[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters279.html#Luke_D ]
From: "Luke D." Let me make a little mission statement of my own then, regarding our young correspondence. I aspire to have a conversation with you in which no tricks are made and new understanding is possible for either/both of us. Are you interested in participating in this with me? L
Hello again Luke,
Yes, a discussion based on facts, rather than misinformation or propaganda tricks is often informative.
Let's start with the single most important fact of all:
Obviously, if A.A. does not actually sober up the alcoholics, then it is useless. Have a good day now. == Orange
[The next letter from Luke_D is here.]
Date: Sun, December 18, 2011 11:10 am (answered 26 December 2011) I have never read a total bunch of b/S and misinformation. You should be ashamed of yourself . I could say so much about your site. But your misleading page is not worth any more of my time. I hope you seek the help your needing.
Hello Scott,
No, I am not ashamed of telling the truth about A.A. and addiction and recovery.
That is a good thing to do.
I notice that your letter was devoid of any actual facts. Would you care to pick out some specific
issues where you think I am wrong, and provide your version of the truth? May I suggest:
Of course, you should provide supporting documentation and verification of facts,
and that means something more than the "Council-Approved Literature"
where A.A. prints things that say that A.A. is wonderful.
Have a good day now, and a Happy New Year.
== Orange
Date: Sun, December 18, 2011 8:00 pm (answered 26 December 2011) Hey...I agree....AA doesn't have the best odds in generating sobriety amongst the populous. After triangulating the results of surveys between three 'friends' and myself...the rate of continued sobriety was between 12 and 13 percent(12.334251). That is...3 years or more. The suicide rate was almost a dead even 5 percent. I don't know what meetings you have observed, but the meetings we took note of pushed attendeding college, taking prescribed medications, and sure as hell never mentioned Jesus. If just 'quitting forever' was possible...AA wouldn'd exist. After asking 200 AA members if they could just quit forever, would they have ever attended AA...100 percent said no. Why doesn't God tend to starving children? Are you fucking joking? Is this really a shadowy attack on all religion using AA as a figure head? Yeah...AA is shitty. Every true AA member I've ever met will tell you that. And I've toured AA meeting in Kiev, China, Japan, and Mexico(my Mexican spanish is awful...but still I was there). You're killing more people by shying them from the one thing that might help them. Oh...you might get raped. Well...screw Catholics. Your full of shit. People who are truely addicted can't quit without help. What is the solution? And don't say will power. Science disproves that. 'Cunning, baffling, powerful,'....yes...to the true addict, that's exactly how it manifests in your subconscious. Loser..loser...loser...are Etheopians losers because of where they were born? Must be, according to you.
Fuck you,
Hello M.K.,
Thank you for the letter.
Apparently, you are trying to say that you and three friends did some informal surveys and you averaged them.
That is meaningless number-fumbling without a lot more information, and proper standards.
Four people questioning the other people around them is not a large enough sample to provide any kind of evidence
that A.A. works. That is the common logical fallacy called
The Statistics of Small Numbers.
You are also doing Observational Selection.
You and your three friends only questioned the people who "kept coming back", didn't they?
You didn't survey all of the people who relapsed and disappeared, did you? If so, how could you do that?
How could you track down and find and question all of the people who only came to a few meetings, and
were appalled by what they saw, and left?
The facts are that the vast majority of those people who recover from alcohol abuse and alcohol addiction
do it without Alcoholics Anonymous or any other cult religion or
"support group" or "treatment".
The NIAAA's 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related
Conditions interviewed over 43,000 people. Using the criteria for alcohol
dependence found in the DSM-IV, they found:
And
the Harvard Medical School reported that 80% do it alone.
A.A. is quite unnecessary.
What you really need to do is re-examine your beliefs and understand that God does not provide miracles
on demand, not even to starving children or Jews dying in Auschwitz. And certainly not to alcoholics who
are too superstitious and lazy to quit drinking on their own, and who demand that a "Higher Power" do the
quitting for them.
Baloney. A.A. is not "the one thing that might help them."
That is the standard cult characteristic of
"Insistence that the cult is THE ONLY WAY"
(See the Cult Test
question here,
and
answer here.)
