almost any organisation whether voluntary or professional.

Sheila,

Here are some criticisms, perhaps, that don't fit " almost any organization. "

1) AA is a harmful religious cult that grew out of the " spiritual principles, "

the whacko pro-Fascist leader of the Oxford Group. (see

www.aakills.com/books/revealed.htm )

2) AA (and the other step groups) through front organizations like the NCADD

have been working for decades to spread the " disease theory " and to use such as

justification for end runs around the Bill of Rights at the heart of coerced

" treatment " (forced Step indoctrination) of between one and two million people.

3) AA has been promoting a view of the individual and the world (the individual

is weak and must find a " Higher Power " to save him from himself) that is for all

practical political purposes the core belief of totalitarian systems everywhere

throughout history.

4) AA and other Step members are, through front organizations taking government

money to form groups to lobby for Stepper interests as merely " concerned

alcoholics " or " concerned addicts. " This even goes so far as a class at UNR to

teach " recovering people " to use children to lobby for their legislation.

(Anyone have the UNR link handy?)

> Though this

> does not excuse the abuses it gives the situation some perspective. Some may

> choose to work within the organisation, rather than without, and may

> sincerely hold the belief that is the manner in which reform has to be

> tackled. There are more ways than one to peel an orange.

As a former " internal reformer, " all I can say is, " You can't make a silk purse

out of a sows ear. "

>

> The individual can not, should not, be held responsible for all that goes

> wrong within any organisation and there are sincere, honest and responsible

> people trying their best within AA.

I can't argue that there aren't sincere people in AA. However, it isn't a

matter of things went wrong with AA. " Things " have been wrong with AA and still

are wrong since the " first 100 " were Oxford Group's " Alcoholic Squad. "

> The way forward, as i see it, is to

> present these people with reasonable options, via more credible views and

> information as to what is available, and not just to provide avenues in

> which they can vent their ire.

People having an opportunity to vent their ire is a very important part of

leaving the groups. In the groups, normal human emotion like anger and sadness

(resentment and self-pity) are seen as tricks of the disease. Suppression of

normal, healthy human response " emotional control " is necessary in all cults and

programs like Chinese Communist re-education.

> Flailing against windmills has not stood the

> test of time.

Expressing one's anger is not flailing against windmills. That is more

appropriate used to people trying to reform the groups.

> Rather than looking to what others must do, one can also look

> to oneself and see what they can do in a positive sense.

The problem is that those who have been in AA have been, under the guidance of

the program, only looking at flaws in themselves and were afraid to criticize

the Program. It is a very healthy thing for them to see other people able to

express anger at the Program without the fear of abandonment by God/the Program

and without self-destructing.

There is nothing wrong with being angry. Making someone think so is a thought

reform technique used by totalitarian organizations in their re-education

programs.

Ken Ragge

>

> SheilaP

August 21, 2001

The criticisms you level against AA can be said

> of almost any organisation whether voluntary or professional.

tell me of another organization , voluntary or professional, which dedicates an

entire chapter of its

main text attacking athiests and non belivers? and acuses them of being :

" prejudiced "

evasive

biased

stubborn

unreasonable

close minded

spiritually obsolete

ignorant

touchy

deluded

antagonistic

vain

illogical

" less " sane

dishonest

narrow in vision/backward thinking

" soft and mushy " thinkers

worshippers of " people, sentiment, things, money, and ourselves "

" handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice "

after you do that, find me once threatens death to same none belivers in god

such as this:

" doomed to an alcoholic death "

" unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve

Steps of

recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant . . . We must obey

certain principles

or we die. "

" But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis

of life -- or else. "

" Faced with alcoholic destruction, we soon became as open minded on spiritual

matters as we

had tried to be on other questions. In this respect alcohol was a great

persuader. It finally beat us

into a state of reasonableness "

A.A. is more than a set of principles; it is a society of alcoholics in action.

We must carry the

message, else we ourselves can wither and those who haven't been given the truth

may die.

and finally after you do that. find me another profefsional organization which

encourages belief in

a specfic god and then lies about it to every new person who walks in thier

door.

