Quote
barabara
[b:0379cad0b2]1. AA is not responsible for the actions of its members[/b:0379cad0b2], even though they claim to be concerned and to have put "checks and balances" in place.

Of course they are not. That's a commonplace in these lawsuit-crazed days. Find me an organisation that doesn't have a small-print clause that they are not responsible for the actions of their members. Your arguments are more and more like rants. Increasingly technicoloured ones.

Quote
barabara
2.[b:0379cad0b2] AA is not responsible for what is written in the Big Book[/b:0379cad0b2], or how it is adhered to, even though the Big Book and the steps are the basis for the program, and are referred to, read from, and studied at nearly every AA meeting.

No one has said that AA is not responsible for what is written in the Big Book. I continue to say that what is written in the Big Book is open to individual interpretation.

Quote
barabara
4. [b:0379cad0b2]AA does not offer religious services[/b:0379cad0b2], but Christian prayer is present at every AA meeting, confession is, (according to the AA founders), a necessary part of the program, and pressure to believe in the "one true God" is applied through the Big Book, the 12 steps, and by other AA members.

And yet after all these years, AA continues to produce alumni of widely varying religious beliefs...

You've gotten carried away.

Quote
barabara
[b:0379cad0b2]upside down[/b:0379cad0b2]:
Do you live in Australia, or is that just a ruse and part of your technique for disrupting the thread?

Really, your fast and furious kung-fu style of debate armed with its combo bold and italic attacks, loping the oncoming onslaught of AA ninjas here and there with your bold-red and sometimes 14-point shuriken stars, betrays a lack of cohesive conviction. Asking so impertinently if I live in Australia!??!

I could just as easy suggest you are yourself a [b:0379cad0b2]Scientologist obfuscator [/color:0379cad0b2][/b:0379cad0b2]posting in these long and colourful threads to [b:0379cad0b2]muddy the waters [/b:0379cad0b2][/color:0379cad0b2]of what is the serious issue of destructive cults.

But I won't.

There are, of course, various ways in which a person can become a practicing member of AA.

[b:a13495f6ae]It is possible[/b:a13495f6ae], (for some people), to go to meetings, listen selectively, do a little soul-searching, pay lip-service to (or previously agree with) the religious aspects, and use the meetings as a social support system in a way similar to the ways in which others might use Sunday attendance at church, or an interest club, or weekly "group therapy" for that matter.

[b:a13495f6ae]This may be the one major difference between AA and recognized "destructive cults"; a member is "relatively" free to pick and choose from the program, if they wish.[/b:a13495f6ae]
I suspect, however, that this is possible in many destructive cults as well, and that there are those who do not become deeply involved in even the most demanding cult, but who instead use cult-involvement to their own advantage, rather than the other way around.

However, many people who join AA have been, (as the Big Book says), "beaten into submission by the club of alcoholism", and are more than willing to do anything that the literature or the more experienced AA members suggest.
[b:a13495f6ae]It seems to me that it is these types, who have the greatest incentive to swallow the Big Book and the rest of the AA dogma hook, line, and sinker, who are at greatest risk of suffering ill effects from their involvement in the program.[/b:a13495f6ae]
(You will note that this is the exact opposite of the standard AA defense, which is that the only people who bear a grudge against AA are those who refuse to "work the program" because of their inflated egos. )
[b:a13495f6ae]The people I believe to have suffered the greatest harm from AA did not, to me at least, seem to need need "ego deflation"; they had already had their egos "deflated" before going to AA.[/b:a13495f6ae]

Those who do submit, or "accept" indoctrination into the more esoteric aspects of AA react, in my experience, in one of two ways:

1. [b:a13495f6ae]Some of them become AA zealots who unquestioningly agree with all the accepted AA dogma[/b:a13495f6ae], (whether or not they actually "work the steps", view the program as "sacred" or at minimum restorative, and claim to experience a positive result from AA involvement.
(For these types, "surrender" is possible.)

2. [b:a13495f6ae]Those who are unable to completely eliminate doubts and fears about AA dogma alien to their own belief system, but who nevertheless attempt to accept the new paradigm insisted upon by the literature, often suffer grave psychic distress because of the internal conflict.[/b:a13495f6ae]

[b:a13495f6ae]They may internalize this distress and believe their own "defects of character" to be the cause of it.[/b:a13495f6ae] If and when they realize that the true cause of their distress was the fact that they were tricked or bullied into compliance by threats of death, ("jails, institutions, and death"), or by the infliction of shame and guilt by the Big Book and other AA members, ("selfishness, self-centeredness is the root of our problems", etc.), they eventually become resentful and bitter towards AA as a result of their involvement in the program. [b:a13495f6ae]It may take a very long time for them to resolve internal conflicts,[/b:a13495f6ae] as has been the case among the people I know personally.