Again, A.A. does not work. So steering people away from something that does not work is not hurting them.
I have a long list of such accusations where Steppers declare that I'm doing a terrible disservice to
alcoholics by telling them the truth, and you made the list.
Look here.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. What "science" has proven is that the vast majority of the alcoholics who get
sober do it alone, without A.A. or any other "help" or "treatment".
And
A.A. does not work,
and does not improve the sobriety rate of alcoholics. That is what science has proven.
And there are plenty of other much better self-help groups for getting sober. Here is the list:
I never said that the Ethiopian people were losers. Where do you get that?
Apparently, you are trying to claim that being born with a gene that increases the chances of having problems
with alcohol is the same thing as being born black in Ethiopia. Those two things have nothing to do with each other,
and they aren't even similar problems.
You really should do something about that resentment.
Have a good day now, and a Happy New Year.
== Orange
Date: Sun, December 25, 2011 12:57 am (answered 27 December 2011) You have opened my eyes. Thank you. Sent from my iPad
Thanks for the note, and you have happy holidays too.
== Orange
Date: Mon, December 26, 2011 2:48 pm (answered 26 December 2011)
Hi Orange — was just browsing the site, more specifically the 'what's not good about AA page'
Bests
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for the tip. It appears that an A.A. true believer took over
the alcoholism section of About.com, and deleted all of Mitchell K.'s
stories about the A.A. headquarters suing A.A. members over the fraudulent copyright on the Big Book.
Wow. Those Steppers sure don't believe in Freedom Of Speech, now do they?
Censorship all over the place. "Only Council-Approved Propaganda allowed."
That's okay; I have all of Mitchell K.'s stories archived, and will change the links to local
copies. (And it's fixed now.)
I also see that "aapubliccontroversy.com" has gone away. So be it. I have that archived too.
But I see that a few other web sites still have Mitchell K.'s stories mirrored, like:
UPDATE: Also see these local archived copies:
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Fri, December 23, 2011 5:03 pm (answered 29 December 2011) So you are Mr. Orange that has this website totally condemning AA, twelve step support groups and spirituality? For quite a while now I've been hearing from a sponsee about your wisdom and expertise on addictions and recovery. Pardon me but I never took the time to check your intellectual wisdoms out on-line nor your scientific and academic beliefs of being perfect, all knowing, having all the absolutes, all the answers, while being totally obsessed seemingly with trashing AA...12 groups, all the people, and throwing the baby out with the bath water, till now. Your advice should come with warnings about just staying home alone or 'locked in a closet' and 'simply withdrawl' from whatever then all will be well. Well, he, Bruce, died because of taking your on-line advice, somewhere amongst all your diatribe and hubris. Words have power and bad advice can kill. Sick people confuse easily and tend to not listen to experience and reason. I told him I'd take him to the local hospital to kick but he insisted on reading your website apparently for quite a while then turning his back on his physical support group and family then decides to do things his own way, on his own, and from advice and methods over the internet. It is never good for a chronic addict to simply kick or withdrawl by 'themselves on a couch.' I take it you also support on-line groups in secular situations over the 'old ways.' Not to worry, now both YOU and AA and other 12 step groups, hospitals, many in the health fields, churches too, are equally guilty of "killing people." Yes, I've been doing some reading at your site. If AA kills by coercion, falsie information, cult-like stuff, mis-information and etc., then I guess people like you do too. Must be hell playing God and not believing in a "Higher Power." And apparently not out in the trenches trying to help people, just merely playing god and ridicule others. Well, but Jews. I don't accept those AA tokens and don't abide by every word or precept of AA. In fact I research everything and trust no-one... especially so-called professionals and over-educated idiots. I've got 22 years clean. I don't worship Bill W. Today we are lied to and mis-led and mis-informed on just about every thing, everything, out there. AA is not perfect, people are not perfect, science is not perfect, supposedly there are "no absolutes' especially in recovery or psychiatry but many profess nothing but that and having pure facts and absolute knowledge. You've done a good job at research though. You should do the same in exposing those Jews and Zionist you seem to be so concerned over. They are a bigger threat to this nation and our freedoms, life, than