Bill tells us god is of our understanding, but he cant seem to help himself from

filling in the blanks

for us as to how god works for us though. i guess if my understanding of god is

one which

doesn't restore sanity (step 2), has a will for me to obey (steps 3 and 11) is

in " conscious

contact " with me (Steps 5 and 11), removes defects (Steps 6-7) listens to my

prayers (Step

11), i cant do steps. If i dont do steps, wilson threatens i will " die " and

sign my " own death

warrant " .(1)

(1)

" unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve

Steps of

recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant . . . We must obey

certain principles

or we die. "

-, W.] (1957). Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, New York:

Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., page 119

These were found in minutes in a scan of a few chapters. It would take a week to

pull all the

specific ideals expressed to describe how god of " our " understanding is, and

how this god of

" our " understanding will work for us from the over 400 references to " God " in

BB.

restores sanity

listens to our prayers

removes defects

is a living creator and whom we are its children

is male

has conscious contact with us

has relationships with us, has a will intended us to carry.

Does for us what we could not do for ourselves.

he is a " Creative Intelligence "

" Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things "

He doesn't make too hard terms with those who seek Him

the Realm of Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive

is a All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence

we are " intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation "

is the Spirit of the Universe

Presence of Infinite Power and Love

Steppers like to claim the steps are " spiritual. not religious " but clearly,

from the direction

(supposedly " suggestions " ) not only are the 12-step religious, they are

specially religious, in

that require the adoption of a specific understanding of this prayer answering.

defect removing

god.

RELIGIOUS INTENT

AA has been called religious for 60 years, and rightfully so, for it's founder

admitted as much, at

least when denying it wouldn't have served him.

Bill at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles in March, 1943:

" Divine Aid was A.A.'s greatest asset. "

" An alcoholic is a fellow who is " trying to get his religion out of a bottle, "

when what he really

wants is unity within himself, unity with God. " " There is a definite religious

element here. "

August 21, 2001

Hello Ken,

The point I was making about " any organisation " is to the fact

that all use manipulation and deception to attain their ends. Various

specifics are employed depending on the intended outcome. Religions, or

psuedo-religions are particulary active in all the points you mentioned as

regards AA. AA is not special in those areas, other than in the target

group.

You might not have made a purse out of a sows ear but the ideas and

objections you raised may have helped others to move on to a more

sophisticated understanding of the internal emotional dynamics of the an

approach that AA and other 12-step groups use. Because there is no

measurable outcome it does not mean efforts raised in these areas are

pointless. Indeed, much long term good can come out of such exertions. I am

not here to defend either AA nor any similar 12 step groups and am aware of

the damage they do but all adults are exposed to negative and manipulative

organisations on many occasions during their lives.

The remark about " venting ones ire " was made specifically to JoeB in the

context of our conversations. Of course being angry is a natural human

response in certain situations, and ways must be found of dealing with it,

helpful and not harmful ways. I need no lecture on the dynamics of cults,

either small localised ones or mass ones like the Catholic Church. I am very

much aware of the interface between the individual and such bodies, and the

emotional manipulation which characterises them.

Ranting about the wrongs of a situation to the converted may not seem like

" flailing against windmills " to you but it does to me. For the outcome of

those people who stay and expend such energies within 12 step groups and

raise objections see para 2. Energy spent in such a way is often productive

but, as the outcomes cannot be measured, it does not improve the public

standing of those involved, unlike those who preach to the converted in

populist prose.

The projection of your own very much alive prejudices on to me is

unhelpful and illustrates how emotionally shallow, though complicated, your

own understandings are. It is so easy to deconstruct and raise objections

and it is much more harrowing to remain in the front line.

SheilaP

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Reasonably and thoughtfully

>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:00:04 -0700

>

>Sheila wrote:

>

> > Hello Joe,

> > You appear to miss the deeper points i have tried to make by

> > responding so emotionally. The criticisms you level against AA can be

>said

> > of almost any organisation whether voluntary or professional.

>

>Sheila,

>

>Here are some criticisms, perhaps, that don't fit " almost any

>organization. "

>

>1) AA is a harmful religious cult that grew out of the " spiritual

>principles, "

>the whacko pro-Fascist leader of the Oxford Group. (see

>www.aakills.com/books/revealed.htm )

>

>2) AA (and the other step groups) through front organizations like the

>NCADD

>have been working for decades to spread the " disease theory " and to use

>such as

>justification for end runs around the Bill of Rights at the heart of

>coerced

> " treatment " (forced Step indoctrination) of between one and two million

>people.