(If you still don't understand precisely which "esoteric aspects" I am talking about, read my previous posts which include quotes from the Big Book.)

[b:a13495f6ae]Court-ordered attendees may or may not be motivated to submit to conversion to the AA "mindset".[/b:a13495f6ae] I would suspect that most lack the incentive to do so, and probably suffer less than those who truly put their heart and soul into "the program" but fail to reconcile AA views with their own pre-existing ones.

[b:a13495f6ae]You will note that I present this only as a theory, not as a proven fact.[/b:a13495f6ae] I do not have expert opinions to support these interpretations.
They are based on my lengthy attendance at AA meetings, extensive study of AA literature, and my own past and present study of psychological theory, formal (for college credit) and otherwise.

barabara:

Quote

We have been informed by the moderator that he has never seen any criticism of AA in the mainstream press, which I find hard to believe.
Criticism of AA by experts, published in mainstream media, such as The Saturday Evening Post, can be found as far back as 1963.

Isolated criticism expressing a minority opinion.

Quote

As for why they do not appear frequently in mainstream media I can only speculate; it appears to me that AA has so infiltrated the psychiatric profession, and that AA theories have been so widely disseminated and accepted by those desperate for anything that appears to be a "cure" for alcoholism, that there is a pervasive prejudice against anyone who would "rock the boat", so to speak.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

The most obvious explanation is there press isn't interested because there is no story.

I don't receive complaints from families stating "AA has brainwashed my son/daughter." Yet such complaints about smaller groups called "cults" come in constantly.

I am still waiting for my first such complaint about AA.

AA has its critics regarding the "higher power" part of its suggested recovery process and it has its problems regarding individual members and their personalities, but as an organization it is not destructive.

That's my opinion based upon almost 25 years of receiving complaints and working with families regarding destructive groups.

barabara:

I don't find the information you have posted on this thread "compelling" as an indictment of AA.

And the Internet websites are not compelling through a collection of objective facts either.

Again, as an organization AA is neither destructive nor a "cult."

The complaints seem to revolve around two major categories: individual situations and personalities and the "higher power" issue that people object to.

AA as an organization is not generating complaints like a "destructive cult."

If it were as destructive as some people claim the press would be all over it and the complaints would be flowing in.

It's not happening.

What you say may very well be true; nevertheless, there are many members and ex-members, psychologists, judges and attorneys who disagree.

I have posted many quotes taken from the big book which refute the statements made by AA defenders.

I know many people who believe they were harmed by the [b:c55c0844ba]dogma[/b:c55c0844ba] of AA, not the individual members.

Perhaps the reason you recieve no complaints is that you have already made your opinion that AA is harmless quite clear?
I certainly wouldn't call someone up with a complaint about an organization they have repeatedly said they see no danger in.
What would be the point?

barabara:

I would suggest that the opinions you cite and express are a minority opinion not shared by most psychiatrists, psychologists, judges and attorneys and/or those affected by AA.

But you are free to express them.

I do appreciate that freedom, and know that others do as well.

I agree with the statement that most mainstream psycholgists, judges , etc. do not view AA as harmful. Yet I do see this view slowly changing. Here is one article that may illustrate this: (http://www.worcestermag.com/archives/2006/02-02-06/slants-rants_your_turn.html)

By any other name

It's time to consider AA for what it is

By Nicholas Hoag

How many people are aware that we have an official state religion? How many would be appalled to hear that law enforcement routinely mandates and stipulates attendance for criminal offenders to services of this religion? How many know that mental health and substance abuse treatment providers dump patients into the hands of these congregations and subject them to its dogma?

How is this possible in the land of religious liberty and freedom?

The answer lies in the denial of Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step organizations to accept the label of “religion.” “Spiritual, not religious,” is their mantra but objective observers fail to see the distinction. This handy piece of double-talk and many other circular arguments and denials have allowed AA to leap over the traditional wall of separation guaranteed by our First Amendment and get in bed with the state. Several courts across the country, however, have conceded that AA is a religion and that attendance at its meetings may not be mandated by any state entity. The U.S. Supreme court itself has declined to rule on any of these lower court decisions, indicating tacit agreement.

A standard technique of many harmful cults has been to recruit from the most vulnerable of our citizens. Who is more vulnerable than a person struggling with the devastation of addiction, confused at his or her own behavior and desperate for answers? This is not usually a person with the wherewithal to question or appeal their mandated AA attendance — yet under current state law a judge may sentence an individual to AA and a formal appeal is his only reprieve.

