Re: Comparing The Forum, est, Zen, AA, RR etc.

[Guest guest]

psoftinf-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8852

>

>

> I think it is hard for any " survivor " of a " program " (religious,

spiritual

> or transformative) to forget that the group does seem to work just

> fine for some people. My two sisters are JW's and they are happy

> to be that way. Some people are happy to be in AA. Some people

> think RR is just super, and some people have turned their lives

> around by " accepting Jesus " as their " personal savior " .

>

> When I joined this mail group, I was looking for alternatives to AA.

> I see, alas, a lot of AA-bashing. This may serve an important

> emotional need for people who have been hurt by AA. Some people

> feel anger, and need to dischage it. Nonetheless, I have to wonder

> if there isn't a gentler way for us to proceed.

>

> Wouldn't it be more helpful to address our issues in a positive and

> ecumenical manner than to get into negativity and " bashing " ?

>

> You tell me what YOU think.

>

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

Well, I'll say the same thing to you that many of us say to others

who visit here with similar points of view:

Yes, there are people who are truly happy with AA and other A's.

So what? -- they have hundreds of lists and boards to post on. This is

the ONLY list set up specifically for people who wish to discuss the

harmful aspects of XA, and to criticise the sacred 12-step cow without

being attacked as " in denial " or " diseased " or some other insult.

(Please see the group description statement; I can post it if you

like.) If we play nicey-nicey and avoid any so-called " negative " or

" bashing " here, then WHERE do people go to express these views?

And please remember a major point -- there are countless numbers

of people who can't relate to 12-step philosophy and practice who

_aren't allowed to leave_. I refer to people who are forced to attend

XA by court or employer order, and risk losing their jobs, their

children, or their very freedom if they remain sober and responsible

citizens without going to X number of meetings a week. Sometimes mere

attendance isn't enough for their tormentors -- in my own case, I was

quizzed on the steps, and told repeatedly that abstinence is

irrelevant, that I couldn't be " trusted " to be " in recovery " (and

therefore fit for duty) unless I stated that I had an " incurable

disease " and needed to spend the rest of my life " working on recovery " .

What other sobriety program, what other religious/spiritual program of

any type, requires attendance and loyalty-to-the-faith oaths to stay

out of jail or keep a state job??

It is because of too many people, for too long, keeping criticism

and " bashing " of AA in check that the coercion grew to such a shocking

level. And it is because of a few brave folks unafraid to " bash " that

major court decisions like vs. Coughlin took place. (For those

unfamiliar, v. Coughlin states that no citizen, even a prison

inmate, can be required to attend AA/NA under threat of punishment,

BECAUSE 12-STEP PHILOSOPHY IS " UNEQUIVOCALLY RELIGIOUS " . Nicey-nicey

people would never have dared to argue with the deluded XA'ers who

insist that " turning your life and will over to the care of God " isn't

at all religious.

12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

feel like " bashing " . BTW, many listmembers have criticised Rational

Recovery and other programs and philosophies. There are no sacred cows

here, and no one " group-think " .

~Rita

> (As for me, I'm off to the web to look up Moderation Management.)

>

Let us know what you think.

[Guest guest]

psoftinf-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8852

>

>

> I think it is hard for any " survivor " of a " program " (religious,

spiritual

> or transformative) to forget that the group does seem to work just

> fine for some people. My two sisters are JW's and they are happy

> to be that way. Some people are happy to be in AA. Some people

> think RR is just super, and some people have turned their lives

> around by " accepting Jesus " as their " personal savior " .

>

> When I joined this mail group, I was looking for alternatives to AA.

> I see, alas, a lot of AA-bashing. This may serve an important

> emotional need for people who have been hurt by AA. Some people

> feel anger, and need to dischage it. Nonetheless, I have to wonder

> if there isn't a gentler way for us to proceed.

>

> Wouldn't it be more helpful to address our issues in a positive and

> ecumenical manner than to get into negativity and " bashing " ?

>

> You tell me what YOU think.

>

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

Well, I'll say the same thing to you that many of us say to others

who visit here with similar points of view:

Yes, there are people who are truly happy with AA and other A's.

So what? -- they have hundreds of lists and boards to post on. This is

the ONLY list set up specifically for people who wish to discuss the

harmful aspects of XA, and to criticise the sacred 12-step cow without

being attacked as " in denial " or " diseased " or some other insult.

(Please see the group description statement; I can post it if you

like.) If we play nicey-nicey and avoid any so-called " negative " or

" bashing " here, then WHERE do people go to express these views?

