Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-11T23:53:02Z

Associate:

Who coined the term "New Ordeal?"--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 10:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge. Who coined the term, "Contract ''on'' Amercia"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

No, it is not common knowledge. As for the "Contract on America" that was a democratic spoof of the the Republican "Contract with America" during the 1994 midterm elections--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I've never heard of the New Ordeal, and I'm not getting any quick info on it from Google. I think Franklin's question is valid - is it coined by the author of the sourced book? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Even the single reference for the page makes no mention of "New Ordeal", nor can I find any online reference to the term in this context. Is this a term that Rush has created or was it created by the author of this page? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Rational_wiki has some discussion of this likewise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I looked on rational_wiki. The term seems to be your creation, and the cited sources do not support your contention. The 1945 Time magazine article deals with the impending demobilization of U.S. troops at the close of World War Two, and the chart showing flucuations in the U.S. economy deals with the last few decades of the nineteenth century. If you are trying to construct some sort of argument about the New Deal (which did have its shortcomings) this is a very poor way to do it.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:35, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Contract ''on'' America was a spoof? Really? Seems common knowledge spoofed New Dealers for 70 years and they didn't even know it. Must be more evidence that they did not know everything afterall, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Is it really too much to ask to drop the sarcasam and just state who coined the phrase? I'm not sure what rational_wiki has to do with this site, either. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been common knowledge for decades. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The phrase may be common knowledge in certain circles, but I think it is not as widely spread as you believe it to be. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:00, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hardly common knowledge. Where did the phrase come from? Can you cite that? Was it in Hayek's book that you cited (although I cannot imagine Hayek being so crass)?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 11:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well of course, given censorship, oppression, and the [[Fairness Doctrine]] for 50 years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, you are not being censored or oppressed. I have asked you to forthrightly provide your sources, and you have directed us to rational_wiki, where the cites did not support your contention. So, I ask again, what is your evidence for this term? Is it in Hayek or another source?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:I beleive I've answered several times. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:27, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, you have not. You have have been asked several times and you respond that the term is common knowledge. Show a little bit of intellectual honesty my friend.--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:It also survives in oral histories. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wonderful! Many oral histories have been recorded and transcirbed in book or sometimes journal format. Can you cite some?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well duh, what does oral mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Why did you revert my edit and remove my comment? I repeat: many oral histories have transcribed into printed form/ Can you direct me to a few where I might see this term used?--[[User:Franklin|Franklin]] 12:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, hit the wrong button (meant to hit mark as patrolled). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The only reference I can find is in the title of a 1948 book, reprinted in 1968. The book is referenced in Hayak's bibliography and a few other places, but I can find no usages of the term itself.previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Boomcoach]]

::'''Doh!''' Forgot the tildes. Sorry. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Where is this found? ==

I can't find any mention of this in the text at the bottom--it is totally unrelated. Can we take this out? Robs gave no answer above. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 15:30, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:After looking around, I can find no source for this except conservapedia. Now that means either conservapedia is that good, or the whole thing is a <s>lie</s> a fiction. I think it is the latter. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 15:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::Like all CP articles, it's a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Yeah, the problem is, it is still not a real thing. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:27, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::::If you could find even ONE source for this, aside from that book that doesn't mention it, we could work together. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:28, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

==Can't find it, either==
A Google Books search on [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22new+ordeal%22+roosevelt&btnG=Search+Books "New Ordeal" Roosevelt] turns up thirteen hits, none relevant.

The closest thing to a relevant hit is [http://books.google.com/books?id=DW4eAAAAMAAJ&q=%22new+ordeal%22&dq=%22new+ordeal%22&pgis=1 The New Ordeal by Planning: The Experience of the Forties and the Sixties], by John Jewkes, which is an update to his 1948 book "Ordeal by Planning." A search in this book for "Roosevelt" turns up no hits, nor does a search for "New Deal," meaning that whatever he means by this, it is not a satirical takeoff on "New Deal."

I believe this should be retitled as an essay and "signed" by RobS and co-contributors. It is '''not''' an exposition of a well-established conservative locution (like "Death tax"); I think it's a personal essay and that RobS hopes to ''promote'' the use of an original or at least poorly-known coinage.

