Whitaker is low hanging fruit. She is a lunatic. Taking on Stanton Peele, Charles Bufe, Albert Ellis or if you want a writer writing about women’s recovery Charlotte Kasl would be a different matter. All rip 12 Step programs to shreds. Not only do they not work, they are flat out dangerous.
Check out the orange papers!
I Googled the first two writers you mentioned and found their critiques of AA, etc, unpersuasive, except for one important point: alcoholism is probably not a “disease”, as AA claims; and was probably so classified in order to generate profits from expensive clinics, rehabs and whatever other treatments the medical industry dreams up.
But, the existence of these clinics, rehabs and so on, does not reflect on AA itself. Nor is it any reflection on AA if, to cite one of Peele’s critiques, judges order drunk drivers to attend AA meetings. If a drunk driver prefers to have a suspended license or go to prison, rather than attend AA meetings, surely that can be arranged. Does Peele seriously believe that the sordid tales allegedly proffered in AA meetings will be worse than what you’d be subjected to in a prison?
After all, AA is free and anonymous, and participation is voluntary. If it is as “ineffective” as critics claim, these same critics have yet to uncover a superior alternative, or to persuade however many members to cease attending.
In the end, the authors’ main problem is with AA’s so-called “spiritual” component. Well, perhaps the authors disapprove. But that is neither here nor there. Closer examination reveals that AA is no more “spiritual” than anything else is “spiritual” these days.
AA is certainly not Christian: I am aware that priests may recommend it to alcoholics in their parishes, but I have found no mention of Christ in its program. If an atheist objects to “choosing a higher power”, or whatever is supposed to go on in AA, then surely the atheist is free to seek an alternative. Perhaps the atheist, placing all his faith in himself alone, ought to come up with a practical solution of his own; and in any case, isn’t it incoherent to say on the one that AA and the like “don’t work”, and then complain that atheists are excluded? If the program “doesn’t work” to begin with, why should the atheist care?
I Googled the first two writers you mentioned and found their critiques of AA, etc, unpersuasive, except for one important point: alcoholism is probably not a “disease”, as AA claims; and was probably so classified in order to generate profits from expensive clinics, rehabs and whatever other treatments the medical industry dreams up.
But, the existence of these clinics, rehabs and so on, does not reflect on AA itself. Nor is it any reflection on AA if, to cite one of Peele’s critiques, judges order drunk drivers to attend AA meetings. If a drunk driver prefers to have a suspended license or go to prison, rather than attend AA meetings, surely that can be arranged. Does Peele seriously believe that the sordid tales allegedly proffered in AA meetings will be worse than what you’d be subjected to in a prison?
After all, AA is free and anonymous, and participation is voluntary. If it is as “ineffective” as critics claim, these same critics have yet to uncover a superior alternative, or to persuade however many members to cease attending.
In the end, the authors’ main problem is with AA’s so-called “spiritual” component. Well, perhaps the authors disapprove. But that is neither here nor there. Closer examination reveals that AA is no more “spiritual” than anything else is “spiritual” these days.
AA is certainly not Christian: I am aware that priests may recommend it to alcoholics in their parishes, but I have found no mention of Christ in its program. If an atheist objects to “choosing a higher power”, or whatever is supposed to go on in AA, then surely the atheist is free to seek an alternative. Perhaps the atheist, placing all his faith in himself alone, ought to come up with a practical solution of his own; and in any case, isn’t it incoherent to say on the one that AA and the like “don’t work”, and then complain that atheists are excluded? If the program “doesn’t work” to begin with, why should the atheist care?
MP
Max Price
2 years ago
Whitaker is low hanging fruit. She is a lunatic. Taking on Stanton Peele, Charles Bufe, Albert Ellis or if you want a writer writing about women’s recovery Charlotte Kasl would be a different matter. All rip 12 Step programs to shreds. Not only do they not work, they are flat out dangerous.
Check out the orange papers!
AP
Amanda P
3 years ago
In my experience AA is love. It’s was and continues to be one place I can be myself, say how I actually feel and think. I can talk about the shameful, guilty secrets and still be accepted. They are not interested in my job, my family, how much money I have, how educated I am, they just want me to get well. It’s the most freeing place I have ever been.
CA
Chris Amies
1 year ago
Also, WFS (Women for Sobriety) already exists and has done for some time. If Whitaker was really that concerned, she could have joined WFS instead.