And please remember a major point -- there are countless numbers

of people who can't relate to 12-step philosophy and practice who

_aren't allowed to leave_. I refer to people who are forced to attend

XA by court or employer order, and risk losing their jobs, their

children, or their very freedom if they remain sober and responsible

citizens without going to X number of meetings a week. Sometimes mere

attendance isn't enough for their tormentors -- in my own case, I was

quizzed on the steps, and told repeatedly that abstinence is

irrelevant, that I couldn't be " trusted " to be " in recovery " (and

therefore fit for duty) unless I stated that I had an " incurable

disease " and needed to spend the rest of my life " working on recovery " .

What other sobriety program, what other religious/spiritual program of

any type, requires attendance and loyalty-to-the-faith oaths to stay

out of jail or keep a state job??

It is because of too many people, for too long, keeping criticism

and " bashing " of AA in check that the coercion grew to such a shocking

level. And it is because of a few brave folks unafraid to " bash " that

major court decisions like vs. Coughlin took place. (For those

unfamiliar, v. Coughlin states that no citizen, even a prison

inmate, can be required to attend AA/NA under threat of punishment,

BECAUSE 12-STEP PHILOSOPHY IS " UNEQUIVOCALLY RELIGIOUS " . Nicey-nicey

people would never have dared to argue with the deluded XA'ers who

insist that " turning your life and will over to the care of God " isn't

at all religious.

12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

feel like " bashing " . BTW, many listmembers have criticised Rational

Recovery and other programs and philosophies. There are no sacred cows

here, and no one " group-think " .

~Rita

> (As for me, I'm off to the web to look up Moderation Management.)

>

Let us know what you think.

[Guest guest]

psoftinf-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8852

>

>

> I think it is hard for any " survivor " of a " program " (religious,

spiritual

> or transformative) to forget that the group does seem to work just

> fine for some people. My two sisters are JW's and they are happy

> to be that way. Some people are happy to be in AA. Some people

> think RR is just super, and some people have turned their lives

> around by " accepting Jesus " as their " personal savior " .

>

> When I joined this mail group, I was looking for alternatives to AA.

> I see, alas, a lot of AA-bashing. This may serve an important

> emotional need for people who have been hurt by AA. Some people

> feel anger, and need to dischage it. Nonetheless, I have to wonder

> if there isn't a gentler way for us to proceed.

>

> Wouldn't it be more helpful to address our issues in a positive and

> ecumenical manner than to get into negativity and " bashing " ?

>

> You tell me what YOU think.

>

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

Well, I'll say the same thing to you that many of us say to others

who visit here with similar points of view:

Yes, there are people who are truly happy with AA and other A's.

So what? -- they have hundreds of lists and boards to post on. This is

the ONLY list set up specifically for people who wish to discuss the

harmful aspects of XA, and to criticise the sacred 12-step cow without

being attacked as " in denial " or " diseased " or some other insult.

(Please see the group description statement; I can post it if you

like.) If we play nicey-nicey and avoid any so-called " negative " or

" bashing " here, then WHERE do people go to express these views?

And please remember a major point -- there are countless numbers

of people who can't relate to 12-step philosophy and practice who

_aren't allowed to leave_. I refer to people who are forced to attend

XA by court or employer order, and risk losing their jobs, their

children, or their very freedom if they remain sober and responsible

citizens without going to X number of meetings a week. Sometimes mere

attendance isn't enough for their tormentors -- in my own case, I was

quizzed on the steps, and told repeatedly that abstinence is

irrelevant, that I couldn't be " trusted " to be " in recovery " (and

therefore fit for duty) unless I stated that I had an " incurable

disease " and needed to spend the rest of my life " working on recovery " .

What other sobriety program, what other religious/spiritual program of

any type, requires attendance and loyalty-to-the-faith oaths to stay

out of jail or keep a state job??

It is because of too many people, for too long, keeping criticism

and " bashing " of AA in check that the coercion grew to such a shocking

level. And it is because of a few brave folks unafraid to " bash " that

major court decisions like vs. Coughlin took place. (For those

unfamiliar, v. Coughlin states that no citizen, even a prison

inmate, can be required to attend AA/NA under threat of punishment,

BECAUSE 12-STEP PHILOSOPHY IS " UNEQUIVOCALLY RELIGIOUS " . Nicey-nicey

people would never have dared to argue with the deluded XA'ers who

insist that " turning your life and will over to the care of God " isn't

at all religious.

12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

feel like " bashing " . BTW, many listmembers have criticised Rational

Recovery and other programs and philosophies. There are no sacred cows

here, and no one " group-think " .