If a home-schooled student were asked, as a fill-in-the-blanks exam question, "What name is used to refer to the period of economic decline between the crash of 1929 and the Second World War," do you think he or she would get credit for "New Ordeal?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I concur, thanks for your help and honesty. [[User:FredK|FredK]] 16:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Why this kind jokes are kept here?! ==

If this is some kind of encyclopedia, please, delete. Refering to nothing... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:34, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

==WP:New Deal==
I think we're having an impact. Look what WP's been doing to its New Deal entry, they expanded the size of the chart. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=next&oldid=135791974] One of these days I may even investigate the basis of that chart. Oh, they also deleted "Commies in the New Deal". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=134729442&oldid=134669058] I didn't write that particular subsection, but much of what it linked to I did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==New Cites==
The two new "citations" have no apparent link to the article, any more than the first one does. The Time magazine article is about US troops coming back from WWII, and the book is part of an autobiography of FRD, and a fairly early colume of it (2 of 4). RobS, it loks like you are just grabbing anything from the 40's or 50's that has the word "Ordeal" in it. You appear to have created an article out of whole cloth. I don't know if this is a term a favorite prof once used, but to pretend that it is of any common usage outside of yourself is comepletely unsubstantiated. It has no place in any sort of encylopedia, unless you can show some relavent citations, not simply things that have a common word. You might as well se a citation about "New York in the 50's" because it has the word "New" init! [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:22, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:Please feel free to improve the article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:23, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::It is an article about something that has no apparent existence. There is no evidence that there is anything to write an article about. It is just a name that you appear to have conjured out of thin air. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 17:46, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Well we can do a redirect from [[Great Bear Market]] to here, but Great Bear Market only goes to 1942, it doesn't include the [[Malthusian catastrophe]] that followed, and the Recovery period. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::This is the only incidence of this term, used in this context, I can find anywhere. Unless there's evidence otherwise, it can only be considered a personal essay. Which is fine, but it can't be allowed in an encyclopedia, surely? [[User:DoggedPersistence|DoggedPersistence]] 18:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:::What? this article or trolls trashing it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Neither. You've concocted a clever phrase (do you work as a copywriter?! :-) ), more power to you, but it's just that - you wrote it, and there's no evidence whatsoever anyone other than you uses it. Therefore it can't really be allowed in an Encyclopedia. If there is evidence of its use that we're missing, just go ahead and provide it, and no-one will have the slightest problem with the article. [[User:DoggedPersistence|DoggedPersistence]] 18:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:Rob, I took your advice above and improved on the article. Thanks for the advice.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 19:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-11T23:52:30Z

Associate: /* Recording keeping & construction trades */

[[Image:29-49.gif|right|200px|thumb|Dow Jones Industrial Averages, 1929-49.]]
[[Image:115yeardowgoldratio.gif|right|200px|thumb|Dow Jones Index in constant dollars relative to the price of gold. The chart is a good reflection of living standards throughout the period.]]
The '''New Ordeal''' is a term coined by this writer to describe the period of time between 1929 and 1949, when the American economy finally recovered from the [[Crash of '29]]. It encompasses the early stages of the [[Great Depression]] during President [[Herbert Hoover]]'s term and the four terms of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], the final term having been administered mostly by his successor, President [[Harry S. Truman]]. I also sometimes refer to the New Ordeal as the '''Great Ordeal''' or simply the '''Ordeal'''.

==Double double dip==

During the twenty years of the New Ordeal, America experienced 2 double dip recessions, or essentially a second depression within the [[Great Depression]], and [[World War II]], a calamity that claimed the lives of 55 million people worldwide. Many of the nations involved in World War II resorted to "economic planning", as Economist [[Friedrich Hayek]] refered to it, to address the so-called "crisis in capitalism" in the 1930s.

The 1929-1949 recession had within it a recession from 1937-1943; 1933 to 1937 were recovery years stimulated by the [[New Deal]] government spending. However by 1937 the nation had nowhere near recovered to where it was in 1929. Manufacturing demand stimulated by WWII led to the 1943-1949 recovery, where finally, in 1949, the New York Stock Exchange recovered to the level it had been at 1929.