>

>3) AA has been promoting a view of the individual and the world (the

>individual

>is weak and must find a " Higher Power " to save him from himself) that is

>for all

>practical political purposes the core belief of totalitarian systems

>everywhere

>throughout history.

>

>4) AA and other Step members are, through front organizations taking

>government

>money to form groups to lobby for Stepper interests as merely " concerned

>alcoholics " or " concerned addicts. " This even goes so far as a class at

>UNR to

>teach " recovering people " to use children to lobby for their legislation.

>(Anyone have the UNR link handy?)

>

> > Though this

> > does not excuse the abuses it gives the situation some perspective. Some

>may

> > choose to work within the organisation, rather than without, and may

> > sincerely hold the belief that is the manner in which reform has to be

> > tackled. There are more ways than one to peel an orange.

>

>As a former " internal reformer, " all I can say is, " You can't make a silk

>purse

>out of a sows ear. "

>

> >

> > The individual can not, should not, be held responsible for all that

>goes

> > wrong within any organisation and there are sincere, honest and

>responsible

> > people trying their best within AA.

>

>I can't argue that there aren't sincere people in AA. However, it isn't a

>matter of things went wrong with AA. " Things " have been wrong with AA and

>still

>are wrong since the " first 100 " were Oxford Group's " Alcoholic Squad. "

>

> > The way forward, as i see it, is to

> > present these people with reasonable options, via more credible views

>and

> > information as to what is available, and not just to provide avenues in

> > which they can vent their ire.

>

>People having an opportunity to vent their ire is a very important part of

>leaving the groups. In the groups, normal human emotion like anger and

>sadness

>(resentment and self-pity) are seen as tricks of the disease. Suppression

>of

>normal, healthy human response " emotional control " is necessary in all

>cults and

>programs like Chinese Communist re-education.

>

> > Flailing against windmills has not stood the

> > test of time.

>

>Expressing one's anger is not flailing against windmills. That is more

>appropriate used to people trying to reform the groups.

>

> > Rather than looking to what others must do, one can also look

> > to oneself and see what they can do in a positive sense.

>

>The problem is that those who have been in AA have been, under the guidance

>of

>the program, only looking at flaws in themselves and were afraid to

>criticize

>the Program. It is a very healthy thing for them to see other people able

>to

>express anger at the Program without the fear of abandonment by God/the

>Program

>and without self-destructing.

>

>There is nothing wrong with being angry. Making someone think so is a

>thought

>reform technique used by totalitarian organizations in their re-education

>programs.

>

>Ken Ragge

>

> >

> > SheilaP

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 21, 2001

Hello Dave,

Christianity.

SheilaP

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Reasonably and thoughtfully

>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:37:22 -0000

>

>The criticisms you level against AA can be said

> > of almost any organisation whether voluntary or professional.

>

>tell me of another organization , voluntary or professional, which

>dedicates an entire chapter of its

>main text attacking athiests and non belivers? and acuses them of being :

>

> " prejudiced "

>evasive

>biased

>stubborn

>unreasonable

>close minded

>spiritually obsolete

>ignorant

>touchy

>deluded

>antagonistic

>vain

>illogical

> " less " sane

>dishonest

>narrow in vision/backward thinking

> " soft and mushy " thinkers

>worshippers of " people, sentiment, things, money, and ourselves "

> " handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice "

>

>after you do that, find me once threatens death to same none belivers in

>god such as this:

>

> " doomed to an alcoholic death "

>

> " unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our suggested

>Twelve Steps of

>recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant . . . We must

>obey certain principles

>or we die. "

>

> " But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual

>basis of life -- or else. "

>

> " Faced with alcoholic destruction, we soon became as open minded on

>spiritual matters as we

>had tried to be on other questions. In this respect alcohol was a great

>persuader. It finally beat us

>into a state of reasonableness "

>

>A.A. is more than a set of principles; it is a society of alcoholics in

>action. We must carry the

>message, else we ourselves can wither and those who haven't been given the

>truth may die.

>

>and finally after you do that. find me another profefsional organization

>which encourages belief in

>a specfic god and then lies about it to every new person who walks in thier

>door.