Report this comment
This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.
Whitaker is low hanging fruit. She is a lunatic. Taking on Stanton Peele, Charles Bufe, Albert Ellis or if you want a writer writing about women’s recovery Charlotte Kasl would be a different matter. All rip 12 Step programs to shreds. Not only do they not work, they are flat out dangerous.
Check out the orange papers!
I Googled the first two writers you mentioned and found their critiques of AA, etc, unpersuasive, except for one important point: alcoholism is probably not a “disease”, as AA claims; and was probably so classified in order to generate profits from expensive clinics, rehabs and whatever other treatments the medical industry dreams up.
But, the existence of these clinics, rehabs and so on, does not reflect on AA itself. Nor is it any reflection on AA if, to cite one of Peele’s critiques, judges order drunk drivers to attend AA meetings. If a drunk driver prefers to have a suspended license or go to prison, rather than attend AA meetings, surely that can be arranged. Does Peele seriously believe that the sordid tales allegedly proffered in AA meetings will be worse than what you’d be subjected to in a prison?
After all, AA is free and anonymous, and participation is voluntary. If it is as “ineffective” as critics claim, these same critics have yet to uncover a superior alternative, or to persuade however many members to cease attending.
In the end, the authors’ main problem is with AA’s so-called “spiritual” component. Well, perhaps the authors disapprove. But that is neither here nor there. Closer examination reveals that AA is no more “spiritual” than anything else is “spiritual” these days.
AA is certainly not Christian: I am aware that priests may recommend it to alcoholics in their parishes, but I have found no mention of Christ in its program. If an atheist objects to “choosing a higher power”, or whatever is supposed to go on in AA, then surely the atheist is free to seek an alternative. Perhaps the atheist, placing all his faith in himself alone, ought to come up with a practical solution of his own; and in any case, isn’t it incoherent to say on the one that AA and the like “don’t work”, and then complain that atheists are excluded? If the program “doesn’t work” to begin with, why should the atheist care?
I Googled the first two writers you mentioned and found their critiques of AA, etc, unpersuasive, except for one important point: alcoholism is probably not a “disease”, as AA claims; and was probably so classified in order to generate profits from expensive clinics, rehabs and whatever other treatments the medical industry dreams up.
But, the existence of these clinics, rehabs and so on, does not reflect on AA itself. Nor is it any reflection on AA if, to cite one of Peele’s critiques, judges order drunk drivers to attend AA meetings. If a drunk driver prefers to have a suspended license or go to prison, rather than attend AA meetings, surely that can be arranged. Does Peele seriously believe that the sordid tales allegedly proffered in AA meetings will be worse than what you’d be subjected to in a prison?
After all, AA is free and anonymous, and participation is voluntary. If it is as “ineffective” as critics claim, these same critics have yet to uncover a superior alternative, or to persuade however many members to cease attending.
In the end, the authors’ main problem is with AA’s so-called “spiritual” component. Well, perhaps the authors disapprove. But that is neither here nor there. Closer examination reveals that AA is no more “spiritual” than anything else is “spiritual” these days.
AA is certainly not Christian: I am aware that priests may recommend it to alcoholics in their parishes, but I have found no mention of Christ in its program. If an atheist objects to “choosing a higher power”, or whatever is supposed to go on in AA, then surely the atheist is free to seek an alternative. Perhaps the atheist, placing all his faith in himself alone, ought to come up with a practical solution of his own; and in any case, isn’t it incoherent to say on the one that AA and the like “don’t work”, and then complain that atheists are excluded? If the program “doesn’t work” to begin with, why should the atheist care?
Whitaker is low hanging fruit. She is a lunatic. Taking on Stanton Peele, Charles Bufe, Albert Ellis or if you want a writer writing about women’s recovery Charlotte Kasl would be a different matter. All rip 12 Step programs to shreds. Not only do they not work, they are flat out dangerous.
Check out the orange papers!
In my experience AA is love. It’s was and continues to be one place I can be myself, say how I actually feel and think. I can talk about the shameful, guilty secrets and still be accepted. They are not interested in my job, my family, how much money I have, how educated I am, they just want me to get well. It’s the most freeing place I have ever been.
Also, WFS (Women for Sobriety) already exists and has done for some time. If Whitaker was really that concerned, she could have joined WFS instead.