booze and dope. Booze and dope are just a few things in this Zionist-Israeli controlled land now that cannot be traced back to some Zionist or Jewish activity, or movement, or some groups wishing to further oppress us all under their Jewish police state. Yes, you should expose them and reason why people/academics/scholars that don't agree with Jews or Zionist, that dare to write historical facts that contradict the Jewish version over things like WW2 are imprisoned down to all their research material burned, confiscated and banned. Yes, you should be doing research on something like that, unless you are one of those kinds of fascist liberal Zionist supporters that seem to condemn anything that even comes close to anything concerning the poor Jews, and their money making, trademarked, holocaust that is still beat to death today in hearts and minds of the ignorant that believe modern media, all those Jewish lies... like six million killed... human soap... and Jews not wanting to rule the world ... when that is what their "World Zionism" and Israel is all about. So pardon me I also disagree with your apologetics and defense over the poor poor Jews that control every aspect of American lives today and turning us into a damn Zionist led police state where our politicians and media won't dare make a negative comment about the Jew or stinking Israel. What is the only country in the world that has attacked an American battle ship killing american soldiers and nothing was done? How many of our so-called allies spy on us and steal billions of dollars of American tax dollars every year and has for generations? Who rule the Federal Reserve? Who totally controls all American media? Hollywood? Congress? Wants us to lose our freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Why is a Menorah allowed in the White House and on the National Lawn but a christian cross is not? OH, that is a sign of control by Israeli Mossad and Israel Well, I know you won't dare do such a thing, can't piss off the masters. But please add disclaimers to some of your intelectual and absolute scientific cure-all information. Oh, and have a great day. Even though it will just be a half-honest one..
Hello "Ghostuc",
Thanks for the letter. It says so much that there isn't really much to answer.
So you hate me and "the stinking Jews", huh? You and Mel Gibson should get along just fine.
You can go to A.A. meetings together and tell each other that you have all of the answers.
I won't even waste any time on your crazy Hallocaust denyer rap.
The history of World War II has been very well documented by many excellent authors.
The facts are available to those who wish to learn the truth.
You are very mistaken about my attitudes about Israel. I have repeatedly criticized the Nazi treatment of the
Jews, but I have also repeatedly criticized the Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people — and for
basically the same reasons.
Look
here
and
here.
Your story about "Bruce" is unbelievable. You are actually trying to claim that he died clicking his
mouse, reading my web site, and detoxing on his couch, rather than going to a hospital?
Unreal. Tell me more. Please send me a scan or xerox of his obituary — the whole newspaper page, please.
What city? When? What was he addicted to?
I have in fact repeatedly warned people about the dangers of detoxing at home, alone, and told them
to go see a real doctor (not an A.A. sponsor).
Look here and
here.
I guess that you only read a few paragraphs of the file
The Effectiveness of 12-Step Treatment,
and didn't read any further.
You also misunderstood what I was saying. I was not recommending detoxing alone.
I simply said that it is how most people do it. And it is. And that's how I did it, too.
This line is simply too good to pass up:
Yes, I reject "the old ways" like blood-letting, the snake pit, burning girls
at the stake as witches, throwing virgins into the volcano, and the use of voodoo
rattles and chants and incantations and prayers and magic spells as cures for diseases.
Then, congratulations, you made
the list of accusers:
It is simply amazing how quick Steppers are to claim that telling the truth about Alcoholics Anonymous,
alcohol addiction, and recovery "kills people".
Oh well, have a good day and a Happy New Year.
== Orange
Date: Tue, December 27, 2011 9:48 am (answered 29 December 2011) The masters of propaganda and misinformation, how do you think they learn all the techniques? Are they naturals or are they somehow self taught?
Hello Afraz,
Thanks for the letter and the questions.
I think that most of the propagandists and politicians learn from older politicians
and propagandists. There are plenty around to learn from — old politicians, TV evangelists,
and various other promoters and rabble-rousers.
Probably the most famous propagandist was Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Information (or Propaganda).
And personally, I suspect that Karl Rove studied him. It is too much of a coincidence how many of
Goebbels' tricks Rove used.