>

>Bill tells us god is of our understanding, but he cant seem to help himself

>from filling in the blanks

>for us as to how god works for us though. i guess if my understanding of

>god is one which

>doesn't restore sanity (step 2), has a will for me to obey (steps 3 and 11)

>is in " conscious

>contact " with me (Steps 5 and 11), removes defects (Steps 6-7) listens to

>my prayers (Step

>11), i cant do steps. If i dont do steps, wilson threatens i will " die "

>and sign my " own death

>warrant " .(1)

>

>(1)

> " unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our suggested

>Twelve Steps of

>recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant . . . We must

>obey certain principles

>or we die. "

>

>-, W.] (1957). Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, New York:

>Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., page 119

>

>These were found in minutes in a scan of a few chapters. It would take a

>week to pull all the

>specific ideals expressed to describe how god of " our " understanding is,

>and how this god of

> " our " understanding will work for us from the over 400 references to " God "

>in BB.

>

>restores sanity

>listens to our prayers

>removes defects

>is a living creator and whom we are its children

>is male

>has conscious contact with us

>has relationships with us, has a will intended us to carry.

>Does for us what we could not do for ourselves.

>he is a " Creative Intelligence "

> " Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things "

>He doesn't make too hard terms with those who seek Him

>the Realm of Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive

>is a All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence

>we are " intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation "

>is the Spirit of the Universe

>Presence of Infinite Power and Love

>

>Steppers like to claim the steps are " spiritual. not religious " but

>clearly, from the direction

>(supposedly " suggestions " ) not only are the 12-step religious, they are

>specially religious, in

>that require the adoption of a specific understanding of this prayer

>answering. defect removing

>god.

>

>RELIGIOUS INTENT

>AA has been called religious for 60 years, and rightfully so, for it's

>founder admitted as much, at

>least when denying it wouldn't have served him.

>

>Bill at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles in March, 1943:

> " Divine Aid was A.A.'s greatest asset. "

> " An alcoholic is a fellow who is " trying to get his religion out of a

>bottle, " when what he really

>wants is unity within himself, unity with God. " " There is a definite

>religious element here. "

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 21, 2001

Sheila:

In a message dated 8/21/01 8:44:35 AM Central Daylight Time,

SheilaP309@... writes:

<< Hello Joe,

You appear to miss the deeper points i have tried to make by

responding so emotionally. The criticisms you level against AA can be said

of almost any organisation whether voluntary or professional. Though this

does not excuse the abuses it gives the situation some perspective. Some may

choose to work within the organisation, rather than without, and may

sincerely hold the belief that is the manner in which reform has to be

tackled.

-------------------------Jan

This type of reform will never happen in aa. Never. The organization has

controls in place that will keep this from ever happening. The most that can

be hoped for is that aa will eventually shrink, naturally.

-------------------------

There are more ways than one to peel an orange.

The individual can not, should not, be held responsible for all that goes

wrong within any organisation and there are sincere, honest and responsible

people trying their best within AA. The way forward, as i see it, is to

present these people with reasonable options, via more credible views and

information as to what is available, and not just to provide avenues in

which they can vent their ire. Flailing against windmills has not stood the

test of time. Rather than looking to what others must do, one can also look

to oneself and see what they can do in a positive sense. >>

------------------------------Jan

The most positive thing one can do is whatever is possible to expose aa as it

really is, encourage scientific and medical research into the problem of

addiction, and hope that courts keep finding aa a violation of one's

religious freedom.

--------------------------------

August 21, 2001

> The projection of your own very much alive prejudices on to me is

> unhelpful and illustrates how emotionally shallow, though complicated, your

> own understandings are. It is so easy to deconstruct and raise objections

> and it is much more harrowing to remain in the front line.

>

> SheilaP

my you are patronizing arent you?

August 21, 2001

Sheila wrote:

> Hello Ken,

> The point I was making about " any organisation " is to the fact

> that all use manipulation and deception to attain their ends. Various

> specifics are employed depending on the intended outcome. Religions, or

> psuedo-religions are particulary active in all the points you mentioned as

> regards AA. AA is not special in those areas, other than in the target

> group.