~Rita

> (As for me, I'm off to the web to look up Moderation Management.)

>

Let us know what you think.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 7:40:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

railroadrita@... writes:

> 12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

> to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

> feel like " bashing " .

Actually, I acknowledged in my letter that the " bashing " serves a

purpose (I gave the example of " discharge of anger " ). So I would

not want to tell anybody that there are any " sacred cows " . Gosh,

no.

I did check out " Moderation Management " , and it looks pretty good.

However, I suspect that I will have to abstain from alcohol, not simply

moderate my usage. You see, I never really drank just to relax;

I drank to get well pickled. If I can't get drunk, imbibing alcohol

seems like a waste of time and money. I certainly don't drink for

the TASTE. Apart from Guiness beer, all alcoholic beverages taste

awful (to me).

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 7:40:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

railroadrita@... writes:

> 12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

> to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

> feel like " bashing " .

Actually, I acknowledged in my letter that the " bashing " serves a

purpose (I gave the example of " discharge of anger " ). So I would

not want to tell anybody that there are any " sacred cows " . Gosh,

no.

I did check out " Moderation Management " , and it looks pretty good.

However, I suspect that I will have to abstain from alcohol, not simply

moderate my usage. You see, I never really drank just to relax;

I drank to get well pickled. If I can't get drunk, imbibing alcohol

seems like a waste of time and money. I certainly don't drink for

the TASTE. Apart from Guiness beer, all alcoholic beverages taste

awful (to me).

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 7:40:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

railroadrita@... writes:

> 12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

> to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

> feel like " bashing " .

Actually, I acknowledged in my letter that the " bashing " serves a

purpose (I gave the example of " discharge of anger " ). So I would

not want to tell anybody that there are any " sacred cows " . Gosh,

no.

I did check out " Moderation Management " , and it looks pretty good.

However, I suspect that I will have to abstain from alcohol, not simply

moderate my usage. You see, I never really drank just to relax;

I drank to get well pickled. If I can't get drunk, imbibing alcohol

seems like a waste of time and money. I certainly don't drink for

the TASTE. Apart from Guiness beer, all alcoholic beverages taste

awful (to me).

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 13:30:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

johnhollister@... writes:

> He stated, " I have never (in ten years) been criticized by an AA member

> for the fact that I am an atheist. "

>

> He must have kept very quiet about it. Either that or there must be AA

> meetings in an alternate universe that I have not yet attended. Quite

> frankly I'm skeptical, and the alarms have been going off since I read

> his entire introduction yesterday.

To reiterarte: I have NOT hidden my atheism from ANYBODY in

AA (except in the specific instance I mentioned, which is when

I'm running a meeting and do not want to appear to be presenting

some kind of " official " opinion).

Oh, it's true that I've had some people ask me about my stance, but

they always seem more bewildered than hostile. The most typical

comment is, " It must be very hard NOT to believe in God. "

I'm not in some kind of " alternate universe " . I live in Montreal, Canada.

Maybe there are Bible-thumpers in your area, but I've rarely encountered

those in AA. Thank goodness!

I'm sorry if my message made " alarm bells " go off. If you're still not

comfortable with what I say, feel free to grill me. I am hard to offend.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 13:30:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

johnhollister@... writes:

> He stated, " I have never (in ten years) been criticized by an AA member

> for the fact that I am an atheist. "

>

> He must have kept very quiet about it. Either that or there must be AA

> meetings in an alternate universe that I have not yet attended. Quite

> frankly I'm skeptical, and the alarms have been going off since I read

> his entire introduction yesterday.

To reiterarte: I have NOT hidden my atheism from ANYBODY in

AA (except in the specific instance I mentioned, which is when

I'm running a meeting and do not want to appear to be presenting

some kind of " official " opinion).

Oh, it's true that I've had some people ask me about my stance, but

they always seem more bewildered than hostile. The most typical

comment is, " It must be very hard NOT to believe in God. "

I'm not in some kind of " alternate universe " . I live in Montreal, Canada.

Maybe there are Bible-thumpers in your area, but I've rarely encountered

those in AA. Thank goodness!

I'm sorry if my message made " alarm bells " go off. If you're still not

comfortable with what I say, feel free to grill me. I am hard to offend.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 14:32:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

johnhollister@... writes:

> A Big Book thumper is all it takes.

I've met a couple of those. Most of them are (in this area) looked upon

with a kind of wry amusement, although they do have their adherents.