There may be a few "naturals", but I think that the "naturals" are really sociopaths
and pathological liars who enjoy
deceiving people because it makes them feel smarter than the ordinary people whom they are fooling,
and more powerful.
I think that the average person who wants to be a politician or an evangelist has to learn the
techniques.
Btw I just completed reading the "propaganda and debating techniques" part of your site. Do you think "spin doctors" use exactly the same techniques to mislead the public.
Oh yes, absolutely yes.
A politician, or his assistant "spin doctor", is just somebody
who has learned how to use those tricks.
The young up-and-coming politicians learn the propaganda tricks and techniques from the old
politician masters who are often their mentors.
And I learned lots of those tricks from listening to the politicians.
I have literally listened to politicians giving speeches on TV, and then quickly wrote down two or three more
tricks to add to that file.
And what was amusing was also learning a few tricks from "Toby", the resident spin doctor on the TV
program "The West Wing".
That show was good for exposing politicians' tricks. Toby always had another spin and another trick
up his sleeve.
(Look here.)
If you were to recommend one book to get a completely full and thorough understanding of propaganda and debating techniques which book would it be?
Oh, that is a very tough question. I don't recall one book that had all of the answers, or listed
all of the tricks and techniques. My list is actually the longest one that I've seen.
(Although there is a web site somewhere that also lists a zillion logical fallacies.
Google "logical fallacies".)
If you go to the bibliography
(here),
and search for "propaganda", you will find several books about propaganda
techniques.
But I don't recall one tells-all book.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
You are welcome.
Have a good day now, and a Happy New Year.
== Orange
Date: Wed, December 28, 2011 7:46 am (answered 30 December 2011) From: An Ex-AG'er. I was very interested to read "Miss_A_Nonymous"s take on AG and Clancy. I spent several years in AG, left at the beginning of 2011, tried to go back in October, but quickly left AG and AA. In addition to the great stuff that Miss A Nonymous notes in her responses to your questions, I'd also note the steering committee structure of AG. Unlike most AA groups that are run by business meetings that any member can attend, AG has a steering committee that until recently comprised all the former overall group chairs, who were members for LIFE. They've recently revised that so the old timers have to rotate off after about 10 years (but curiously they never actually seem to rotate off). Radically different from most AA groups, and radically different from AA tradition which holds regular rotating leadership to be the ideal. The AG steering committee makes ALL the decisions and is designed deliberately to prevent change (the old timers on the committee are quite honest about that). Direct democracy as practiced in most AA groups is far too dangerous for an authoritarian group like AG — most members would do away with "AG attire" required of anyone who speaks — suits and ties for the men, business casual for the women. The steering committee structure prevents the group from voting on stuff like that — best they can do is vote for a new group chair, once a year. In about ten years you might just get some change. Of course, by then the vast majority have moved on to gentler groups. I also added some of my own comments to your questions to Miss A Nonymous:
Sexual exploitation? I know that Clancy is famous for using A.A. as his harem, and his grand-sponsee Mike Quinones in Washington DC was even worse. Which leads to, breaking up marriages?This was not my experience in AG. The women of the group always seemed very protective of each other, particularly of new women & would agressively tackle any man perceived as being exploitative.
Finances? Was there anything funny going on with the money? How do the highest bosses of the Atlantic Group make a living?AG always has more money than it needs to cover expenses and a prudent reserve. It gets distributed to the usual Intergroup, GSO etc on a pretty regular basis. The steering committee (I got to go to steering committee meetings for a couple of years) is quite obsessive about tracking money. I never saw even a whiff of impropriety. The money gets counted at the end of each meeting, double checked by a second person and a form filled in. Accounts are kept by 2 people and distributed at steering committee. Very little chance of wrongdoing. A couple of folks on the steering committee are obsessed with making everyone pay at least $2 per meeting — never quite understood why since the group has so much anyway.