> You might not have made a purse out of a sows ear but the ideas and

> objections you raised may have helped others to move on to a more

> sophisticated understanding of the internal emotional dynamics of the an

> approach that AA and other 12-step groups use. Because there is no

> measurable outcome it does not mean efforts raised in these areas are

> pointless. Indeed, much long term good can come out of such exertions. I am

> not here to defend either AA nor any similar 12 step groups and am aware of

> the damage they do but all adults are exposed to negative and manipulative

> organisations on many occasions during their lives.

> The remark about " venting ones ire " was made specifically to JoeB in the

> context of our conversations. Of course being angry is a natural human

> response in certain situations, and ways must be found of dealing with it,

> helpful and not harmful ways. I need no lecture on the dynamics of cults,

> either small localised ones or mass ones like the Catholic Church. I am very

> much aware of the interface between the individual and such bodies, and the

> emotional manipulation which characterises them.

> Ranting about the wrongs of a situation to the converted may not seem like

> " flailing against windmills " to you but it does to me. For the outcome of

> those people who stay and expend such energies within 12 step groups and

> raise objections see para 2. Energy spent in such a way is often productive

> but, as the outcomes cannot be measured, it does not improve the public

> standing of those involved, unlike those who preach to the converted in

> populist prose.

> The projection of your own very much alive prejudices on to me is

> unhelpful and illustrates how emotionally shallow, though complicated, your

> own understandings are. It is so easy to deconstruct and raise objections

> and it is much more harrowing to remain in the front line.

>

> SheilaP

Sheila,

Golly geez. I guess I'm just too emotionally shallow and too prejudiced to have

discourse with you. You seem to know _everything_.

By the way, how is the weather up there on your lofty pedestal?

Ken Ragge

August 21, 2001

yea, i suppose i could always join the KKK, neo nazi's or heavens gate if i

wanted to peel their

oranges i guess. And your right, the member's of those groups shouldn't be held

responsible

for what goes wrong within their organizations, even when they do nothing to

address or

acknowledge the problems.

afterall, the harms an organization does is caused by those outside of it who

just dont know how

hard those sincere nazis are working on internal reform. i guess i was wrong

about them and all

those who speak up against them are just " Flailing against windmills " .

Some may

> choose to work within the organisation, rather than without, and may

> sincerely hold the belief that is the manner in which reform has to be

> tackled. There are more ways than one to peel an orange.

> The individual can not, should not, be held responsible for all that goes

> wrong within any organisation and there are sincere, honest and responsible

> people trying their best within AA.

The way forward, as i see it, is to

> present these people with reasonable options, via more credible views and

> information as to what is available, and not just to provide avenues in

> which they can vent their ire. Flailing against windmills has not stood the

> test of time. Rather than looking to what others must do, one can also look

> to oneself and see what they can do in a positive sense.

>

> SheilaP

>

> >From: " Joe B. "

> >Reply-To: 12-step-free@y...

> >To: Sheila <12-step-free@y...>

> >Subject: Reasonably and thoughtfully

> >Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:44:28 +0100

> >

> >Tuesday, August 21, 2001, 11:24:48 AM, you wrote:

> >

> > > I have little doubt that many honest and well intentioned people are

> > > currently members of AA and issuing ferverent attacks on what they hold

> >to

> > > be the truth at this moment in time, might well alienate rather than

> >inform.

> >

> >If I found someone abusing my child, I would not be overly concerned

> >with offending him by intervening! My first priority would be to stop

> >the abuse and make him responsible. AA, by giving misleading

> >information and by the psychological manipulation of the vulnerable

> >commits many abuses, and stopping that and making AA responsible is

> >what matters.

> >

> > > Addressing the individual concerns reasonably and thoughtfully appears

> >to be

> > > a more fruitful way forward and all concerned may learn from the

> >experience.

> >

> >It may appear so to you.

> >

> >It is AA's responsibility to stop the abuses their fellowship and

> >program are perpetuating. But they don't seem to be doing so. It thus

> >falls to persons outside to highlight these abuses, which is what is

> >happening. Your vision of AA changing by dint of others'

> >reasonableness and thoughtfulness is cosy but not realistic.

> >

> > > I have heard frequently that many members of AA have visited alternative

> > > sites and have beeen repelled by the language used and the

> >aggressiveness of

> > > the approaches on view.

