They act and are treated by some as if they are the ONLY alcohol cessation program, which is just not true. Their success rate is no better than any other program, about 30%. The other thing is the way they force people to admit that they are powerless over alcohol; obviously they are not - theyre there, and theyre not drinking. I think focusing on self empowerment and self worth would be more effective as well as realistic and honest.
serena Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They act and are treated by some as if they are > the ONLY alcohol cessation program, which is just > not true. Their success rate is no better than any > other program, about 30%. The other thing is the > way they force people to admit that they are > powerless over alcohol; obviously they are not - > theyre there, and theyre not drinking. I think > focusing on self empowerment and self worth would > be more effective as well as realistic and honest. AA s success rate is about 5%, according to their OWN numbers. The Sinclair Method, in conjunction with Naltrexone has a 70% verifiable success rate, yet continues to be shouted down by the AA faaith and their profitable business arm, the recovery industry cartel.
I agree that society's endorsement of AA is perhaps a bit over the top.
In fact, has anyone truly investigated the insanity of today's DUI laws? Don't get me started on that.
We live in time when taking a hard-line stance on alcohol is very good politics. Furthermore, it is very lucrative for the courts, for the municipalities, for the DMV, for the lawyers, for the judges, for the police officers, etc. In fact, in Utah the sheriff's department, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges all share the same building and know each other well. Can anyone spell "conflict of interest?"
A person who says, "I am not an alcoholic" is automatically dismissed as being in denial because "all alcoholics claim that they are not alcoholics." However, what is a person supposed to say that is truly not an alcoholic?
is the black/white thinking that if you have a relapse you have "lost" the credit or benefit for your other 365 sober days.
This is simply not true and AA knows it because look how many members get sober after several relapses. After his last relapse my son pointed out that he had many more more sober days between each relapse and that last year was his most sober year despite three relapses. This year will top that (knock on wood).
My other atheist alcoholic child is keeping sober with the help of LifeRing, an alternative sobriety program without the twelve commandments.
I wouldn't read too much into this. Your sources are pretty far left opponents who are choosing to place a sensational spin on this. Thomas is just taking a literal reading of a restriction on the Federal government. He's choosing not to write new legislation from the bench. He's not condoning a state religion.
This article is much ado about nothing. It is clearly written by a very far-left person who is trying to smear Clarence Thomas. I wouldn't give this article the time of day because it lacks objectivity. I would say the exact same thing about a far-right article.
So, before everyone gets their undies all wadded up, realize that this article is a smear, and that Clarence Thomas gets no chance to rebut the arguments or defend himself.
So, if you really believe in human decency and fairness, you would allow a person to defend himself and present his side of the story. Remember, there are always two sides to every story.
Amen to that, Cahoon. For arguments to be cogent, they need to be somewhat objective. Otherwise, TBMs are totally justified in their apologetics.
It always surprises me how many people on this board reject the religion of Mormonism and then embrace wholeheartedly and totally the religion of liberalism, as if conservatives are never, ever right about anything. And liberals are never, ever wrong.
Reasonable people are much more open-minded and moderate in their thinking processes, basing their opinions on independent thought rather than blindly and religiously following the party line.
The Constitution only speaks about Congress, not the states so far as religion is concerned. Connecticut at one time DID have a state religion. Of course, it is a bad thing not only for other people but also for the church which corrupts from the fact that it does not need contributions from the people.
Like my treasured uncle's 26 years of sobriety. He had a way of hitting bottom over and over, then like bounce back up for awhile only to hit bottom again. AA saved his @$$, and his life. And one thing he ain't is into religion. He found a group that was not into it either.
AA gave my mom a wonderful, smart, funny, lovable brother, which she never had before! I will never bash it for that reason.
Getting sober and stayin sober ain't for sissies and it ain't no one size fits all thing either. Ya gotta do what works for YOU. Like anything else that involves recovery!
Just one old dog's opinion. Your mileage may vary.