"Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qqmdnbHtKMk7SyzfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> 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.

Ken again you don't understand my point. I can forgive an oltimer for their
abuse without condoning the abuse. Abuse is abuse, and bringing up an
uncorrected wrong does not affect serenity. If a wrong has indeed been
corrected, then bringing it up serves no purpose. Bringing up the wrong in
principle only, serves to help avoid the problem in the future.
I don't think you see the difference because you are not a spritual person


>
> 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.

No you don't understand me. Sure, you stick someone with a knife, they feel
pain, both acutely, and to a lesser extent chronically. Where it becomes
unhealthy is to relive the incident in maudlin stimulation 30 years later.
Someone re-feeling that pain is "not well"


> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

Why is it that I find very few people of Jewish heritage at 12-step
meetings, particularly AA? Why is it there are NEVER (and I mean never)
meetings at a Jewish place of worship? Why is it that 12-step meetings are
always held in a Christian church basement (or Christian related place)? Now
we all know that Irish Roman Catholic priests love to "sip sip sip" the
bottle and recognizable by their "beet red, big nose" faces and certain
winners of "W.C. Fields look alike contests". But there must be at least a
rabbi or two out there that slam the wine once too often and would gladly
invite their AA group meeting into the temple basement for a change.

So, getting back to the question at hand, HOW COME WE HARDLY SEE JEWS ATTEND
12-STEP MEETINGS? Is it because Jews don't drink, do drugs, or gamble??

Or... is it because people of Jewish heritage DO NOT SURRENDER. Their
heritage has taught them NEVER TO SURRENDER, to ANY GROUP, especially those
whose principles are BASED ON FEAR. Just look back at their history, from
the Egyptians to the Holocaust. I see a connection with my theory.

And I say this as being complimentary to those people of Jewish heritage. I
commend anyone who refuses to surrender to fear.

OK now 12-steppers, let's here what you have to say about this. I find this
topic very interesting. C'mon now, I want to hear from any rabbis out there
too!








Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"The Glass Prison" <TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.dt> wrote in
message news:BED7D70F.6C3E%TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.d t
> Why is it that I find very few people of Jewish heritage at 12-step
> meetings, particularly AA?

Are you living that far in the past you imagine you can identify Jews
by those yellow stars of surrender? Looks like Mike Godwin's correct,
once again.

Admittedly, given you *don't* attend those 12 step meetings,
particularly AA, your credibility is undoubtedly assured! Do you
actually hang around outside Sex Anonymous, vainly waiting for a
desperate slipper?

>Why is it there are NEVER (and I mean
> never) meetings at a Jewish place of worship?

You really expect AAers to pay the rent Jews would charge, were they
to allow unchosen infidels entry, thus defiling their sacred temples?

>Why is it that
> 12-step meetings are always held in a Christian church basement
> (or Christian related place)?

That 12-step meetings are certainly not always held in Christian
related places would demolish your theories?

If you are not doing Ragge "Research" 101, spose you're posting to
all *except* 12 step newsgroups simply because you're a fuckwit.

Bob

In article <BED7D70F.6C3E%TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.dt> ,
TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.dt, The Glass Prison says...

> Why is it that I find very few people of Jewish heritage at 12-step
> meetings?

Maybe the same reason ya hardly see orientals?

Who F'ing cares.........

In article <BED7D70F.6C3E%TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.dt> ,
TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.dt says...
> Why is it that I find very few people of Jewish heritage at 12-step
> meetings, particularly AA? Why is it there are NEVER (and I mean never)
> meetings at a Jewish place of worship? Why is it that 12-step meetings are
> always held in a Christian church basement (or Christian related place)? Now
> we all know that Irish Roman Catholic priests love to "sip sip sip" the
> bottle and recognizable by their "beet red, big nose" faces and certain
> winners of "W.C. Fields look alike contests". But there must be at least a
> rabbi or two out there that slam the wine once too often and would gladly
> invite their AA group meeting into the temple basement for a change.
>
> So, getting back to the question at hand, HOW COME WE HARDLY SEE JEWS ATTEND
> 12-STEP MEETINGS? Is it because Jews don't drink, do drugs, or gamble??
>
H ah aha ha ha aha! The Jew will always win. Hands down.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com
>

--

--

Jesus: BRB
Judus: LOL!


http://scottwitherspoon.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/woogawooga99

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

We don't see Asians because they'll all METH addicts. I thought that the
24-7-365 convenience food stores were run by families when all the time it
was only four Korean tweakers. How was I to know? They all look the same
anyway!

