Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > I have never been to LSR/SOS, but understand that it is secular and > abstinence-based. As far as I can tell, the *only* thing that it has > in common with AA is abstinence from alcohol. I don't really get that > people are powerless over it...but maybe this is where you are coming > from? > > We don't say that, either. Nor do we officially proclaim alcoholism is a disease. Some members choose that as their own belief, but that's part of the freedom of choice. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group > where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, > language and world view. I don't think that is okay at all, but since > you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of > LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step > doctrine without God can only be because LSR is an abstinence-based > program just as the Steppers are sure anyone who is critical of them is > just because they want to drink. Am I reading you correctly? > > Ken Ragge > Whether it's " fine " or not, the government has that right. just said: " What I see here are Game Rules. These are the rules by which society plays. This is how the game works. You get caught with drugs or too much booze? You get your ass whipped. These are the rules. At the same time there are people's opinions. We *should* do things differently. We *ought* to play by different rules. And if enough people come on with a consistent opinion the rules might change. " And, if behavioral choice is being stressed so much with alcohol or drugs... people have **the choice** not to do dumb shit and get arrested in the first place, right? And LSR is not allied with the government. More overheated conspiracy thought. And we absolutely do not regurgitate " step thought. " Yet more juvenile conspiracy thought. And, how much do you really know about LSR? Or SOS? It sounds like, not much, if even that much. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group > where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, > language and world view. I don't think that is okay at all, but since > you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of > LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step > doctrine without God can only be because LSR is an abstinence-based > program just as the Steppers are sure anyone who is critical of them is > just because they want to drink. Am I reading you correctly? > > Ken Ragge > Whether it's " fine " or not, the government has that right. just said: " What I see here are Game Rules. These are the rules by which society plays. This is how the game works. You get caught with drugs or too much booze? You get your ass whipped. These are the rules. At the same time there are people's opinions. We *should* do things differently. We *ought* to play by different rules. And if enough people come on with a consistent opinion the rules might change. " And, if behavioral choice is being stressed so much with alcohol or drugs... people have **the choice** not to do dumb shit and get arrested in the first place, right? And LSR is not allied with the government. More overheated conspiracy thought. And we absolutely do not regurgitate " step thought. " Yet more juvenile conspiracy thought. And, how much do you really know about LSR? Or SOS? It sounds like, not much, if even that much. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 In a message dated 8/9/01 1:41:41 AM Central Daylight Time, steverino63@... writes: << The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't like the sentence. Steve >> Nobody said anything about " inner-child whining " ; nobody said anything about letting anyone, convicted of anything, choose their own sentence. We are talking about an alcohol-related crime, and how far a judge may (or may not) go in sentencing that person to meetings, religious or otherwise. Also whether or not, at some future time, changes may be made in sentencing guidelines that allow the state to require abstinence for any length of time. Is this an accurate assessment of the discussion? -SamBeeJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 In a message dated 8/9/01 1:41:41 AM Central Daylight Time, steverino63@... writes: << The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't like the sentence. Steve >> Nobody said anything about " inner-child whining " ; nobody said anything about letting anyone, convicted of anything, choose their own sentence. We are talking about an alcohol-related crime, and how far a judge may (or may not) go in sentencing that person to meetings, religious or otherwise. Also whether or not, at some future time, changes may be made in sentencing guidelines that allow the state to require abstinence for any length of time. Is this an accurate assessment of the discussion? -SamBeeJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 In a message dated 8/9/01 1:41:41 AM Central Daylight Time, steverino63@... writes: << The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't like the sentence. Steve >> Nobody said anything about " inner-child whining " ; nobody said anything about letting anyone, convicted of anything, choose their own sentence. We are talking about an alcohol-related crime, and how far a judge may (or may not) go in sentencing that person to meetings, religious or otherwise. Also whether or not, at some future time, changes may be made in sentencing guidelines that allow the state to require abstinence for any length of time. Is this an accurate assessment of the discussion? -SamBeeJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Okay P- just wondering, but you say you go to OA... don't you have any alternatives? Like Weight Watchers? Of course, WW makes you pay a fee ( I think it's nominal like 8 bucks a month... or maybe a week... and on principal that pisses me off)... just wondering. lisak Re: New here > > > > It is my hope to be instrumental in pulling together a national > clearinghouse > > for lawyers who will fight 12 Step coercion. But I'm not going to > do so in > > an atmosphere of paranoia and lunacy. > > Never mind Dave Mona. Apparently just going to OA meetings for > social support makes me a " fully-fledged stepper " . He rarely wades > in, so dont be bothered by that. Say, have you noticed that without > the R, his name is " Tippel " , and a " tipple " is a coy term for a drink? > > Pete is feeling a conspiracy theory coming on!!!!! > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Okay P- just wondering, but you say you go to OA... don't you have any alternatives? Like Weight Watchers? Of course, WW makes you pay a fee ( I think it's nominal like 8 bucks a month... or maybe a week... and on principal that pisses me off)... just wondering. lisak Re: New here > > > > It is my hope to be instrumental in pulling together a national > clearinghouse > > for lawyers who will fight 12 Step coercion. But I'm not going to > do so in > > an atmosphere of paranoia and lunacy. > > Never mind Dave Mona. Apparently just going to OA meetings for > social support makes me a " fully-fledged stepper " . He rarely wades > in, so dont be bothered by that. Say, have you noticed that without > the R, his name is " Tippel " , and a " tipple " is a coy term for a drink? > > Pete is feeling a conspiracy theory coming on!!!!! > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Okay P- just wondering, but you say you go to OA... don't you have any alternatives? Like Weight Watchers? Of course, WW makes you pay a fee ( I think it's nominal like 8 bucks a month... or maybe a week... and on principal that pisses me off)... just wondering. lisak Re: New here > > > > It is my hope to be instrumental in pulling together a national > clearinghouse > > for lawyers who will fight 12 Step coercion. But I'm not going to > do so in > > an atmosphere of paranoia and lunacy. > > Never mind Dave Mona. Apparently just going to OA meetings for > social support makes me a " fully-fledged stepper " . He rarely wades > in, so dont be bothered by that. Say, have you noticed that without > the R, his name is " Tippel " , and a " tipple " is a coy term for a drink? > > Pete is feeling a conspiracy theory coming on!!!!! > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > In a message dated 8/8/01 12:10:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@c... writes: > > > >>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, > language and world view.<< > > Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to s= tay > sober. > -------------- (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it WITHOUT= attending recovery groups? One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery gr= oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in self-rec= overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal c= ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > >>Â I don't think that is okay at all, but since > you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of > LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step > doctrine without God<< > > I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous t= o > AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe = > anything you want in LSR. But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to become or t= o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved with LS= R? This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly the rig= ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but coerced i= nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether or = not it is true. An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of is= WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of = the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or probati= on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such counseli= ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the state -- = and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or = unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business ca= rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > In a message dated 8/8/01 12:10:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@c... writes: > > > >>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, > language and world view.<< > > Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to s= tay > sober. > -------------- (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it WITHOUT= attending recovery groups? One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery gr= oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in self-rec= overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal c= ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > >>Â I don't think that is okay at all, but since > you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of > LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step > doctrine without God<< > > I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous t= o > AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe = > anything you want in LSR. But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to become or t= o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved with LS= R? This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly the rig= ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but coerced i= nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether or = not it is true. An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of is= WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of = the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or probati= on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such counseli= ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the state -- = and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or = unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business ca= rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > In a message dated 8/8/01 12:10:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@c... writes: > > > >>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, > language and world view.<< > > Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to s= tay > sober. > -------------- (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it WITHOUT= attending recovery groups? One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery gr= oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in self-rec= overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal c= ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > >>Â I don't think that is okay at all, but since > you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of > LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step > doctrine without God<< > > I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous t= o > AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe = > anything you want in LSR. But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to become or t= o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved with LS= R? This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly the rig= ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but coerced i= nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether or = not it is true. An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of is= WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of = the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or probati= on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such counseli= ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the state -- = and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or = unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business ca= rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Re: New here > In a message dated 8/8/01 12:10:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@c... writes: > > > >>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, > language and world view.<< > > Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to s= tay > sober. > -------------- (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it WITHOUT= attending recovery groups? One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery gr= oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in self-rec= overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal c= ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > >> I don't think that is okay at all, but since > you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of > LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step > doctrine without God<< > > I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous t= o > AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe = > anything you want in LSR. But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to become or t= o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved with LS= R? This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly the rig= ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but coerced i= nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether or = not it is true. >> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of is= WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of = the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or probati= on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such counseli= ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the state -- = and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or = unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business ca= rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.