Deceptive recruiting? What mind games are played on the newcomers to get them in and convince them to stay?I wouldn't call it any more deceptive than the rest of AA. Presenting the Big Book's 1930's version of alcoholism as accurate and scientific is pretty deceptive — but that's another topic. The biggest mind game played in AG is the emphasis on obedience to the sponsor. Most of AA talks about sponsor's guidance or suggestions. AG talks about "directions" — if you don't obey your sponsor's direction (i.e. do what s/he tells you to do without question) — it means you're "in self", and if you're "in self" you're going to drink and if you drink you're going to hospital, jail or the graveyard. Then there's the constant pressure to go to a meeting every day (an AG meeting that is) and to do service, service, service and more service. And then after meetings and service there's fellowship, fellowship and more fellowship. Not doing any of the above means your not following direction and you'll probably up and drink and die. And everyone in AG knows that the old AA saying "a meeting is a meeting" doesn't apply. There's AG as the gold standard for solution based sobriety, some other good meetings that focus on the big book and the solution, and then all other meetings where lies are told and people condemned to alcoholic deaths. The newcomer is left in no doubt that some other AA meetings are positively dangerous and they'd best stay in the AG fold (or they'll drink and die, no pressure!).
Success rate or drop-out rate?I'd agree with Miss A Nonymous. The vast majority of people who come through the doors of AG run away and never come back. The hardest thing I found was to try to stay in AA and connected to AG sponsorship without making AG my life. Wasn't possible. AG has an "all or nothing" mentality that forces all but the most enthusiastic out. Most people in AA in NYC think the group is off the rails authoritarian and give it a wide birth. Telling people not to take their doctor-prescribed medications?I'd say this is pretty controversial in AG. It flares up periodically that some sponsors are telling their sponsees to stop taking their meds. I'd say most people would say that is wrong and this gets voiced frequently, especially at the beginners meeting. In my "sober family" (that was linked in to Clancy way up the chain), it was definitely not acceptible — my sponsor did pressure me to pressure one of my sponsees not to start some medications — "better to work the steps and apply them to your problems than to cover them up with medications."
Claims of spirituality and a special connection to God?AG's biggest thing is to be more authentically AA than everyone else — and by implication to have a special connection to God that other groups don't have. There's no mistake in AG that AA is all about finding a connection to God, there's also no mistake that the ONLY way to do that is to work the steps as they're outlined in the first 163 pages of the Big Book. No deviation (except for the whole sponsorship thing — that doesn't get a mention in the first 163 pages). The AG way is for a sponsor to sit down with sponsee and read the big book aloud — marking up the "Warnings, promises and prayers" exactly as their sponsor had marked up theirs. You can look at people's big books and find exactly the same underlining and margin notes as their sponsor and their grand-sponsor. Hope this is useful, Ex-AGer
Hello George,
Thank you very much for the information. It is enlightening and educational.
Have a good day and a Happy New Year.
== Orange
From: "Peter F." http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/../../dr-peter-ferentzy/addiction-beat-will-nixin_b_1172385.html Happy new Year!
Peter Ferentzy, PhD
Hi again, Peter,
Thanks for the article. You make some good points.
I love this line:
"...to take a cue on sensitivity and enlightenment from some of the more progressive members of the outlaw biker community."
Yes, we should at least learn to be as civilized as outlaw bikers, shouldn't we?
Have a happy New Year.
== Orange
Date: Mon, December 26, 2011 2:41 pm (answered 3 January 2012) Dear Agent Orange, I love your site. It is my firm belief that self-honesty and reason are the best tools for any psychiatric recovery. Your ideas have confirmed a great deal of my gut instincts about AA. Despite that, I feel a certain amount of respect and tolerance for AA and work a successful program of recovery within it.
Hello Andrew,
Thank you for the compliments.
I don't have a sponsor. I don't work the steps (I prefer to think that I have control over my life). I am an avowed atheist. The greatest joy I receive in the program is the chance to help other alcoholics and to socialize in an alcohol-free atmosphere. AA has been most helpful when I've been at my lowest; I anticipate leaving it when my abstention becomes second nature. I realize that many of these ideas directly contradict AA dogma; I have been lucky and my group has practiced "Live and Let Live" and "Take What You Need and Leave the Rest" with me.
Congratulations on your recovery. I'm glad to hear that you think for yourself.
You do realize, don't you, that you are not doing the A.A. program? So you defending the
A.A. program and claiming good results for it is kind of illogical.