For example, I know of one thumper who has a bit of a following. He has

helped a lot of people (mostly ex-felons). On the other hand, a lot of

people dislike him. Speaking for myself, I like him; he has an awesome

(and raunchy) sense of humour. But I rarely go to one of " his " meetings.

What I am gradually coming to understand, through this email group, is

that in some areas AA is homogenous. There are lots of meetings over

here, and I like some of them. Others I dislike and steer clear of. So

I've got a wide range of choices. It would appear, though, from what I've

been reading here, that there isn't so much choice in other areas. That

sucks.

> For now, many just need to debrief, decompress, and deprogram after

> years of exposure to AA's deceitful philosophy and followers.

Point taken. AA must be pretty dogmatic in some places. I've

occasionally encountered an AA in my area who, for example, says

that people must not take medication (such as anti-depressants or

tranquilizers), even if they're presecribed by a doctor. Fortunately,

such zealots are rare around here; I'm sure they can cause a lot of

damage and it is only right to take them to task.

> The AA you speak of is a completely different animal than we

> have encountered.

I guess I should count my blessings!

[Guest guest]

> 12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

> to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

> feel like " bashing " . BTW, many listmembers have criticised Rational

> Recovery and other programs and philosophies. There are no sacred cows

> here, and no one " group-think " .

>

> ~Rita

Thanks Rita,

I've been sitting on my hands. Thanks for stepping up to the plate,

and telling it like it is. I'm all for rising above it all and

practicing tolerance in a number of arenas, but let's not overdo it.

I'm also having a serious problem with the statement he made in regard

to professing Atheism in the hallowed halls of AA.

He stated, " I have never (in ten years) been criticized by an AA member

for the fact that I am an atheist. "

He must have kept very quiet about it. Either that or there must be AA

meetings in an alternate universe that I have not yet attended. Quite

frankly I'm skeptical, and the alarms have been going off since I read

his entire introduction yesterday.

[Guest guest]

> 12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

> to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

> feel like " bashing " . BTW, many listmembers have criticised Rational

> Recovery and other programs and philosophies. There are no sacred cows

> here, and no one " group-think " .

>

> ~Rita

Thanks Rita,

I've been sitting on my hands. Thanks for stepping up to the plate,

and telling it like it is. I'm all for rising above it all and

practicing tolerance in a number of arenas, but let's not overdo it.

I'm also having a serious problem with the statement he made in regard

to professing Atheism in the hallowed halls of AA.

He stated, " I have never (in ten years) been criticized by an AA member

for the fact that I am an atheist. "

He must have kept very quiet about it. Either that or there must be AA

meetings in an alternate universe that I have not yet attended. Quite

frankly I'm skeptical, and the alarms have been going off since I read

his entire introduction yesterday.

[Guest guest]

> 12-step-free will remain a freethinkers' forum where all are free

> to express all points of view, and especially to " bash " whatever we

> feel like " bashing " . BTW, many listmembers have criticised Rational

> Recovery and other programs and philosophies. There are no sacred cows

> here, and no one " group-think " .

>

> ~Rita

Thanks Rita,

I've been sitting on my hands. Thanks for stepping up to the plate,

and telling it like it is. I'm all for rising above it all and

practicing tolerance in a number of arenas, but let's not overdo it.

I'm also having a serious problem with the statement he made in regard

to professing Atheism in the hallowed halls of AA.

He stated, " I have never (in ten years) been criticized by an AA member

for the fact that I am an atheist. "

He must have kept very quiet about it. Either that or there must be AA

meetings in an alternate universe that I have not yet attended. Quite

frankly I'm skeptical, and the alarms have been going off since I read

his entire introduction yesterday.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/99 2:46:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

appledtp@... writes:

<< , this is hilarious. I almost choked on my dinner reading it. How

much is an airline ticket from Montreal to So. Cal. so our friend can

visit the Pacifica Group? Sir, you haven't lived until you've gotten

humble by picking up Clancy the AA guru's dog's poop from his yard, in

an effort to demonstrate to the Man Himself, your unquestioning

humility and obedience; your willingness to b-e-n-d over backwards and

t-w-i-s-t yourself into postion, to c-o-n-f-o-r-m in every way

possible, with your mind, body, and spirit, so that the very essence of

your soul beats-beats-beats to the goose-steppin' tempo of the doctrine

of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Apple

>>

I " ll pitch in some of the fare.

[Guest guest]

I'm not in some kind of " alternate universe " . I live in Montreal, Canada.

> Maybe there are Bible-thumpers in your area, but I've rarely encountered

> those in AA. Thank goodness!

