stuart wrote:
> Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:aPGdnYanrYuWKCzfRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>
>>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."
>
>
> Still a pretty high number to be credible.
>

Stuart,

Maybe, maybe not. If I get the chance, I can dig around and try to find
the source. I believe the estimate was directly based on the number of
people courts are sentencing. Certainly, most of these people are going
to be "invisible" in the public at large. Do you have any sources?

>>>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."
>
>
> Of course not Ken, but over time, willingness to heal or be healed is
> desirable, healthy and good. Those who are dead, are gone, and they cannot
> be brought back. Those of us who have a strong faith in God realize that
> death is normal and natural, and that those who died, however tragically,
> will be fine. Life is for the living, and those who have strong spiritual
> knowledge will indeed carry on, asking such questions as "I am here, what
> should I be doing with my life?"
> Most religions advocate forgiveness. We don't forgive someone for their
> sake. We forgive for our own sake. Forgiveness does not imply condoning
> their actions either. Forgive the wrong-doer, not the wrong they did.
> Holocaust survivors can do nothing to change the past, nor punish the
> perpetrators, now. If you believe in a higher power, then you might also
> understand that this higher power has control over the situation
> What can be done by the "victim" is to create awareness about what happened
> in the past to help ensure it doesn't happen again, but that would be
> motivated by a love for humanity, not hate for the perpetrators. You don't
> seem to be able to grasp that concept.
> Maybe you have a lot of brain cells responsible for feelings of anger that
> are being fairly consistently stimulated in your head Ken, I don't know. I
> did once upon a time, and retrospectively, it shaped my point of view quite
> a bit. Then I changed, thanks in part to the 12 step program, and I see
> things differently now. I don't entertain anger in my brain on a *routine*
> basis, amd most of my decisions are made with "What will be beneficial and
> loving, here?"===Not always, but most times...
> You may never feel the same way I do, epsecially if you keep exercising your
> justifiable resentments towards XA members, spritual folks and 12-step
> ideology

You argument above gives a great insight to why AA members, when other
members of the group are abused by old-timers ignore it and will get
furious if someone insists on bringing it up. It shatters Serenity.
How dare they do that.

The Program has lots of slogans that express many of the ideas expressed
above. There is a collage you should see that shows just how widely
applicable these slogans are to the worlds problems. It is at:

http://www.morerevealed.com/devin/collage.jpg

>>>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
>
>
> Ken good work aside, nobody forces us on what to think and feel. Where I
> direct my mind is up to me. You don't seem to understand that fully.

No, I certainly don't understand that fully and never will. Certainly,
it makes perfect sense in an authoritarian ideology but nowhere else.
Can you stab someone with a knife and then tell them that if they feel
pain they "chose" it? It is no different if you kill someone's child in
a car accident. Sorry, but if the parent feels pain, it is the fault of
whoever killed the child. They did not "choose" it.

Of course, this "you choose what you feel" is a perfect way from someone
to avoid responsibility for the terrible things they do to other people.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com


> I can choose to live in misery and resentment or not. To quote your American
> author Mark Twain "Most folks are about as happy as they make their minds up
> to be".
> Remember Lil Abner's character Joe Bltspk, the guy with the cloud over his
> head? Lots of those people around. You seem to identify with them quite well
> Ken...
>
>
>
>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>