The most damning accusation is that AA doesn't help alcoholics recover. I am not going to argue with the studies you have cited. In some ways, though, I think the criticisms are based in an overly reductionist view of what a 'successful program' is. I agree that survival rate and remission rate are very important, but we also need to look at the cost of the program and the overall utility and happiness a person receives. I think most old-timers would self-report a high degree of social happiness and spiritual fulfillment. My personal experience is that old timers receive a great deal of happiness and satisfaction from this program. A good part of that is probably from what you call the "good things about AA" i. e. hope, social life, emotional expression, etc. Also, it appeals to certain personality types: introverted, resentful, in need of certainty and group cohesion. I would be happier about your conclusions if there were more data, particularly longitudinal studies encompassing 30-40 years. I believe that AA is benign when the happiness and utility of the committed members is weighed along with the lack of impact on remission.
I agree that the results of the A.A. program are a very important factor — in fact,
the most important factor. If A.A. doesn't make the alcoholics quit drinking
and save their lives, then of what use is it?
RE:
Excuse me? What "utility and happiness"? The carefully-done properly-performed tests of A.A.
established that it
raises the rates of binge drinking,
and costs of hospitalization, and rate of rearrests, and the death rate. That is not a benefit
or utility or happiness.
RE:
Well of course the old-timers enjoy the status of being a big frog in a small pond, and
pretending to be so spiritual while getting admired by the young.
The same is true of any cult.
It's kind of like picking on volunteer fire departments. If empirical evidence demonstrated that Volunteer Fire Departments tended to take more resources to maintain than they preserved through firefighting, it would still be nearly impossible to disband the ones that already exist.
I don't follow the logic there. I never heard of a study that showed that
volunteer fire departments were worthless, and didn't save a lot of valuable
property.
And again, you are trying to slip in the assumption that A.A. works, at least somewhat.
Volunteer fire departments really do work to put out fires, but A.A. does not
make alcoholics quit drinking.
And volunteer fire departments are not cults that tell people that they must surrender
their wills and their lives to "higher power", or to their sponsor and the group.
There isn't a consensus in psychiatry about what causes compulsions. There seems to be a genetic component. There seems to be a brain chemistry explanation. The hard part is figuring out a theory or model that is robust enough to explain a great deal of individual cases while still being simple enough for a layman to use in their recovery. There certainly isn't a scholarly consensus on what role environment and willpower play on this complex disease with many different manifestations, or if a causal explanation (e. g. other people triggered your resentments) is therapeutic . There's no simple answer to the question, "How should I view this strange compulsion to harm myself?"
Now that sounds true and realistic. Unfortunately, cult religions are no good at
curing compulsions.
And mental illnesses like Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
really should be treated by real doctors and real psychiatrists,
not by cults with quack cures.
Also, brief intervention is dependent on regular medical care and a medical emergency acute enough to get a doctor involved. The medical care is often unavailable to working class individuals. I think it can be taken for granted that the expense of providing comprehensive health care for everyone is greater than the cost of AA meetings.
I disagree with your assertion.
Brief intervention is brief intervention, period.
Getting regular medical care is a very good thing, especially for sick alcoholics who really need it,
but that is not part of the definition of brief intervention, and that is not part of
Brief Intervention treatment. Brief Intervention means one hour or less with the doctor.
Brief Intervention has nothing to do with on-going medical care.
By the way, are you trying to imply that A.A. will still work okay on people who don't
have access to good medical care? There is no evidence to support that assumption.
Also, the information in these studies has a certain granularity. A person leaving at eleven months for a single drink should be counted differently than the person who leaves at one month and never sobers up.
That is true, but that is not a flaw in the studies that I have cited.
Besides, what alcoholic relapses and quits A.A. and has only one single drink???
I don't call one single drink a relapse. That is a "slip".
And if the alcoholic in question has only one single drink, then I guess he is then sober
forever after. So he didn't really relapse at all, did he?
I do not believe that AA is a cult. You have a certain lack of generosity when appraising AA. I think that many of the attributes would apply to any secular or religious group; they are habits that successful groups cultivate in order to survive and persuade new members to join. I do agree that it is laziness and a breach of Constitutional rights to coerce defendants to attend. To me AA would be about a 4 or 5 on a 1-10 cult scale; about the same as the Episcopalian Church.