Dude,

A Big Book thumper is all it takes. I have attended meetings all over

the world and have yet to encounter a place where AA subscribes to the

temperate attitudes you have described. Perhaps Canada is the exception

to the rule. Don't let the word get out, or you may see a mass migration

of U.S. citizens flooding across the border to escape AA atrocities in

the States in order to seek recovery in the great white north. It'll be

the biggest exodus since the Vietnam War.

I implore you to attend a few meetings in Southern California. Then you

will see what we are all talking about, and why we are so pissed. Then

again. Why put yourself through it. Just take my word for it, and enjoy

yourself where you are.

I agree it would be wonderful to get to where you're at with the whole

thing, but here at step free you are dealing with people who have been

badly abused by the membership of this seemingly benign organization.

For now, many just need to debrief, decompress, and deprogram after

years of exposure to AA's deceitful philosophy and followers. The AA you

speak of is a completely different animal than we have encountered.

[Guest guest]

I'm not in some kind of " alternate universe " . I live in Montreal, Canada.

> Maybe there are Bible-thumpers in your area, but I've rarely encountered

> those in AA. Thank goodness!

Dude,

A Big Book thumper is all it takes. I have attended meetings all over

the world and have yet to encounter a place where AA subscribes to the

temperate attitudes you have described. Perhaps Canada is the exception

to the rule. Don't let the word get out, or you may see a mass migration

of U.S. citizens flooding across the border to escape AA atrocities in

the States in order to seek recovery in the great white north. It'll be

the biggest exodus since the Vietnam War.

I implore you to attend a few meetings in Southern California. Then you

will see what we are all talking about, and why we are so pissed. Then

again. Why put yourself through it. Just take my word for it, and enjoy

yourself where you are.

I agree it would be wonderful to get to where you're at with the whole

thing, but here at step free you are dealing with people who have been

badly abused by the membership of this seemingly benign organization.

For now, many just need to debrief, decompress, and deprogram after

years of exposure to AA's deceitful philosophy and followers. The AA you

speak of is a completely different animal than we have encountered.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 18:40:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

joe-b@... writes:

> AA sets itself up as the one and only way, yet there is no good evidence

> beyond the anecdotal that its approach is effective...

I've often wondered about that. How many people does AA actually help

in a long-lasting way? What is its success ratio? I have no idea, but

from what I've seen, it's not miraculously good.

> AA monopolises the treatment field with an approach that is

> negative, religious, unproven, unscientific and that is objected to by many

> who do not care to be told they are diseased or dishonest when they are

> looking for good quality help.

I can't argue with that. You phrased it carefully, unemotionally and (in

my view) accurately.

> If you want to convince us that criticising

> that is wrong, you will have some work to do.

Well, I'm hoping that in addition to AA criticism (which I've now seen

serves an important purpose here), I also hear some success stories

about other approaches -- the less religious the better. It would also

help if these approaches had a social dimension (as opposed to simply

being yet another book for me to read). I believe that AA helped me

in many ways because it brought me into contact with many people I

liked, and with whom I could talk openly and honestly.

Somebody mentioned that I was " nameless " , so I'll start signing

my messages...

-

http://users.aol.com/beyondjw

[Guest guest]

At 05:46 AM 28/10/99 EDT, you wrote:

>When I joined this mail group, I was looking for alternatives to AA.

>I see, alas, a lot of AA-bashing. This may serve an important

>emotional need for people who have been hurt by AA. Some people

>feel anger, and need to dischage it. Nonetheless, I have to wonder

>if there isn't a gentler way for us to proceed.

>

>Wouldn't it be more helpful to address our issues in a positive and

>ecumenical manner than to get into negativity and " bashing " ?

>

>You tell me what YOU think.

I don't see what is wrong with " AA bashing " as you call it, or criticising

AA as I call it. I can criticise politicians, businesses, wars, crimes

against humanity, loud car radios and bad interior decor. So I can

criticise AA.

AA is treated by some as a sacred comw that must not be criticised, though

I have yet to see any convincing argument for this. This is very unhealthy.

Criticising a sacred cow is good!

AA sets itself up as the one and only way, yet there is no good evidence

beyond the anecdotal that its approach is effective, while evidence already

exists that the focus on the mythical " powerlessness " is conducive to

depression. AA monopolises the treatment field with an approach that is

negative, religious, unproven, unscientific and that is objected to by many

who do not care to be told they are diseased or dishonest when they are

looking for good quality help. If you want to convince us that criticising

that is wrong, you will have some work to do.