Attend an open AA meeting if you’re skeptical of their content. There are hundreds of them across the state. Read the 12 steps and listen to the testimonies. Stay for the prayer at the end. Notice how many attendees bring forms to be signed for their probation officers or treatment providers. Here is a program that claims autonomy from outside forces, anonymity and “attraction, not promotion.” Here is denial, 1984-style.

The other half of this story is that many “experts” believe that addiction is an incurable disease and if there is no cure there is nothing left to do but huddle together, give testimony and pray. AA members include treatment providers, police officers, judges and politicians. Anonymously. AA’s influence has spread rapidly throughout pious America since its inception in the 1930s. AA has removed some of the stigma that goes with addiction but it’s also responsible for much of the victim mentality that permeates our society.

In Massachusetts alone, more than 100,000 residents per year enter substance abuse treatment and virtually all of them are coerced into AA. The opinion of Michael Botticelli, the assistant commissioner for the Massachusetts Bureau of Substance Abuse Services, is that “Since no case law exists in Massachusetts that construes AA as a religious entity, state-funded treatment programs may require participation.” This is contrary to the federal Charitable Choice guidelines which state that: “With regard to the 12-step and AA meetings, we note that any inherently religious activities must be voluntary and must be offered separately in time or location from the program that receives direct SAMHSA funding.”

Currently the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health has before it Senate Docket 2101, which I have filed through the office of state Sen. Ed Augustus, titled: “An act prohibiting endorsement by the Commonwealth of the Alcoholics Anonymous program.” The act reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: Section 1. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the Commonwealth, its agents, servants or employees shall not, while carrying out duties imposed by law, endorse, support, maintain, refer a person to or finance the organization known as Alcoholics Anonymous.

If you care about religious liberty for yourself and other Americans, I urge you to take action on this important issue. Call or write your senators and representatives. Be a conscientious objector to forced religion. Uphold our First Amendment liberties.

Someday it could be you being told what you must believe. o


************************************************************
Two other articles written by a mainstream pyschologist which may be of interest:
[www.mentalhelp.net]
[mentalhelp.net]

rrmoderator:

Quote

Quote:
As for why they do not appear frequently in mainstream media I can only speculate; it appears to me that AA has so infiltrated the psychiatric profession, and that AA theories have been so widely disseminated and accepted by those desperate for anything that appears to be a "cure" for alcoholism, that there is a pervasive prejudice against anyone who would "rock the boat", so to speak.


Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

The most obvious explanation is there press isn't interested because there is no story.

I'm not saying that there is any "conspiracy";

I am referring to observations made by many people that the courts and often publicly-funded mental health organizations tend to recommend attendance at faith-based 12 step programs, often to the exclusion of other, more "professional" and "scientific" methods.
(You have stated that the reason for this may be financial, and I agree. AA is free to the public, and it doesn't cost the taxpayer when people are sent there for "rehabilitation".)

I am referring also to the apparent opinion of many non-indoctrinated [by AA involvement] members of the press and the public that anyone issuing a complaint about their experience of AA must be either a "lying alcoholic" or a crackpot.

Despite your statement that no one complains to you personality that their loved ones have been harmed by involvement in AA, (other than those who have done so here, on this forum), there are hundreds of reports available on the internet and in writing elsewhere from people who believe themselves to have been negatively affected by their indoctrination into AA.

Is it the opinion of the moderators that anyone claiming to have been harmed by attempts to practice the suggestions put forth by the steps and dogma in the Big Book is a either fabricating their experience or a "crackpot"?

rrmoderator:
I find it interesting that in the case of MKP and other LGATs you have argued that group therapy administered by untrained non-professionals is potentially dangerous, but that you seem to feel that "group therapy" administered by the untrained, unsupervised, and, in my experience, frequently chaotic members of AA is not only harmless, but advisable.

[board.culteducation.com]
rrmoderator:

Quote

What you are describing is group therapy not education.

Here is the problem.

Therapy is typically through a trained professional that is licensed and meets certain criteria, such as a clinical psychologist. The professional has the ability and training to understand boundaries, possible problems arising out of therapy etc.

MP has no such training or educational requirements for its staffers.

Also, when a person enters therapy, if the professional harms them or violates their privacy, there is typically recourse through a licensing board, association and/or legally.

Not so with MP.

So it is ultimately safer and less problematic to go to a professional and licensed marriage and family therapist to resolve issues about mommy, wife etc. than MP.

I perceive a contradiction here. Would you care to enlighten me as to how I am mistaken?
I don't consider my interest in AA to be frivolous, as I and several family matters feel they were adversely affected by the program.
I would seriously like to hear your reasoning in these matters.