> >

> >Oh dear! Yes, I think we must protect these worthy burghers of AA from the

> >distress they experience when they visit these unfriendly sites. I

> >think the first step must surely be to take down all these alternative

> >sites so that AA members are no longer upset. Then maybe we can write

> >a nice letter to AA asking them to stop all the abuses. That should do

> >the trick.

> >

> > > I think this is a very sad state of affairs and feel

> > > that the situation as it stands could be furthered more productively by

> > > constructive engagement rather than by fevered attacks.

> >

> >I'm obviously missing something, but I can't see quite what is so sad

> >about AA members being upset by reading angry criticisms of AA. Surely

> >if these people had a bean of common sense or integrity they would be

> >asking themselves WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

> >

> > > Of course I may be

> > > wrong, I often am.

> > > It is natural that, when a persons belief system is attacked, they

> >respond

> > > strongly but, if truth is indeed on ones side, then no such intemperate

> > > language needs to be used and it is, in fact, injurious to the cause. I

> > > sincerely hope my views have not upset anyone as that is not my aim.

> >

> > > SheilaP

> >

> >OTOH it could be quite useful to AA to actually see the public

> >relations disaster it has created for itself. It isn't as if the

> > " intemperate language " wasn't a result of many, many serious abuses.

> >

> >Here's an idea. These AA members who are so shocked by the negative

> >publicity AA has earned itself can apply their own program and look

> >for " AA's part in it " . That should keep them busy for a while.

> >

> >Joe B.

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 21, 2001

Hi Ray:

Your post illustrates exactly what Ken talked about - people who've been

fucked by aa do have anger issues and grief issues. I feel sad when I

realize how much harm aa did to my already nonexistent self esteem. All

those years wasted when I was convinced I would not " recover " without aa. I

should have been in the therapy I'm in now. Sheila P. should read your

email! Yes, Sheila, let's approach the cult with reasonable and thoughtful

ideas. Had Sheila ever been in aa, she'd die laughing at this. She'd be

ducking slogans left and right.

You're welcome to be critical of what you read here. I try to use alcohol

dependency instead of " alcoholism " . I was physically dependent and required

detox. I'm unable to even approach the idea of god at this time. I no

longer feel guilty if I don't pray for god's will about everything. Everyone

is going through their own deprogramming their own way.

aa sucks. We all know that. Check out the links in the Bookmark section.

Check out aadeprogramming.com. Be as pissed as you need to. I severed all

ties to aa. My therapist suggested I was too black and white about aa,

however, when I approached two women friends about what I was learning about

aa, one gently brushed me off, and the other flat out laughed. I would have

concidered these two women the most open minded people I could approach.

There is no such thing as an open mind in aa.

aa will never be reformed. Period. It's designed to resist reformation.

Period.

IMHO - You needn't apologize for your anger or bluntness. You are expressing

your thoughts, feelings and experiences. I would never censor your privilege

to do so. This is a perfect forum for that.

BTW - I too was always told I needed a sponsor, but from what I read, they

help you work the steps, and I already " knew how " , and didn't see what a

sponsor could do for me. Help me not drink? I had already quit. I didn't

need a sponsor. Never did get one that lasted more than a few weeks.

I read somewhere, can't remember, that medicine isn't buying the disease

concept anymore, someone help me with this, was it a post I read? I do

support alternatives and research. How absurd to treat a compulsive behavior

with religion.

Jan

In a message dated 8/21/01 10:52:15 PM Central Daylight Time,

Rwin@... writes:

<< Hi gang,

I've been reading the debate and I just want to stick in my two cents in

random order...hope no one's offended.

1) AA should not be reformed, it should be (intellectually at least)

destroyed.

2) AA did me (and many others) and the general culture, far greater damage

than drinking ever could. It cost me a marriage, reputation, insureability,

winning or losing a contracts, access to certain services etc...if anyone is

declared " alcoholic " in any legal or medical data base...it's forever...all

because I went to rehab and let insurance pay the tab. I'm somewhat

ashamed

of myself for buying into that cult the way I did.

