Barabara: Thanks for the research, I'll have a thorough read over the next few days.

Quote

My interest in cults/dangerous groups is about two weeks old, so I'm still feeling my way around and have a lot of studying to catch up on, but from what I've read so far, I would say that Alcoholics Anonymous are promoting a deviant reality with their use of "god".

AA's promotion of the God concept allows the individual member to define "God" according to their personal definition of God.

Quote

This view doesn't deny the personal reality of beliefs concerning religion, political ideology, flavors of ice-cream, etc, it simply requires a distinction between the personal and the common.

The term that AA uses is "God as we understand him."

Quote

This view doesn't deny the personal reality of beliefs concerning religion, political ideology, flavors of ice-cream, etc, it simply requires a distinction between the personal and the common.

If this were the case how would you define "drunkenness"?

Quote

Deviant realities disrupt the commonality of conception (of reality) required by humans for effective communication, promotion of deviant realities is by nature essentially anti-social behavior and groups that insist their members adopt deviant realities are committing an act of violence against those members.

Science continues to change and evolve presenting different ways of viewing the material world or "reality". The science taught to children and adults 25 years ago is somewhat different than what we are teaching now. We can presume that 50 years from now science will be markedly different.

So my question is, should we label science as "deviant reality" or should the flux of "good intentions" insulate science from the same "deviant categorizing."

The truth is both science and religion are all to dogmatic.

Colter

colter:

Quote

So my question is, should we label science as "deviant reality" or should the flux of "good intentions" insulate science from the same "deviant categorizing."

Science, unlike other "world views". or paradigms, if you will, [b:13d3b9dcea]is[/b:13d3b9dcea] science because it relies on a series of logical, pre-agreed upon steps to arrive at it's conclusions.

Unlike religion and philosophy, scientific results [b:13d3b9dcea]must[/b:13d3b9dcea] be demonstrated in the "real world".
IOW, a claim of helping the alcoholic, if made by a scientist, would have to hold up to scrutiny by examination of results.
A 5% rate of sobriety would not do it, scientifically speaking, if the theory presented were "rarely do we see a person fail".
There are scientific models of various orthodoxy, but this requirement of practical applicability is the standard by which they are judged.
Science is NOT religion.

Your argument has nothing to do with the stated subject of this thread, which is why and how the courts are promoting AA.

Colter: Precisely. Those for whom god does or doesn't exist, in their personal realities, are being coerced, directly by AA and indirectly by the courts, to adopt a concept of god that has effects in the real world.

Quote
barabara
colter:

Quote

So my question is, should we label science as "deviant reality" or should the flux of "good intentions" insulate science from the same "deviant categorizing."

Science, unlike other "world views". or paradigms, if you will, [b:53a8200afd]is[/b:53a8200afd] science because it relies on a series of logical, pre-agreed upon steps to arrive at it's conclusions.

Unlike religion and philosophy, scientific results [b:53a8200afd]must[/b:53a8200afd] be demonstrated in the "real world".
IOW, a claim of helping the alcoholic, if made by a scientist, would have to hold up to scrutiny by examination of results.
A 5% rate of sobriety would not do it, scientifically speaking, if the theory presented were "rarely do we see a person fail".
There are scientific models of various orthodoxy, but this requirement of practical applicability is the standard by which they are judged.
Science is NOT religion.

Your argument has nothing to do with the stated subject of this thread, which is why and how the courts are promoting AA.

Barbara:

My point was that science is always changing, it's not sacred either. And scientist are in considerable conflict with each other concerning currant postulates.

5% is a "straw man" argument and does not account for the choice of those who do not do what AA suggest they do. I had 3 false starts in AA yet for 21 years it's been 100% successful. How would you quantify my experience? AA didn't change, I did.

I would wager that those who rally against doing what AA suggest are in the 95% failure rate category.

It is true though that most alcoholics do die from alcoholism, that has remained consistent since the rise of AA.

Quote

Your argument has nothing to do with the stated subject of this thread, which is why and how the courts are promoting AA.[/[/quote]

The courts are sending people to AA rather then jail because the courts see that alcohol abuse is a recurring theme among criminals. AA is an alternative to going to the slammer in the hopes that these troubled individuals can change their lives.

Science has no cure for alcoholism.


Colter

Quote
ughaibu
Colter: Precisely. Those for whom god does or doesn't exist, in their personal realities, are being coerced, directly by AA and indirectly by the courts, to adopt a concept of god that has effects in the real world.

For the sake of argument I will follow your reasoning to the "effects," that would be sobriety for the hopeless alcoholic. Isn't that a positive effect on society, on their "personal realities".

AA's [b:13eb3b9028]generic brand[/b:13eb3b9028] of spirituality became the foundation for me to seek out my own God concept, expanding my "personal reality."

I don't talk much about my own God concept among AAers and they don't ever ask.

Colter




Colter

Court ordered referrals to 12 step programs have been found to be in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Religious freedom is one of our most basic rights.
Whether or not violating this freedom is done with good or bad intentions is irrelevant.
So is the outcome of such coercion.
It is a violation of our civil liberties regardless of whether or not it results in a "cure".

These have already been posted several times, but you can find some info at these sites.

[www.peele.net]
[www.law.cornell.edu]
[www.fed-soc.org]

Official AA policy:
[www.alcoholics-anonymous.org];

Some further readings on court-ordered treatment for substance abuse and mental illness can be found at these sites listed below.