During the [[Great Bear Market]] from 1929 to 1942, the [[Dow Jones Industrial Average]] (DJIA) had rallies of 48% (from November 13, 1929, to April 17, 1930), 94% (July 8, 1932, to September 7 of that year), 121% (February 27, 1933, to February 5, 1934), 127% (July 26, 1934, to March 10, 1937), 60% (March 31, 1938, to November 12 of that year), and 28% (April 8, 1939, to September 12 of that year). Yet, on April 28, 1942, the DJIA was still at only 92.92, 76% below its September 3, 1929, high of 381.17. <ref>Daniel Turov, [http://www.leithner.com.au/newsletter/issue18.htm ''Mixed Message,''] Barron’s, 21 May 2001, quoted in the Liethner Letter, Issue 1826 June 2001, retrieved 11 June 2007.</ref>

==Recording keeping & construction trades==

Record keeping and even economic definitions then were not what they are today. By using the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is practically the only measurement available in real time that scans the entire period) the Dow did not get back to the level it was at in 1929 until 1949 (160 pts on the Dow). Other economic indexes either did not exist, or were developed later, often by guess work. For example, the oft quotes unemployment rate of 25% which peaked in 1932 is only guess work based upon observations in New York City. No one knows what the real national figures were, or what it actually had been in places like Arkansas or Oklahoma. Gross output figures such as [[GDP]] did not exist either.

It was not until 1949 that [[living standards]] and peacetime [[employment]] returned to something like it was prior to 1929. The time period I refer to as the New Ordeal is evident today throughout American cities where one can see a distinct gap in the building and construction trades that took place in the decades of the 1930's and 40's. Little was built beyond quonset huts, tin structures with a semi-circular shape and a timber frame underneath. And what was built was either extremely expensive, or built by the government usually for military purposes.

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
*[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensned Version, April 1945.
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,792094,00.html ''The Great Ordeal''], TIME magazine, May. 14, 1945.
*''Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Ordeal'', Frank Freidel, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1954.

[[Category:United States History]]

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:economics]]

Essay: New Ordeal

2007-06-11T23:51:16Z

Associate: accuracy and spelling

[[Image:29-49.gif|right|200px|thumb|Dow Jones Industrial Averages, 1929-49.]]
[[Image:115yeardowgoldratio.gif|right|200px|thumb|Dow Jones Index in constant dollars relative to the price of gold. The chart is a good reflection of living standards throughout the period.]]
The '''New Ordeal''' is a term coined by this writer to describe the period of time between 1929 and 1949, when the American economy finally recovered from the [[Crash of '29]]. It encompasses the early stages of the [[Great Depression]] during President [[Herbert Hoover]]'s term and the four terms of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], the final term having been administered mostly by his successor, President [[Harry S. Truman]]. I also sometimes refer to the New Ordeal as the '''Great Ordeal''' or simply the '''Ordeal'''.

==Double double dip==

During the twenty years of the New Ordeal, America experienced 2 double dip recessions, or essentially a second depression within the [[Great Depression]], and [[World War II]], a calamity that claimed the lives of 55 million people worldwide. Many of the nations involved in World War II resorted to "economic planning", as Economist [[Friedrich Hayek]] refered to it, to address the so-called "crisis in capitalism" in the 1930s.

The 1929-1949 recession had within it a recession from 1937-1943; 1933 to 1937 were recovery years stimulated by the [[New Deal]] government spending. However by 1937 the nation had nowhere near recovered to where it was in 1929. Manufacturing demand stimulated by WWII led to the 1943-1949 recovery, where finally, in 1949, the New York Stock Exchange recovered to the level it had been at 1929.

During the [[Great Bear Market]] from 1929 to 1942, the [[Dow Jones Industrial Average]] (DJIA) had rallies of 48% (from November 13, 1929, to April 17, 1930), 94% (July 8, 1932, to September 7 of that year), 121% (February 27, 1933, to February 5, 1934), 127% (July 26, 1934, to March 10, 1937), 60% (March 31, 1938, to November 12 of that year), and 28% (April 8, 1939, to September 12 of that year). Yet, on April 28, 1942, the DJIA was still at only 92.92, 76% below its September 3, 1929, high of 381.17. <ref>Daniel Turov, [http://www.leithner.com.au/newsletter/issue18.htm ''Mixed Message,''] Barron’s, 21 May 2001, quoted in the Liethner Letter, Issue 1826 June 2001, retrieved 11 June 2007.</ref>

==Recording keeping & construction trades==

Record keeping and even economic definitions then were not what they are today. By using the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is practically the only measurement available in real time that scans the entire period) the Dow did not get back to the level it was at in 1929 until 1949 (160 pts on the Dow). Other economic indexes either did not exist, or were developed later, often by guess work. For example, the oft quotes unemployment rate of 25% which peaked in 1932 is only guess work based upon observations in New York City. No one knows what the real national figures were, or what it actually had been in places like Arkansas or Oklahoma. Gross output figures such as [[GDP]] did not exist either.