You may not believe that A.A. is a cult, but it still is.
The evidence is overwhelming. Please read the Cult Test,
both the questions and the answers.
A.A. scores far, far, higher than the Episcopalian Church.
We agree that forcing anybody into any church or religious service in blatantly illegal
and unConstitutional.
The human soul has a strange attraction to rigamarole and ceremonial trappings. We need origin myths for the important things in our lives. When we are often at our weakest, we need symbols and pageantry and some higher authority that can give us illusory clarity. I do not begrudge other people their crutches; I have too much tolerance for our human comedy to do so. It is almost unfair to use reason and logic to criticize spiritual organizations; they must create a culture that appeals to the head and the heart. You only have to appeal to logic and reason.
If you need myths and ceremonies and pageantry, go join a religion that doesn't promote the
practices of an old pro-Nazi cult religion from the nineteen-thirties.
Go join some group that won't mess with your head with
brainwashing techniques.
This line is especially troubling:
Everybody from Adolf Hitler to Rev. Sun Myung Moon and David Koresh and Rev. Jim Jones
were "higher authorities" who gave people "illusory clarity".
No thanks.
This is totally invalid:
Baloney. That is the propaganda trick called
Escape via Irrationality.
Just because some con artist who sells superstitions calls his racket "spiritual" does
not mean that his fraud cannot be criticized with logic and reason.
Even the most spiritual of organizations or programs should make some sense on some level, in some way.
"Spiritual" organizations should not be messes of fraud and lies and deceptions
and quack medicine and telling underage girls
to have sex with the oldtimers in order to learn how to have "sober sex", or
priests diddling the alter boys.
Even common sense tells you that isn't spiritual.
Any human endeavor is full of hypocrisy, contradiction, confusion and abuse of office. However, I can't successfully criticize medical treatment of alcoholism because the American Medical Association has political problems. You can do so with AA because it offers the all or nothing pronouncements and superhuman models of behavior that a spiritual program must offer. Similarly, it would be unfair to attack the morals of a secular rationalist like Henry Kissinger in order to discredit the philosophy that you've adopted as a framework of values. Religion is supremely easy to disprove; it is very difficult to create a rational alternative that satisfies the same needs.
That is the propaganda trick of
minimization and denial.
You imagine that
we should accept the faults of Alcoholics Anonymous just because everybody else in the world
is also flawed and evil?
Again, there are much better choices available. Here is the list: In some Kurt Vonnegut novel (hocus-pocus?), the American government gives everyone a second random arbitrary middle name. The middle name is supposed to encourage people to feel a kinship with other people. Spontaneous clubs take advantage of this and it helps American society. Vonnegut has a recurring theme: practice love and tolerance for benign foolishness and outrage toward dangerous foolishness. I think the only difference between you and me is that I think this is benign foolishness, not dangerous.
"Encouraging kinship", as you call it, has limited usefulness in helping
people to kick their addictions and save their own lives.
It is good to get some moral support, sometimes, but that doesn't work to make alcoholics quit drinking alcohol.
If it were that simple, then there wouldn't be any problem with alcohol abuse or alcohol addiction.
Just put them in a group and give them some feelings of kinship.
And if what you desire is just some moral support from a group of friends who are also
in recovery, there are plenty of non-cultish recovery groups like SMART, SOS, and Lifering
that won't tell you that you must conduct a séance and "Seek and Do the Will of God",
while they also tell you what a hopeless worthless sinner you really are.
Never mind telling people not to take their medications, and just trust God and the 12 Steps to heal them.
And driving people to relapse or suicide.
Remember
Dr. George Vaillant's report
on A.A. treatment: "...and our death rate of three percent a year was appalling."
So yes, you are correct in assuming that I do not consider Bill Wilson's reissue of Dr. Frank Buchman's cult religion to
produce benign results.
Thank you for your insight, Andrew S.
You have a good day too.
== Orange
[The next letter from Andrew_S is here.]
Last updated 26 May 2013. |