JB

[Guest guest]

At 05:46 AM 28/10/99 EDT, you wrote:

>When I joined this mail group, I was looking for alternatives to AA.

>I see, alas, a lot of AA-bashing. This may serve an important

>emotional need for people who have been hurt by AA. Some people

>feel anger, and need to dischage it. Nonetheless, I have to wonder

>if there isn't a gentler way for us to proceed.

>

>Wouldn't it be more helpful to address our issues in a positive and

>ecumenical manner than to get into negativity and " bashing " ?

>

>You tell me what YOU think.

I don't see what is wrong with " AA bashing " as you call it, or criticising

AA as I call it. I can criticise politicians, businesses, wars, crimes

against humanity, loud car radios and bad interior decor. So I can

criticise AA.

AA is treated by some as a sacred comw that must not be criticised, though

I have yet to see any convincing argument for this. This is very unhealthy.

Criticising a sacred cow is good!

AA sets itself up as the one and only way, yet there is no good evidence

beyond the anecdotal that its approach is effective, while evidence already

exists that the focus on the mythical " powerlessness " is conducive to

depression. AA monopolises the treatment field with an approach that is

negative, religious, unproven, unscientific and that is objected to by many

who do not care to be told they are diseased or dishonest when they are

looking for good quality help. If you want to convince us that criticising

that is wrong, you will have some work to do.

JB

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 20:51:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

johnhollister@... writes:

> It's clear to me that either we went to a different AA, you have some

> sort of special immunity, are merely an AA apologist out for a laugh,

> or are bucking for sainthood. Which is it?

Out of that list of four, I'd have to say that the first two seem to be

closest. It seems evident that AA in my area is a lot more level-

headed than it seems to be elsewhere. (Nobody ever demanded

that I do as one fellow said his sponsor required him to do: i.e.

pick up dog turds from the lawn.)

As for the " immunity " , it may have helped me that I have gotten into

the habit of filtering what people say and trying to understand their

motivations. That is to say, in addition to the words people utter,

there's a lot of sub-text in the WAY they express themselves. I

believe that dogmatism is a sign of a person stuck in a crisis.

This " skill " of mine was essential for me to understand what religion

did to people (including me). As a result, I don't take AA at face

value. I am well aware (as somebody pointed out) that it is a

situation in which a bunch of less-than-perfect people are

trying to help out other people.

I hope that answers your question.

-

http://users.aol.com/beyondjw

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 20:51:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

johnhollister@... writes:

> It's clear to me that either we went to a different AA, you have some

> sort of special immunity, are merely an AA apologist out for a laugh,

> or are bucking for sainthood. Which is it?

Out of that list of four, I'd have to say that the first two seem to be

closest. It seems evident that AA in my area is a lot more level-

headed than it seems to be elsewhere. (Nobody ever demanded

that I do as one fellow said his sponsor required him to do: i.e.

pick up dog turds from the lawn.)

As for the " immunity " , it may have helped me that I have gotten into

the habit of filtering what people say and trying to understand their

motivations. That is to say, in addition to the words people utter,

there's a lot of sub-text in the WAY they express themselves. I

believe that dogmatism is a sign of a person stuck in a crisis.

This " skill " of mine was essential for me to understand what religion

did to people (including me). As a result, I don't take AA at face

value. I am well aware (as somebody pointed out) that it is a

situation in which a bunch of less-than-perfect people are

trying to help out other people.

I hope that answers your question.

-

http://users.aol.com/beyondjw

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99/10/28 20:51:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

johnhollister@... writes:

> It's clear to me that either we went to a different AA, you have some

> sort of special immunity, are merely an AA apologist out for a laugh,

> or are bucking for sainthood. Which is it?

Out of that list of four, I'd have to say that the first two seem to be

closest. It seems evident that AA in my area is a lot more level-

headed than it seems to be elsewhere. (Nobody ever demanded

that I do as one fellow said his sponsor required him to do: i.e.

pick up dog turds from the lawn.)

As for the " immunity " , it may have helped me that I have gotten into

the habit of filtering what people say and trying to understand their

motivations. That is to say, in addition to the words people utter,

there's a lot of sub-text in the WAY they express themselves. I

believe that dogmatism is a sign of a person stuck in a crisis.

This " skill " of mine was essential for me to understand what religion

did to people (including me). As a result, I don't take AA at face

value. I am well aware (as somebody pointed out) that it is a

situation in which a bunch of less-than-perfect people are

trying to help out other people.

I hope that answers your question.

