From: btowle@ecst.csuchico.edu (Brendon Blaire Towle)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: A Pagan trying to recover
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:03:49 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu

In article <1992Nov06.160449.9142@bnr.ca> ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>In article <1dd921INNcgh@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> btowle@ecst.csuchico.edu (Brendon Blaire Towle) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov05.042951.16832@bnr.ca> ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>>>
>>>Yes, i know, not much help here, but you asked for comments from anyone,
>>>and i like to criticize the twelve steps any time i can.
>>>-- 
>>>allen@well.sf.ca.us
>>>ethridge@bnr.ca
>>>my opinions are my own
>>
>>Where I come from, recovery is about (in part) helping others.  Criticizing
>>the twelve steps because of your own undealt-with resentment is merely
>>spreading the disease.  Carrying that anger must be _so_ satisfying!
>>
>>(Yes, this is from personal experience)
>>
>>Brendon 
>
>It may be from your personal experience, it's not from mine.  Don't make so
>many assumptions.  Why is it that twelve-steppers are so sensitive about
>criticism of the twelve steps?  (Is there something "undealt-with" there?)
>
>As far as helping others, the rest of my post, which you conveniently left out,
>was a response offering suggestions to someone who was having trouble with
>the "Christian bias" of the twelve steps.  Are you saying that offering
>alternatives to the twelve steps is not helpful?  Are you saying that the
>twelve steps are the only method of recovery from chemical dependency?
>
>Can you understand why i might enjoy criticizing the twelve steps when i
>see people presenting the twelves steps as the _only_ method of recovery?
>-- 
>allen@well.sf.ca.us
>ethridge@bnr.ca
>my opinions are my own

Well, yeah, sort of, but that wasn't what I ( or anyone else, for that matter )
was doing.

My main objections to your post were:

	1)  _your_ conclusion says, in effect, "this is just criticism for the
	    sake of criticism" - not a attitude that helps me (or anyone I
	    know) in recovery.

	2)  the "Christian bias" _of the 12 steps_ is non-existent.  There
	    are biased individuals in 12-step meetings, there are biased
	    meetings, there is even biased literature from some programs.
	    The steps, however, are unbiased - towards Christianity, or any
	    other religious belief.

As an aside, I do believe that, _for me_, the twelve steps are the only method
of recovery.  I hope I have grown enough to know that this isn't necessarliy
true for everyone else.  However, all I have to share is my experience - "This
is what happened _to me_ when I worked the steps."  (Without a Christian H.P.,
BTW.)

If you have experience with RR or SOS meetings and philosophy - please, share
it widely.  It does take all kinds.  However, 12-step bashing, IMHO, is not
appropriate, as bashing of any sort is not compatible with recovery as I
understand it.

Aside part 2:  Yes, it is somewhat of an "undealt-with" issue.  All my life,
people have been telling me that what I believe in is faulty, or not good
enough.  So, when the steps (which I believe in very strongly) are put down,
it appears to be a continuation of this same pattern.  And it hurts.

Finally, the tone of my original post had more to do with the hour at which
it was posted (past when I needed to be asleep) than anything else.  
Apologies for the tone, but not the content.

Brendon.  Who is still learning how to take care of himself.
Newsgroups: alt.recovery