By the way, what do you think of Octavarium? You must be a Dream Theater
fan!


On 6/17/05 6:19 AM, in article Ltxse.35361$hi1.4144@fe48.usenetserver.com,
"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:

> In article <BED7D70F.6C3E%TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.dt> ,
> TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.dt, The Glass Prison says...
>
>> Why is it that I find very few people of Jewish heritage at 12-step
>> meetings?
>
> Maybe the same reason ya hardly see orientals?
>
> Who F'ing cares.........
>

I finally found a way to bash 12-step programs without anyone telling them
to "meet me outside" after the meeting. And even better, I don't have to
read your replies. All I need to do is post & post & post. That is the
luxury of the Internet. HAH!


On 6/17/05 3:03 AM, in article 42b275c6_1@news.iprimus.com.au, "Robert
McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> "The Glass Prison" <TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.dt> wrote in
> message news:BED7D70F.6C3E%TheGlassPrison@trainofthought.d t
>> Why is it that I find very few people of Jewish heritage at 12-step
>> meetings, particularly AA?
>
> Are you living that far in the past you imagine you can identify Jews
> by those yellow stars of surrender? Looks like Mike Godwin's correct,
> once again.
>
> Admittedly, given you *don't* attend those 12 step meetings,
> particularly AA, your credibility is undoubtedly assured! Do you
> actually hang around outside Sex Anonymous, vainly waiting for a
> desperate slipper?
>
>> Why is it there are NEVER (and I mean
>> never) meetings at a Jewish place of worship?
>
> You really expect AAers to pay the rent Jews would charge, were they
> to allow unchosen infidels entry, thus defiling their sacred temples?
>
>> Why is it that
>> 12-step meetings are always held in a Christian church basement
>> (or Christian related place)?
>
> That 12-step meetings are certainly not always held in Christian
> related places would demolish your theories?
>
> If you are not doing Ragge "Research" 101, spose you're posting to
> all *except* 12 step newsgroups simply because you're a fuckwit.
>
> Bob
>
>

Excsue me, WC Fields had Rosacea. That's why he had the red face and
the enlarged nose. It's a disease that is the "red headed step child."
That nobody is too enthused about finding a cure for.

stuart wrote:

> "Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>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.
>
>
> No you don't understand me. Sure, you stick someone with a knife, they feel
> pain, both acutely, and to a lesser extent chronically. Where it becomes
> unhealthy is to relive the incident in maudlin stimulation 30 years later.
> Someone re-feeling that pain is "not well"
>
Stuart,

There is a _big_ difference between "maudlin stimiulation" and actively
working to make things better, even a lifetime later. But if I am
missing your point, you are missing my point. Maybe if I put it in a
bigger context.

The "spirituality" you speak of has been around for many decades. In my
lifetime, the biggest proponents off hand were "spiritual giants" like
Carl Jung, Norman Vincent Peale and Billy Graham. It was all from the
relgious right, although I don't believe they were termed it such until
decades later. Of course, Step groups were around but they were for all
purposes invisible to the general population. But even before that
there were others.

In the 20s and 30s "everyone" in Germany was getting spiritual. The
same was happening here to a lesser extent. Frank Buchman and Sam
Shoemaker were two of the big names. Frank Buchman was encouraging
Germany's neighbors to "make butter, not guns." Apparently they did,
because they were defenseless when the Nazis drove in.

While these two didn't directly preach modern-day "feel good" theology,
they promised that all you needed to do was rid yourself of "the bondage
of self" to be "happily and usefully whole." Same idea, different
language. But whatever language, it left Germany without anyone to
stand up to the Nazis. Fortunately, in the U.S. such ideologies were
rejected big time. When Buchman, the founder of the group that Dr. Bob
and Bill Smith were members of and got their "spiritual principles"
publicly praised Hitler, it was the beginning of the end and time for
name changes.