3) To those of you who opt for " research into alcoholism " , as opposed to

" stepism " , I believe you have accepted the enemy's (AA) premise...there's

nothing to research! Research is for " diseases " . People drink (and dance,

cook, jog, smoke and screw) because they like it...it's that simple. If

one's drinking (or danceing or cooking or jogging or smokeing or screwing)

is

causeing life problems, then you can give it up, or moderate or accept the

problems. It is at this point that AA sinks it's claws into otherwise

rational people, and starts the intellectual damage...it teaches you don't

have a choice. What if one can't stop drinking as AA proports, (or danceing

or cooking or jogging or smokeing or screwing) etc, etc etc, etc? At this

point, when one is in trouble, the ideas that AA keeps, do their damage.

Ideas rule the world, not armies...armies enforce the idea. What are AA's

ideas?...You're diseased (false), you're powerless over it (false) only

surrender to our fellowship can save you (false) and your family, job,

country etc.(false, false, false) !!! I accepted this tragic idiocy hook,

line and sinker...and now I'm paying for it. It's about ideas!, not

sponsors, it's about responsibility!, not research, it's about character!,

not excuses! If I sound passionate or angry...I AM! AA f----d me good!

Sometimes I read this 12-step free stuff, and I'm amused at how, pardon me

please, sophomoric and shallow it is. The death camp was predictable,

given

the Nazi ideas, as was the gulag, given Lenin's ideas etc. Alcohol aside,

does anyone see how evil and destructive, the acceptance of these " false "

ideas are...to a person?, a family?, a nation? Think about it. Anyone

ever

been sued unjustly? or sue unjustly? or cheat on a lover? or let someone

down

because somehow , " I'm not responsible " ? Anyone ever intrigued by a

murderer's defense, as a variation on 12-step think?..(my parents made me do

it?) We 12-step free, should drop the term(s)

" alcoholic " / " alcoholism " ...they have no more validity than " danceaholic " or

" cookingism " and worse, it keeps the disease idea alive...let's research

cancer.

4) My soon to be ex-wife and I had another couple as friends...they were

12-steppers...I was running from it. We used to go to dinner and discuss or

argue the merits of AA vs Trimpey vs Peele vs Dr Bob...much like this site.

They went to meetings and had sponsors, I was learning that the problem was

thinking one needed a sponsor. Net, net...the woman from the other couple,

is dead (OD'd), and left a 5 year old...I'm alive and getting through the

wreckage...bad ideas have consequences! I will never forget the smugness

and self-righteousness of her " program supporters " who I believe needed an

occasional death or other tragedy to solidify their " group " think. I

overheard the usual nonsense... " if only she called her sponsor that day " ,

" some are sicker than others " , " she couldn't get honest " etc. As they

circled for their serenity prayer, I had the fantasy of machine-gunning

them, you see in my humble opinion they, and their ideas, killed her, and

continue to do so to others, and they're never taken to task.

Again, I apologize for my anger and bluntness, but I'm hurting. I hate AA

and all it's progeny, I don't respect intellectuals or practitioners who

honor and accept it uncritically, and I do not think the answer is

alternatives...AA is " one of many ways " ...like the KKK or moonies. AA is a

dead-end. Some of you are at war with it, you know what I'm talking about.

Others like to discuss it over tea in a side walk cafe. I'm really angry.

Is there a fellowship for that?

Ray >>

August 21, 2001

>

" You can't make a silk purse

> out of a sows ear. "

>

Right on. Thats great! Like the way you put it.

> >SheilaP wrote;

there are sincere, honest and responsible

> > people trying their best within AA.

No shit....of course there is.

I can still cry over the young girls and

and all the others that I hand feed to the

program and evil guru's. My beliefs(taught by aa)

were sincere and so very wrong. People got hurt.

My whole family parroted aa at home,we were

literally killing each other.

Being sincere, honest, responsible...does not,

make it good or right. My intentions were for

helping my family, myself, and others.

I was wrong - dead wrong.

>

> > Flailing against windmills has not stood the

> > test of time.

What a compassionate statement.

My dear, what do you do when you get burned?

> (oh boy, my hand is on fire, just wonder if it

will stand the test of time)

>

> There is nothing wrong with being angry.

That's really good - anger saved my life.

netty

August 21, 2001

Sheila:

WOW. You really seem to know everything. I find it hard though, to find

anything of substance in your postings. If you have all the answers, please

go fix all the problems. You can start by reforming aa from the inside out

lolololololol.

Jan

In a message dated 8/21/01 1:39:10 PM Central Daylight Time,

SheilaP309@... writes:

<< ello Ken,