These two experts discuss the dangers of the government becoming involved in the treatment of so-called moral and/or spiritual "diseases", (as opposed to physical ones), and the ramifications of government involvement in the spiritual life of the public.

[www.schaler.net]
[www.schaler.net]
[www.szasz.com]

[b:2fe6fc9f84]colter:[/b:2fe6fc9f84]
This is not a discussion about AA dogma, or whether or not someone has "failed" at the 12-steps.
[b:2fe6fc9f84]It is a discussion about coercion by the court system of citizens in violation of their first amendment rights.[/b:2fe6fc9f84]
I know it is difficult for you to tolerate anything that lyou percieve to be a critique of AA, but we will have this discussion, whether you like it or not.
We are attempting to discuss a [b:2fe6fc9f84]legal[/b:2fe6fc9f84] issue, not a theological one.

Quote

US Department of Health and Human Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Center for Substance Abuse Protection
www.samhsa.gov


Quote:
Theories and Models for Health Communications

Using Theories and Models

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Making Health Communications Work (2002), “sound health communication development should draw upon theories(1) and models that offer different perspectives on the intended audiences and on the steps that can influence their change. No single theory dominates health communication because health problems, populations, cultures, and contexts vary. Many programs achieve the greatest impact by combining theories to address a problem.” In planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating the Too Smart To Start Initiative, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is using a comprehensive health communications approach that is guided by various behavioral theories and models.

[b:678bdb32cc]Cultivation Theory (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, and Signorielli, 1980, 1986).

According to this theory, repeated, intense exposure to deviant definitions of “reality” in the mass media leads to perception of the deviant reality as normal. The result is a social legitimization of the reality as depicted in the mass media, which can influence behavior[/b:678bdb32cc].

I found this reference to "[b:678bdb32cc]deviant realities[/b:678bdb32cc]" most interesting.
Because the version of reality presented by AA has gained so much approval from the public, due, no doubt, to beliefs that any solution to the problem of alcoholism is a positive one, AA has, IMO, become a "sacred cow".

Quote

The result is a social legitimization of the reality as depicted in the mass media,[/color:678bdb32cc]

There is obviously an acceptance of AA among the mainstream media, as can be ascertained by the lack of media coverage of these 1st amendment violations and abuses within the program.
In this way, court-coerced attendance at AA meetings is not perceived by the majority to be a social ill; rather, it is seen to be justified, as witnessed by Colter's posts, and therefore "good".

There is a climate of fear in America at present which has resulted in a tightening of government control in all spheres of our lives.

The fear of the possible detrimental behavior by alcoholics and addicts [b:678bdb32cc]should not[/b:678bdb32cc], in my opinion, be used as an excuse to further restrict or repeal our constitutional freedoms.

Allowing the courts to coerce citizens into indoctrination in the "alternate reality" presented by a religious organization will open the door to other violations of the 1st amendment, and will ultimately result in loss of our most basic civil rights.

With personal freedom comes personal responsibility.
With freedom comes risk.
"You cannot have life without risk".

If we, as a public, "fear" the behavior of addicts and alcoholics, we need to ask ourselves this question:
[b:678bdb32cc]Are we really willing to trade in our basic civil rights, in this case the right to religious freedom, in the name of increased security[/b:678bdb32cc]?
Security from what?

*************************

I wrote to Jeffrey Schaler, PhD, about these issues, and received a reply from him.

[www.schaler.net]

I have not asked him for permission to post his response, so I will not do so.
He has written a book on the subject of addiction and choice:

[www.addictionisachoice.com]

Jeffrey Schaler writes about the fallacy of accepting addiction and alcoholism as a disease, as well as discussing the implications of court-coerced attendance at AA meetings.

He did make a few comments that I would like to post:

Quote

It is forbidden in AA to believe that a person can control his or her
own behavior when it comes to drinking irresponsibly, and that addiction is not a disease but a choice, etc.
The penalty for believing and expressing these ideas contrary to the group ideology usually takes the form of a pseudo-medical diagnosis: "denial."

When people are ordered into AA by the state, they disrupt the integrity of the meetings, and confidentiality-anonymity is often breached.

Schaler, like myself, believes that AA has every right to exist.
He does not, from what I have read, advocate preventing anyone from attending AA meetings, (as this would be a violation of their right to religious freedom as well).
He does disagree with the disease theory of alcoholism, indeed, states that "[b:678bdb32cc]psychotherapy has more to do with religion than medicine or science, too, regardless of what the proponents of various schools of psychotherapy have to say about the matter[/b:678bdb32cc]."

His views might be considered heretical, (by AA standards), but I find them to be well though out and thought provoking.
I think he is a "must-read" for anyone concerned with defending our 1st amendment rights.

Colter: Drinking and getting drunk are real activities, taking place in the real world, they are activities by which the drinker interacts with the rest of humanity. God is not a real thing existing in the real world, god is a personal collection of ideas existing only in the imagination of the individual. The reality, common to all humans and existing independently of all humans, does not depend, in any way, on the imagination of individuals, for example, no matter what your beliefs, if you die I will simply decide that you have stopped posting, reality will not undergo any significant changes for those who dont know you. It is implicit in this that imaginary entities, such as god, do not interact with or effect reality, and accordingly, as a person drinking or not drinking is an issue of reality, the concept of god has no real role, any role is purely personal. Presenting god as a necessary or real component of the decision not to drink, constitutes the promotion of a deviant reality. That an individual may decide, personally, to delegate responsibility for their drinking, to this deviant reality, is not my present concern.

Scrubbing the word 'god' from dictionaries would be as productive.