It was not until 1949 that [[living standards]] and peacetime [[employment]] returned to something like it was prior to 1929. The New Ordeal is evident today throughout American cities where one can see a distinct gap in the building and construction trades that took place in the decades of the 1930's and 40's. Little was built beyond quonset huts, tin structures with a semi-circular shape and a timber frame underneath. And what was built was either extremely expensive, or built by the government usually for military purposes.

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
*[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensned Version, April 1945.
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,792094,00.html ''The Great Ordeal''], TIME magazine, May. 14, 1945.
*''Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Ordeal'', Frank Freidel, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1954.

[[Category:United States History]]

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:economics]]

Talk:Political Profiling

2007-06-11T15:09:06Z

Associate:

"A internet user's postings under either their real life identity of pseudonym may be "profiled" for their ideological convictions based upon editing patterns, interests, subject matter, common references, or declared beliefs. The profile is then pigeon-holed into predetermined character assessments..."

"James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)"

Is the above related to what you are saying? Because I am not sure I understand your article.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 23:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:Are you alleging Andy has cyberstalked, harrassed, and publicly defamed an individual with guilt by association smears, alleging someone holds partisan, extreme, or racist views that the person in reality does not? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::I make no allegation about Andy cyberstalking. I just have trouble understanding your article. Either it is a bit obscure, or I am dense, or both.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 11:09, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
==More evidence==
*Theis article was create on March 16 2007,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=83432&oldid=42538] [[Christian terrorism]], extracted,
::''Many frequently-cited examples of "Christian terrorism" are more closely tied to racist ideology promoting white supremacy, such as the Ku Klux Klan. Other groups, such as the '''Christian Identity''' movement bridge the gap between racism and religious extremism.

Review the sourcing, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=42538]

Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement University of N. Carolina Press ISBN 978-0807846384

Chip Berlet 2004 http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html
A New Face for Racism & Fascism |work = White Supremacist, Antisemitic, and Race Hate Groups in the U.S.: A Geneology Political Research Associates.

This is evidence Conservapedia has been the target of politcal profiling since 16 March. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:13, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*Also, the linking of certain off-color articles and topics, through Google search, is yet another form of poisoning the well.--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:24, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
::Im not sure what point Rob is making about Christian Identity, but they are self-avowedly racist. They certainly consider themselves Christian, although it would be easy to argue that their beliefs have little to do with Jesus.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 01:45, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Throughout history, there are countless men and women who have called themselves Christians, but their actions state otherwise. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Political Profiling

2007-06-11T05:45:12Z

Associate: /* More evidence */

"A internet user's postings under either their real life identity of pseudonym may be "profiled" for their ideological convictions based upon editing patterns, interests, subject matter, common references, or declared beliefs. The profile is then pigeon-holed into predetermined character assessments..."

"James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)"

Is the above related to what you are saying? Because I am not sure I understand your article.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 23:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:Are you alleging Andy has cyberstalked, harrassed, and publicly defamed an individual with guilt by association smears, alleging someone holds partisan, extreme, or racist views that the person in reality does not? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

==More evidence==
*Theis article was create on March 16 2007,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=83432&oldid=42538] [[Christian terrorism]], extracted,
::''Many frequently-cited examples of "Christian terrorism" are more closely tied to racist ideology promoting white supremacy, such as the Ku Klux Klan. Other groups, such as the '''Christian Identity''' movement bridge the gap between racism and religious extremism.

Review the sourcing, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=42538]

Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement University of N. Carolina Press ISBN 978-0807846384

Chip Berlet 2004 http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html
A New Face for Racism & Fascism |work = White Supremacist, Antisemitic, and Race Hate Groups in the U.S.: A Geneology Political Research Associates.

This is evidence Conservapedia has been the target of politcal profiling since 16 March. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:13, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*Also, the linking of certain off-color articles and topics, through Google search, is yet another form of poisoning the well.--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:24, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
::Im not sure what point Rob is making about Christian Identity, but they are self-avowedly racist. They certainly consider themselves Christian, although it would be easy to argue that their beliefs have little to do with Jesus.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 01:45, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Political Profiling

2007-06-11T03:05:26Z

Associate: New page: "A internet user's postings under either their real life identity of pseudonym may be "profiled" for their ideological convictions based upon editing patterns, interests, subject matter, c...

Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T21:41:47Z

Associate:

The older version of this was incorrect and directly contradicted AAs literature. It took about 1 minute to find the correct information at their website.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 12:22, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I think its a complete crock for AA to try and pretend it isn't a Christian organization. For the love of you know who, they use the capital form of God in their steps.

