From: enigma@netcom.com (Enigma)
Subject: Re: Forest for the trees
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 17:09:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep26.122622.27838@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <Sep26.071450.60994@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> maxwell@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Mark Story) writes:
>>
>>Yet now I read this group and it seems that the majority of the postings are
>>people arguing over what is the 'correct way' to achieve and maintain 
>>sobriety.  I read the postings and gain very little new perspective.  Often
>>it seems to me that this folks are just taking advantage of this group to 
>>unleash their egos, to demand that their view on life is sacred.  I really 
>>don't see the value of this!
>
>    There *is* no value in it.  I have, to this point, stayed out of the
>useless arguing about the *right* way to maintain sobriety; I intend to
>stay out of it.  Why?  Because I don't care what others' opinions of my
>program are and I feel no egotistical urge to defend it.  I am really
>amazed at the *A folks in this group who get so defensive when someone
>posts rational questions or even challenges to their program.  This is
>"live and let live"??!!

You're lucky you feel no egotistical urge to defend your program - some
of us aren't so lucky.  Me, for example.  :)  Of course, egotism is the
main "character defect" that I discovered in myself while working my
program.  It's pretty common among us *A'ers.  I have been struggling
*so* hard to keep my mouth shut during this thread.

You see, from my point of view, many of the accusations leveled against
the various *A programs just aren't true.  Like the stuff about it being
a Christian religious thing.  I'm as anti-Christian as I ever was (I'm
an ex-agnostic, and I *really* dislike Christianity - they played some
major head games on me when I was too young to get away from them).  And
the groups I've been to have been very specific about not being religious,
especially not being Christian.  I remember one time this guy started
going on about Jesus, and a lot of people stood up and walked out in
protest.  Most of the next meeting was spent hashing out the problem.
Turns out that in the past, part of the introduction, or preamble,
specifically asked people *not* to refer to specific religious stuff
(I forget how they worded it).  But somebody had lost the piece of 
paper that it was written on.

Thats the thing, you see.  Each group is autonomous, and we're fallible
human beings and we screw up, and we're not very organized sometimes.
In my humble opinion, of course.  So when I read a post that says that
some group somebody went to was nothing but a Christian cult, I don't
know what to think.  There *are* a lot of Christians in the program -
of course there are a lot of Christians in this country...  And some
groups *might* have acted like a fanatic Christian sect.  I haven't
been to every *A group in the country, so I don't know.  The ones I've
been to haven't been like that, but then the only places I've been
to meetings have been in DC and California.  Perhaps if you go to a
*A group in the midwest somewhere, they *do* act like that.  But one
thing I do know is that shoving any religion down someone's throat
is specifically excluded in the *A literature.

And I have some other major concerns about things that are happening
in the program these days that are not part of the steps or approved
literature.  For example, I see a lot of people being dragged to
meetings pretty much against their will.  I do not see how this can
possibly work.  My SO was dragged into some Coda meetings because
his dad was in a treatment center.  He hated it, and I don't blame
him.  In my view, that treatment center harmed my SO by forcing
him to go to meetings.

It's that first step, you see.  "We admitted we were powerless..."
That applies to me.  I'm a (recovering) addict.  When confronted
with my "drug of choice", I was not able to stop myself from doing
it.  Literally.  my brain would be screaming "no no no" and all
the while I was going right ahead using the drug.  It's a weird
feeling, and I think most of the people who have recovered from
substance abuse on their own have *not* experienced this form of
insanity.  Of course, you can get all metaphysical about how all
of us are powerless over life in general, and anyone is *welcome*
to work the 12 steps.  But when Bill W. and Doctor Bob founded
AA, they were dealing with folks like me, who had first-hand
experience with this particular form of insanity (addiction).  If
they were dealing with people like my SO, I suspect they would
have worded it differently.  IMHO, of course.

I've seen versons of the first step worded "We were powerless over
our emotions", or "other people"...  Does anybody really object
to this?  I mean, if I feel angry, I can try to pretend I don't
feel angry, but that doesn't make the anger go away, it just 
gives me ulcers.  I have to recognize the anger and deal with
it.  And I know that telling someone "Oh, quit being so 
deperessed.  Cheer up." does *not* work.  In my experience
anyway.  I just get annoyed (another emotion).  I suspect
everybody is powerless over their emotions, not just addicts
like me.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's fair to criticize the
*A programs for what they actually are.  The Big Book was
writen with (alcohol) addicts in mind, and if you want to use
it for recovery from codependency or sexual abuse or whatever,
some of the stuff that targets alcoholics might not apply.
But I experience some very negative emotions when I see people
putting up these straw-man arguments and asking these "have you
quit beating your wife yet" type questions.  That's not fair,
and innocent people are being harmed by it.

Holly
-- 
Holly McGrath   <enigma@netcom.com> 
1803 Mission Street, #339          
Santa Cruz, CA 95060              
(408) 479-4072  (voice mail)