-

http://users.aol.com/beyondjw

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

[snip]

>When I joined this mail group, I was looking for alternatives to AA.

>I see, alas, a lot of AA-bashing. This may serve an important

>emotional need for people who have been hurt by AA. Some people

>feel anger, and need to dischage it. Nonetheless, I have to wonder

>if there isn't a gentler way for us to proceed.

>

>Wouldn't it be more helpful to address our issues in a positive and

>ecumenical manner than to get into negativity and " bashing " ?

>

>You tell me what YOU think.

Well, I think that if you're looking for the Ecumenical Council of Recovery

Cults you have definitely come to the wrong place :-) Speaking for myself, I

don't see AA as 'a solution, but not for me' -- AA is the problem. I'm sure

there are some happy, contented AA members, but on the whole what I saw in

15 years 'in and around' is a hell of a lot of people who never get sober,

most of whom wind up drinking more destructively than they did before AA,

and a few who get sober but get strange and unhappy, make a lot of bizarre

decisions, and get stalled in life. (Not to mention that around here, among

the middle-class+ groups, more than half the AAers seem to need

anti-depressants and/or anti-psychotics to maintain their God-given

serenity.) I am convinced that a great deal of heavy drinking is caused by

the belief that alcoholism is a disease in which the 'victim' has lost the

power to choose whether and how much to drink. AA and the 12-step

profiteering treatment industry are the institutions responsible for

perpetuating the mythology.

Note the word 'free' in the list name. It implies that those who practice

the steps are not free. I and (I believe) most others who subscribe to this

list did not move from AA to some 'alternative'. We escaped.

--wally

[Guest guest]

, this is hilarious. I almost choked on my dinner reading it. How

much is an airline ticket from Montreal to So. Cal. so our friend can

visit the Pacifica Group? Sir, you haven't lived until you've gotten

humble by picking up Clancy the AA guru's dog's poop from his yard, in

an effort to demonstrate to the Man Himself, your unquestioning

humility and obedience; your willingness to b-e-n-d over backwards and

t-w-i-s-t yourself into postion, to c-o-n-f-o-r-m in every way

possible, with your mind, body, and spirit, so that the very essence of

your soul beats-beats-beats to the goose-steppin' tempo of the doctrine

of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Apple

> Dude,

>

> A Big Book thumper is all it takes. I have attended meetings all over

> the world and have yet to encounter a place where AA subscribes to the

> temperate attitudes you have described. Perhaps Canada is the

exception

> to the rule. Don't let the word get out, or you may see a mass

migration

> of U.S. citizens flooding across the border to escape AA atrocities in

> the States in order to seek recovery in the great white north. It'll

be

> the biggest exodus since the Vietnam War.

>

> I implore you to attend a few meetings in Southern California. Then

you

> will see what we are all talking about, and why we are so pissed. Then

> again. Why put yourself through it. Just take my word for it, and

enjoy

> yourself where you are.

>

> I agree it would be wonderful to get to where you're at with the whole

> thing, but here at step free you are dealing with people who have been

> badly abused by the membership of this seemingly benign organization.

>

> For now, many just need to debrief, decompress, and deprogram after

> years of exposure to AA's deceitful philosophy and followers. The AA

you

> speak of is a completely different animal than we have encountered.

>

>

[Guest guest]

psoftinf-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8860

> In a message dated 99/10/28 13:30:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> johnhollister@... writes:

>

> > He stated, " I have never (in ten years) been criticized by an AA

member

> > for the fact that I am an atheist. "

> >

> > He must have kept very quiet about it. Either that or there must

be AA

> > meetings in an alternate universe that I have not yet attended.

Quite

> > frankly I'm skeptical, and the alarms have been going off since I

read

> > his entire introduction yesterday.

>

> To reiterarte: I have NOT hidden my atheism from ANYBODY in

> AA (except in the specific instance I mentioned, which is when

> I'm running a meeting and do not want to appear to be presenting

> some kind of " official " opinion).

>

> Oh, it's true that I've had some people ask me about my stance, but

> they always seem more bewildered than hostile. The most typical

> comment is, " It must be very hard NOT to believe in God. "

>

> I'm not in some kind of " alternate universe " . I live in Montreal,

Canada.

> Maybe there are Bible-thumpers in your area, but I've rarely

encountered

> those in AA. Thank goodness!

>

> I'm sorry if my message made " alarm bells " go off. If you're still

not

> comfortable with what I say, feel free to grill me. I am hard to

offend.

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

" Grilling " you is hardly the issue.