And the saddest thing, is that such ideologies don't produce happiness.
Certainly, they'll produce lots and lots of people who say how happy
they are though. I don't know how many times I've heard those with time
share about how "happy, joyous and free" they were because of the
Program. Of course, once you got to know them away from meetings they
were anything but. Even at after-meeting coffee, if there were no
"newcomers" present, it'd be, "Things are really awful, I just didn't
know what to share for the newcomers." Or, once I heard at a late night
meeting, "Something they don't tell you . . . I have seven years . . .
I've been walking around suicidal all day."

How many of the people who go to AA looking for help end up committing
suicide under the pressure to adopt your "spiritual way of life"?

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Fv2dnWqqEJwjiS7fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> stuart wrote:
>
> > "Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>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.
> >
> >
> > No you don't understand me. Sure, you stick someone with a knife, they
feel
> > pain, both acutely, and to a lesser extent chronically. Where it becomes
> > unhealthy is to relive the incident in maudlin stimulation 30 years
later.
> > Someone re-feeling that pain is "not well"
> >
> Stuart,
>
> There is a _big_ difference between "maudlin stimiulation" and actively
> working to make things better, even a lifetime later. But if I am
> missing your point, you are missing my point. Maybe if I put it in a
> bigger context.

I agree with you. I think you understand what I was trying to suggest. I
think I understand you as well.

>
> The "spirituality" you speak of has been around for many decades. In my
> lifetime, the biggest proponents off hand were "spiritual giants" like
> Carl Jung, Norman Vincent Peale and Billy Graham. It was all from the
> relgious right, although I don't believe they were termed it such until
> decades later. Of course, Step groups were around but they were for all
> purposes invisible to the general population. But even before that
> there were others.
>
> In the 20s and 30s "everyone" in Germany was getting spiritual. The
> same was happening here to a lesser extent. Frank Buchman and Sam
> Shoemaker were two of the big names. Frank Buchman was encouraging
> Germany's neighbors to "make butter, not guns." Apparently they did,
> because they were defenseless when the Nazis drove in.
>
> While these two didn't directly preach modern-day "feel good" theology,
> they promised that all you needed to do was rid yourself of "the bondage
> of self" to be "happily and usefully whole." Same idea, different
> language. But whatever language, it left Germany without anyone to
> stand up to the Nazis. Fortunately, in the U.S. such ideologies were
> rejected big time. When Buchman, the founder of the group that Dr. Bob
> and Bill Smith were members of and got their "spiritual principles"
> publicly praised Hitler, it was the beginning of the end and time for
> name changes.
>
> And the saddest thing, is that such ideologies don't produce happiness.
> Certainly, they'll produce lots and lots of people who say how happy
> they are though. I don't know how many times I've heard those with time
> share about how "happy, joyous and free" they were because of the
> Program. Of course, once you got to know them away from meetings they
> were anything but. Even at after-meeting coffee, if there were no
> "newcomers" present, it'd be, "Things are really awful, I just didn't
> know what to share for the newcomers." Or, once I heard at a late night
> meeting, "Something they don't tell you . . . I have seven years . . .
> I've been walking around suicidal all day."
>
> How many of the people who go to AA looking for help end up committing
> suicide under the pressure to adopt your "spiritual way of life"?

Oh certainly, I have seen suicide occur in long term members also, and it is
indeed very tragic. I have also seen numerous members in my own community do
extremely well with AA. I have also picked up a dead drunk who didn't get
help in time too.
It has been really good to discuss back and forth with you Ken. Please
understand my barbs and points at you were to stimulate ideas. I do agree
that perhaps there is a better road to recovery available, but wholesale
slaughter of AA won't produce it. I personally have lots of bones to pick
with the program, starting with the exclusive use of the male gender in the
BB, a literary and social style prevalent in the earlier part of that last
century, but members are loathe to change anything. They will have to change
things eventually or go the way of the dodo bird. I mean, even the bible
changed its language over time.
I guess what I really wonder about is, what I see is a lot of AA-bashing,
but not really anything earth-shatteringly cutting edge to replace it as a
means to recover from the drinking problem. If there's something to be
developed, hey, I'm in..


>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>