<< For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying fuck it deems applicable. Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the legal powers the court system has. Period. That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather than paid counselors. Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to professional counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail. Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases. They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal and applicable. Period. How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that? Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Re: New here > In a message dated 8/8/01 12:10:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@c... writes: > > > >>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, > language and world view.<< > > Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to s= tay > sober. > -------------- (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it WITHOUT= attending recovery groups? One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery gr= oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in self-rec= overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal c= ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > >> I don't think that is okay at all, but since > you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of > LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step > doctrine without God<< > > I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous t= o > AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe = > anything you want in LSR. But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to become or t= o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved with LS= R? This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly the rig= ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but coerced i= nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether or = not it is true. >> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of is= WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of = the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or probati= on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such counseli= ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the state -- = and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or = unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business ca= rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.<< For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying fuck it deems applicable. Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the legal powers the court system has. Period. That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather than paid counselors. Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to professional counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail. Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases. They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal and applicable. Period. How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that? Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Re: New here > In a message dated 8/8/01 12:10:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@c... writes: > > > >>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, > language and world view.<< > > Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to s= tay > sober. > -------------- (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it WITHOUT= attending recovery groups? One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery gr= oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in self-rec= overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal c= ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > >> I don't think that is okay at all, but since > you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of > LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step > doctrine without God<< > > I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous t= o > AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe = > anything you want in LSR. But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to become or t= o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved with LS= R? This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly the rig= ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but coerced i= nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether or = not it is true. >> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of is= WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of = the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or probati= on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such counseli= ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the state -- = and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or = unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business ca= rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.<< For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying fuck it deems applicable. Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the legal powers the court system has. Period. That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather than paid counselors. Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to professional counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail. Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases. They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal and applicable. Period. How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that? Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > > As for a situation like Rita's, yes, an employer may coerce non-relgious > activity as a condition of employment. I am disgusted at random drug testing > by employers, but only the most far-fetched constitutional arguments would > prohibit it. The fact is, if an employer wants to make you jump up and down > and sing " Yes, We Have No Bananas " every morning when you arrive at work, > s/he may do so. S/he can also require you to call in from home and sing it > into the telephone on your own time. > > Private employers have a right to be tyrants and bullies. Workers have the > right to quit, or to form unions and oppose them. But the law cannot -- and > should not -- directly prohibit petty employer tyranny. If that makes me > akin to AA, I'll have to live with it. > > --Mona-- ----------------- A couple of comments, if I may -- 1) yes, private employers have a lot of leeway in what they can do to/require of employees. But what about non-private employers? -- I am employed by the state. A private employer may well have had the right to require AA attendance, or require employees to keep Bibles on their desks, etc.. But a government employer cannot require these things. 2) I do not believe that employers can require unnecessary medical treatment as a condition of employment -- I believe there have been lawsuits over requiring plastic surgery, etc. in some professions where the employer wants a certain " look " . And obviously no employer can require employees to take unnecessary medication or engage in general in any medical or psychiatric treatment at the employer's whim. So why then is it acceptable for an employer to require employees to state that they are " alcoholic " with the " disease " of alcoholism, and require them to engage in what is commonly thought of as a form of treatment for that " disease " , if the employee does not have such a " disease " ? ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > > As for a situation like Rita's, yes, an employer may coerce non-relgious > activity as a condition of employment. I am disgusted at random drug testing > by employers, but only the most far-fetched constitutional arguments would > prohibit it. The fact is, if an employer wants to make you jump up and down > and sing " Yes, We Have No Bananas " every morning when you arrive at work, > s/he may do so. S/he can also require you to call in from home and sing it > into the telephone on your own time. > > Private employers have a right to be tyrants and bullies. Workers have the > right to quit, or to form unions and oppose them. But the law cannot -- and > should not -- directly prohibit petty employer tyranny. If that makes me > akin to AA, I'll have to live with it. > > --Mona-- ----------------- A couple of comments, if I may -- 1) yes, private employers have a lot of leeway in what they can do to/require of employees. But what about non-private employers? -- I am employed by the state. A private employer may well have had the right to require AA attendance, or require employees to keep Bibles on their desks, etc.. But a government employer cannot require these things. 2) I do not believe that employers can require unnecessary medical treatment as a condition of employment -- I believe there have been lawsuits over requiring plastic surgery, etc. in some professions where the employer wants a certain " look " . And obviously no employer can require employees to take unnecessary medication or engage in general in any medical or psychiatric treatment at the employer's whim. So why then is it acceptable for an employer to require employees to state that they are " alcoholic " with the " disease " of alcoholism, and require them to engage in what is commonly thought of as a form of treatment for that " disease " , if the employee does not have such a " disease " ? ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > > As for a situation like Rita's, yes, an employer may coerce non-relgious > activity as a condition of employment. I am disgusted at random drug testing > by employers, but only the most far-fetched constitutional arguments would > prohibit it. The fact is, if an employer wants to make you jump up and down > and sing " Yes, We Have No Bananas " every morning when you arrive at work, > s/he may do so. S/he can also require you to call in from home and sing it > into the telephone on your own time. > > Private employers have a right to be tyrants and bullies. Workers have the > right to quit, or to form unions and oppose them. But the law cannot -- and > should not -- directly prohibit petty employer tyranny. If that makes me > akin to AA, I'll have to live with it. > > --Mona-- ----------------- A couple of comments, if I may -- 1) yes, private employers have a lot of leeway in what they can do to/require of employees. But what about non-private employers? -- I am employed by the state. A private employer may well have had the right to require AA attendance, or require employees to keep Bibles on their desks, etc.. But a government employer cannot require these things. 2) I do not believe that employers can require unnecessary medical treatment as a condition of employment -- I believe there have been lawsuits over requiring plastic surgery, etc. in some professions where the employer wants a certain " look " . And obviously no employer can require employees to take unnecessary medication or engage in general in any medical or psychiatric treatment at the employer's whim. So why then is it acceptable for an employer to require employees to state that they are " alcoholic " with the " disease " of alcoholism, and require them to engage in what is commonly thought of as a form of treatment for that " disease " , if the employee does not have such a " disease " ? ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Welll, I saw the application as follows: Mona was saying she believed the courts have the right to have probationers and parole's attend recovery group meetings cuz they give up some rights to be released from prison early, or released on conditions.... so as she stated, sleep next to bubba or go to recovery meetings.... My reason for posting the text was it showed that though some rights can be held back, the giving of some rights so as to hold back others isn't constitutional... or did I read it wrong. IANAL! And I am not a college graduate, so sometimes this case law and reading of law journals and such can twist up in my brain... I guess mostly I wanted to see if Mona knew about this idea/concept of not witholding some rights so as to withold other rights... if she hadn't, I figured it was food for thought for her. If she had, then I wanted her to tell me how her feelings on forcing probationers to attend recovery meshed/didn't mesh with the text I snipped. Thought I guess the text really did concentrate on the religious aspect and I know how Mona feels about that. But I guess my Trimpey-ite-ed-ness comes in to play here.... Recovery group attendance is NOT self help. Self help is pulling ones own self up by ones own bootstraps. Attending a GROUP is relying on others..... thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the White Essay off of " unhooked.com " that I want everyone to read for homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow... sigh. lisak Re: New here > , that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just > about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and > myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel > attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different > ball of wax. > It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than > any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation. > As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can > sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of > twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of > people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate > the Eighth Amendment. > If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated, > the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting. > Steve > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Welll, I saw the application as follows: Mona was saying she believed the courts have the right to have probationers and parole's attend recovery group meetings cuz they give up some rights to be released from prison early, or released on conditions.... so as she stated, sleep next to bubba or go to recovery meetings.... My reason for posting the text was it showed that though some rights can be held back, the giving of some rights so as to hold back others isn't constitutional... or did I read it wrong. IANAL! And I am not a college graduate, so sometimes this case law and reading of law journals and such can twist up in my brain... I guess mostly I wanted to see if Mona knew about this idea/concept of not witholding some rights so as to withold other rights... if she hadn't, I figured it was food for thought for her. If she had, then I wanted her to tell me how her feelings on forcing probationers to attend recovery meshed/didn't mesh with the text I snipped. Thought I guess the text really did concentrate on the religious aspect and I know how Mona feels about that. But I guess my Trimpey-ite-ed-ness comes in to play here.... Recovery group attendance is NOT self help. Self help is pulling ones own self up by ones own bootstraps. Attending a GROUP is relying on others..... thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the White Essay off of " unhooked.com " that I want everyone to read for homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow... sigh. lisak Re: New here > , that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just > about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and > myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel > attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different > ball of wax. > It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than > any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation. > As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can > sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of > twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of > people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate > the Eighth Amendment. > If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated, > the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting. > Steve > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Welll, I saw the application as follows: Mona was saying she believed the courts have the right to have probationers and parole's attend recovery group meetings cuz they give up some rights to be released from prison early, or released on conditions.... so as she stated, sleep next to bubba or go to recovery meetings.... My reason for posting the text was it showed that though some rights can be held back, the giving of some rights so as to hold back others isn't constitutional... or did I read it wrong. IANAL! And I am not a college graduate, so sometimes this case law and reading of law journals and such can twist up in my brain... I guess mostly I wanted to see if Mona knew about this idea/concept of not witholding some rights so as to withold other rights... if she hadn't, I figured it was food for thought for her. If she had, then I wanted her to tell me how her feelings on forcing probationers to attend recovery meshed/didn't mesh with the text I snipped. Thought I guess the text really did concentrate on the religious aspect and I know how Mona feels about that. But I guess my Trimpey-ite-ed-ness comes in to play here.... Recovery group attendance is NOT self help. Self help is pulling ones own self up by ones own bootstraps. Attending a GROUP is relying on others..... thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the White Essay off of " unhooked.com " that I want everyone to read for homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow... sigh. lisak Re: New here > , that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just > about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and > myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel > attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different > ball of wax. > It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than > any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation. > As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can > sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of > twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of > people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate > the Eighth Amendment. > If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated, > the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting. > Steve > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > , that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just > about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and > myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel > attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different > ball of wax. > It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than > any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation. > As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can > sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of > twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of > people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate > the Eighth Amendment. > If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated, > the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting. > Steve > ---------------- And again the question comes to mind -- Why would an LSR participant want to be an arm of the court by reporting on coercees' attendance or lack thereof? Why not let the court create and administer its own counseling or education or " shock " program? ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > , that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just > about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and > myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel > attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different > ball of wax. > It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than > any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation. > As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can > sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of > twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of > people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate > the Eighth Amendment. > If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated, > the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting. > Steve > ---------------- And again the question comes to mind -- Why would an LSR participant want to be an arm of the court by reporting on coercees' attendance or lack thereof? Why not let the court create and administer its own counseling or education or " shock " program? ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > , that was interesting, but I don't see the application. It talks just > about AA, whereas the disagreement between Ken, on one hand, and Mona and > myself on the other, is whether or not the courts have the right to compel > attendance at ***any*** sobriety group, religious or not. A whole different > ball of wax. > It's not a first amendment issue, and it's no more a due process issue than > any other term of sentencing, parole, or probation. > As I've said before, if you get a DUI and are found guilty, a court can > sentence you to a year's attendance at MADD meetings. Or six months of > twice-weekly blood tests. Or a year as an honorary pallbearer at funerals of > people killed by drunk drivers. That's if, of course, these don't violate > the Eighth Amendment. > If you're convicted, as long as your constitutional rights aren't violated, > the courts can " coerce " you into whatever they deem fitting. > Steve > ---------------- And again the question comes to mind -- Why would an LSR participant want to be an arm of the court by reporting on coercees' attendance or lack thereof? Why not let the court create and administer its own counseling or education or " shock " program? ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Excellent, I'll go get it. I'm saving all these on my laptop as someday I am going to write a flaming novel to my congress, judges, probations officers and the like and reference all this great stuff. I have been so angry that I spit when I talk... I need to calm down and focus on the greater good. lisak Re: New here Ahhh... I have finally popped over to unhooked and have found a candy store of full of wonderful reading, references and ideas. Thank you. You are quite welcome. Apple at aadeprogamming links to an article at the unhooked site, written by professional counelors on how AA's doctrine's conflict with standard therapy modalities. I believe that to be a very important (peer-reviewed) piece. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.