stuart wrote:
> Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MsadneWIp9kCnSzfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>
>>stuart wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>
>><---snip--->
>>
>>>>Always? You like "Acceptance" from the Big Book?
>>>>Back to the issue at hand, who do you know is wasting a lot of one's
>>>>capacity on a past problem? Are you old enough to remember the Civil
>>>>Rights movement of the 60s? Were these angry people who kept repeatedly
>>>>taking to the streets wasting a lot of capacity? And if not, why not?
>>>>Which wrongs is it okay to use your anger to address and which ones
>>>>aren't okay?
>>>
>>>
>>>Granted there are exeptions. But in the case of AA, most are there
>>>voluntarily, except the VERY few (in Canada) who are coerced by the
>
> court.
>
>>>The civil rights movement dealt with civil wrongs or torts. This would
>
> be an
>
>>>acceptable exception. You argue that the dismantling of AA is in the
>
> same
>
>>>category?
>>>
>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>There are an estimated between one and two million people coerced into
>>the Step group by various levels of government in the U.S. The
>>collusion between the governments and the Step groups needs to be
>>dismantled. I never said anything about dismantling AA. Of course, if
>>people knew what AA was and millions weren't forced to go to meetings,
>>"internalize spiritual principles" and etc, it would certainly shrink a
>>great deal in size.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that approximately one in every one hundred people I meet
> on a USA street has been coerced into AA?

Stuart,

Using a population for the US of 300,000,000 (I think I'm 3 or 4 million
over) it would work out to about somewhere between one in every three
hundred to one in every one hundred and fifty. Of course, this includes
all 12-Step "fellowships."

> I find that impossible to believe. I also find it difficult to suspect a
> relatively unstructured program like AA would have anything to do with the
> decision of the courts. Maybe you are directing your efforts in the wrong
> place. why not try alt.gove.policy.law

You are looking at the structure of meetings and extrapolating that to
all of AA. Not only are there parts of AA far removed from the
meetings, there are supposed "outside organizations" that are formed by
AAs other Step-group members to work on "outside issues." Look up NCADD
on the Internet http://www.ncadd.org and check out their history section.

The URL I posted the other day makes clear that, regardless of how
members of a particular meeting feel about coercion, "AA Inc." is not
only in favor of coercion but is encouraging it with "how to" instructions.

> I thought these groups discussed drugs and alcohol.

Do you think drugs and alcohol can be discussed without discussion
of the source of the modern-day "educated view"?

>>>>>Firstly, it hurts. Secondly, it seriously
>>>>>detracts from one's ability to function in the present moment,
>>>
>>>denigrating
>>>
>>>
>>>>>one's earning power, one's enjoyment of life, and one's usefulness to
>>>>>oneself and one's friends and family. The pain of the past is being
>>>>>constantly re-introduced to the present moment. Is that healthy? It's
>>>
>>>like
>>>
>>>
>>>>>continuing to pick at a scab...
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it doesn't necessarily hurt to be angry. It certainly hurts
>>>>when one is very angry and struggling to repress it. Do you know what
>>>>repression is? Do you know what the old term "passive aggressive"
>>>>refers to?
>>>
>>>Yes Ken. Psych 101 1972
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I don't know a single person who has not been seriously fucked over
>
> once
>
>>>or
>>>
>>>
>>>>>twice. Healthy people deal with it as best as they can, people who are
>>>
>>>not
>>>
>>>
>>>>>emotionally healthy can't or won't.
>>>>
>>>>And just how is "the best they can"?
>>>
>>>
>>>A healthy person physically gets over a cold, or even surgery. A
>
> healthy
>
>>>individual emotionally learnes to repair the damage of an emotional
>
> harm.
>
>>>Now in both instances they may need help. A person who has been harmed
>>>emotionally and has healed from the damage just doesn't stand out like
>
> those
>
>>>who don't. if you arguing that those who don't need a forum, fine. But
>>>denigrating members of a lay support group is like hitting children to
>>>express anger.
>>>You can take excpetion to the 12 steps, however, that's perfectly fine
>
> with
>
>>>me also.
>>>
>>
>>Are Jewish people still wounded by what happened in the Holocaust not
>>"healthy individuals"? People I've met in years past did stand out
>>because of tatoos on their arms, but even before, they stood out because
>>of their expressions and body language. I'm sorry, but there is nothing
>>unhealthy at having a normal, natural human response to life situations.
>> It doesn't matter what any doctrine might insist.
>>
>>When I hear Steppers talk about "serenity" and such, I can't help but
>>think of a drug high, where one is absolutely untroubled by the real
>>world, whatever may be going on in it.
>
>
> Ken, anyone is personally entitled to as much emotional turmoil as they so
> desire. Nobody can stop anyone from being ill at ease mentally. Your comment
> about the holocaust victims supports my point.

So the holocaust victims desired emotional turmoil? Do you think
sitting through and watching your family, neighborhood and even culture
destroyed in death camps makes one "ill at ease"? Perhaps your program
of recovery is so strong you could watch your children shot and quickly
get over your feelings of "ill at ease."

> They stood our because of
> their tattoos " but even before, they stood out because of their expressions
> and body language"- I wll buy that because you probably saw them in an old
> film clip as they were in and about the camps, but did they all retain those
> experssions of body language, cachexia, and listlesness for the rest of
> their lives? No they did not. They began to "get better" and better and
> better, some more than others.

No, I did not see them in newsreels. I saw them at Caesars Palace in
Las Vegas thirty years or so after the holocaust. While much "healed,"
to use your term, and they most certainly "got on with their lives."
They were sitting playing cards for a weekend getaway. That does not
mean they were "over it" and there is no reason they should be.

> The physical body heals, as does the mind. We
> have conscious minds too Ken, and at some point, ANY traumatized person who
> was fundamentally healthy to begin with (prior to capture) will consciously
> choose to do whatever it can to get healthy again. We can choose to become
> mentally healthy, Ken. You can't see that, measure it, and it is difficult
> to define by science.

Your healthy is, yes, difficult to define by science, because it doesn't
exist in science. According to what you are writing here, Elie Wiesel
never got healthy. Instead of getting over the pain and anguish of the
holocaust, he used what happened to him (and all that "negative
energy")to make his life's work doing everything he could to see that it
doesn't happen again. And he did great work. But that wasn't healthy, I
suppose. He didn't come from love as an intellectual abstraction.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com



> Maybe you yook BF Skinner's ideas too seriously, maybe you spend too much
> time behind the TV, or your computer..
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>Sorry to tell you that we are not all equally healthy either physically
>>>
>>>or
>>>
>>>
>>>>>mentally.
>>>>
>>>>So is this mentally not healthy referring to brain disease? Is that it?
>>>> If someone kicks you in the teeth you are short on the mental health
>>>>end until you make amends or something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Reliance upon God is a source of strength for some, but not for others.
>>>
>>>No
>>>
>>>
>>>>>one has the right to tell another what will work, or not work for their
>>>>>mental well-being. Your position is predicated on all sorts of beliefs,
>>>>>which you can neither prove nor disprove, just like my own beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>There is one major difference. I don't support and proseletyze for an
>>>>organization that forces their view on millions of others. Moreover, I
>>>>don't decide just which of my thoughts are from God or "spiritual" and
>>>>which ones aren't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Neither do I, but you on the other hand seem to ridicule those with
>>>spiritual beliefs.
>>
>>No. I ridicule those with overt religious beliefs who have been
>>socialized into saying "spiritual, not religious" as they have been
>>taught. That is ridiculous.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>