I would like to present an entirly different perspective. I

actually think atheists get less flack in AA (provided they purport to

believe in some sort of weird mystical 'power greater than themselves'

with which they can 'work the steps') than those of non-Christian

faiths and concepts of God.

When I first joined this list I posted about some of the conflicts

between the Jewish concept of God and the 12-step God, and of the total

rejection and incomprehension of my views by AA'ers and especially

12-step treatment counselors.

Nothing in Jewish theology or tradition supports the idea of a

deity who dictates a person's daily actions and/or moral and ethical

choices. Jewish tradition encourages self-evaluation and " turning over

a new leaf " using the FREE WILL with which God endowed man. Nothing in

Jewish teaching supports the notion that when one has changed for the

better, one should never take personal credit, but rather credit The

Most Holy One himself, or some unseen spirit, or some group (like AA)

in which one is a member!

In other words, " powerlessness " over personal behavior is an

un-Jewish concept, and ascribing credit for changing one's behavior to

some mysterious " Power (with a Capital P) greater than oneself " would

be considered idolatry, which our religion forbids.

The entire concept of being " saved " (which appears intrinsic to

the 12-step religion) is foreign to Judaism.

I have never encountered, either in person or online, a Stepper

who accepts the Jewish concept of complete personal responsibility, and

the rejection of idolatrous " higher powers " who get credit for one's

not drinking.

In fact, I was told point-blank by my treatment counselor (a proud

stepper " in recovery " ) that if the God I believed in was insufficient

as a " higher power " with which to work the steps, that I *must* find

some OTHER " Power " to believe in!

It was around this time that I decided to sue my company on First

Amendment grounds.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

psoftinf-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8860

> In a message dated 99/10/28 13:30:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> johnhollister@... writes:

>

> > He stated, " I have never (in ten years) been criticized by an AA

member

> > for the fact that I am an atheist. "

> >

> > He must have kept very quiet about it. Either that or there must

be AA

> > meetings in an alternate universe that I have not yet attended.

Quite

> > frankly I'm skeptical, and the alarms have been going off since I

read

> > his entire introduction yesterday.

>

> To reiterarte: I have NOT hidden my atheism from ANYBODY in

> AA (except in the specific instance I mentioned, which is when

> I'm running a meeting and do not want to appear to be presenting

> some kind of " official " opinion).

>

> Oh, it's true that I've had some people ask me about my stance, but

> they always seem more bewildered than hostile. The most typical

> comment is, " It must be very hard NOT to believe in God. "

>

> I'm not in some kind of " alternate universe " . I live in Montreal,

Canada.

> Maybe there are Bible-thumpers in your area, but I've rarely

encountered

> those in AA. Thank goodness!

>

> I'm sorry if my message made " alarm bells " go off. If you're still

not

> comfortable with what I say, feel free to grill me. I am hard to

offend.

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

" Grilling " you is hardly the issue.

I would like to present an entirly different perspective. I

actually think atheists get less flack in AA (provided they purport to

believe in some sort of weird mystical 'power greater than themselves'

with which they can 'work the steps') than those of non-Christian

faiths and concepts of God.

When I first joined this list I posted about some of the conflicts

between the Jewish concept of God and the 12-step God, and of the total

rejection and incomprehension of my views by AA'ers and especially

12-step treatment counselors.

Nothing in Jewish theology or tradition supports the idea of a

deity who dictates a person's daily actions and/or moral and ethical

choices. Jewish tradition encourages self-evaluation and " turning over

a new leaf " using the FREE WILL with which God endowed man. Nothing in

Jewish teaching supports the notion that when one has changed for the

better, one should never take personal credit, but rather credit The

Most Holy One himself, or some unseen spirit, or some group (like AA)

in which one is a member!

In other words, " powerlessness " over personal behavior is an

un-Jewish concept, and ascribing credit for changing one's behavior to

some mysterious " Power (with a Capital P) greater than oneself " would

be considered idolatry, which our religion forbids.

The entire concept of being " saved " (which appears intrinsic to

the 12-step religion) is foreign to Judaism.

I have never encountered, either in person or online, a Stepper

who accepts the Jewish concept of complete personal responsibility, and

the rejection of idolatrous " higher powers " who get credit for one's

not drinking.

In fact, I was told point-blank by my treatment counselor (a proud

stepper " in recovery " ) that if the God I believed in was insufficient

as a " higher power " with which to work the steps, that I *must* find

some OTHER " Power " to believe in!

It was around this time that I decided to sue my company on First

Amendment grounds.

~Rita