::: So what if it is a Christian organization? Does that somehow mean the help they have provided to millions of individuals and their families should be invalidated? --[[User:Tom.Insley|Tom.Insley]] 13:01, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not too up to speed on this, but don't Jews and Muslims refer to God as well? I know they have other names they use (Yaweh, Allah), but I think God is used too. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
:AA doesn't "pretend" to anything. It clearly states its goals. It has an inherent bias toward a "higher power", and if you don't believe in one of those, you don't have to join.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 13:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::I said its crock for them to pretend NOT to be Christian, not for them to BE Christian. And I think when you see "God" and "Him" written like that, and not "god" we're referring to the God of Christianity exclusively. Yes, Allah and Yaweh are the same deity, but for some reason they are not all included in the term "God."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 13:38, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::: I think that's just your own personal interpretation of it. You are never going to see someone refer to Allah as "god", but more likely as "God". Even the [[Islam]] and [[Judaism]] articles here use a capitalized God. I imagine AA takes the non-denominational stance in order to attract and help as many people as they can. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:45, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You are probably right about the capitalization issue. I usually only think Christianity specifically because Islam and Judaism both have a name for God. You don't see Christians running around saying "Praise 'I Am'." I guess you are right, and thats just my own personal interpretation. However, I have a feeling that when we're speaking about AA, its more likely than not that God is being referenced in the Christian sense. I of course could be wrong.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:28, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'd agree, AA probably isn't a program for hard-core atheists. BTW, Please see [[HaShem]] and [[Tetragrammaton]].[[User:Associate|Associate]] 17:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T21:34:47Z

Associate:

The older version of this was incorrect and directly contradicted AAs literature. It took about 1 minute to find the correct information at their website.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 12:22, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I think its a complete crock for AA to try and pretend it isn't a Christian organization. For the love of you know who, they use the capital form of God in their steps.

::: So what if it is a Christian organization? Does that somehow mean the help they have provided to millions of individuals and their families should be invalidated? --[[User:Tom.Insley|Tom.Insley]] 13:01, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not too up to speed on this, but don't Jews and Muslims refer to God as well? I know they have other names they use (Yaweh, Allah), but I think God is used too. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
:AA doesn't "pretend" to anything. It clearly states its goals. It has an inherent bias toward a "higher power", and if you don't believe in one of those, you don't have to join.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 13:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::I said its crock for them to pretend NOT to be Christian, not for them to BE Christian. And I think when you see "God" and "Him" written like that, and not "god" we're referring to the God of Christianity exclusively. Yes, Allah and Yaweh are the same deity, but for some reason they are not all included in the term "God."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 13:38, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::: I think that's just your own personal interpretation of it. You are never going to see someone refer to Allah as "god", but more likely as "God". Even the [[Islam]] and [[Judaism]] articles here use a capitalized God. I imagine AA takes the non-denominational stance in order to attract and help as many people as they can. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:45, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You are probably right about the capitalization issue. I usually only think Christianity specifically because Islam and Judaism both have a name for God. You don't see Christians running around saying "Praise 'I Am'." I guess you are right, and thats just my own personal interpretation. However, I have a feeling that when we're speaking about AA, its more likely than not that God is being referenced in the Christian sense. I of course could be wrong.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:28, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Please see [[HaShem]] and [[Tetragrammaton]].[[User:Associate|Associate]] 17:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T17:34:21Z

Associate:

Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T16:31:32Z

Associate:

An organization to help alcoholics on the path to recovery from [[alcoholism]]. '''Alcoholics Anonymous''' utilizes a [[twelve step program]] to help those suffering from [[alcohol]] [[addiction]] to overcome their addiction, drawing heavily from [[faith]] in a "higher power". Per their literature, "A.A. is not a religious organization. All members are free to decide on their own personal ideas about the meaning of life." The non-denominational nature of A.A. has been one of the keys to its success.

== The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous ==
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
==The Success of 12-Step Programs==
The inclusiveness and support of 12-step programs has led to the model being extended to other addictions, such as narcotics, gambling, and sex.
==External Links==
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/

Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T16:28:16Z

Associate:

Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T16:22:56Z

Associate: New page: The older version of this was incorrect and directly contradicted AAs literature. It took about 1 minute to find the correct information at their website.~~~~

Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T16:21:56Z

Associate:

Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T16:21:31Z

Associate:

Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T16:18:59Z

Associate:

Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T16:18:43Z

Associate:

Alcoholics Anonymous

2007-06-10T16:13:27Z

Associate: