It’s the alcohol talking?
Over the past few months, we’ve heard how drinking too much irresistibly compels you to take bribes from devious lobbyists, send sexually-explicit text messages to teenagers, and rant about the Jews.Â
Now, I’m as sympathetic as the next guy to the plight of the addict and the alcoholic, but I’m surprised how quickly being cornered with the truth of an embarrassing indiscretion (or two) prompts people to self-anoint with the label of “alcoholic†and duck into the nearest rehab center, as if this absolves them from responsibility for the consequences of their choices.
Let’s hope these recent incidences don’t signal a trend where disgraceful acts are pawned off on the public’s sympathy for those who legitimately struggle with alcohol and drug addiction.
The few times I’ve been around drunk convinced me all three of these are just an excuse. People don’t say things they aren’t already thinking, they say things they are thinking in a loud, obnoxious way.
Comment by jjohnsen — October 14, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
Although, you could conceivably blame church inactivity on alcohol…
Comment by queuno — October 14, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
One coping mechanism for dealing with horrible revelations about oneself is to quickly confess to a lesser evil.
Comment by danithew — October 15, 2006 @ 5:29 am
That’s a good point, danithew. On one hand, it’s admirable that these people are finally getting treatment if they have a real addiction. On the other hand, it’s outrageously cowardly to check into a rehab center to avoid making amends for your actions (and to hide from the resulting political fallout).
Given the timing, these confessions are incredibily self-serving and manipulative.
Comment by ECS — October 15, 2006 @ 8:18 am
One of the fallacies about drunkeness is that it makes you someone “different than what you normally are” or that it “improves your mood.”
Actually, it simply amplifies whatever mood you happened to be in already. So if you felt happy before the beers, now you feel really happy. If you were depressed, now you’re really depressed.
Same with behavior and character. It just amplifies behavior patterns that were already there.
A normally gentle man doesn’t suddenly become abusive with his wife just because of four beers. A man who maintains a respectful view of women doesn’t suddenly “go pervert” on us. I don’t consider drunkeness any sort of excuse. It’s simply an embarrassing way to be “outed,” that’s all.
Comment by Seth R. — October 15, 2006 @ 9:04 am
OK, regarding Mel Gibson, in vino veritas. He is a bigot and a half and has let down millions who supported his depiction of the gospels. Our Jewish friends are right to be pained by this. I am.
But on Foley, I find this a cheap shot since the guy resigned with an acknowledgement he let people down and broke a public trust. To say he’s not taking responsibility is ludicrous. What are you trying to do, drive him to suicide? Moreover, we now know the IM’s were exchanged with an 18 year old adult former page, not a boy. To attempt to judge whether he has a drinking problem that led to misjudgments or is using it as an excuse, is most unchristian, and Jesus warned us his grace doesn’t cover people who so judge.
Comment by Steve EM — October 15, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Seth #5, I agree with you in principle, but it’s important to maintain a distinction between careless drunkenness and real alcoholism. Alcoholism is a disease requiring treatment. Disgraceful drunken behavior can be avoided with good judgment and a bit of self-restraint.
Comment by ECS — October 15, 2006 @ 10:50 am
On the other hand, once the media gets in a feeding frenzy, what can a person say? Denying guilt or trying to provide mitigating explanations just gets accusers more upset. Confess, and that tends to amplify the crime in the eyes of media pundits. Given how sympathetic the media is to drugs and gays, about the only thing one can do to tone down the media attack is to admit to being addicted to something or gay.
The bottom line is there ought to be some discussion of the media here. They have agendas. They select facts that fit their biases. They make stuff up out of whole cloth when required. Remember the Atlanta bomber, the security guard, pretty much convicted in the media except for the unfortunate fact it turns out he didn’t do it? Or the NY Times reporters (I’ve lost track of how many) who get caught just making stuff up? So you can’t take anything the media reports at face value. They are into manipulation, not truth.
Does anyone really think the media would have reacted this way if they guy were a Democrat? Or if there were not elections coming up next month? Seems like a nicely timed sex scandal. Sex? There wasn’t even any sex, all he did was send words back and forth, but that’s what they’ve got so they are running with it. I guess it’s a conversation scandal, one that will be completely forgotten the day after the November election.
Comment by Dave — October 15, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Aside from the beer-goggle problem, I don’t tend to think that alcohol makes the average drinker do anything he wouldn’t do anyway.
Comment by DKL — October 15, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
DKL,
Normally, you’re on the money, but here you reveal that you know nothing about women.
Comment by Steve EM — October 15, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
Seth and DKL, obviously, you’ve never been alcoholics or had serious drinking problems.
In effect, drinking does allow/cause people to do things they wouldn’t normally do. We all have the carnal man or natural man inside of us and most of us who are at least trying to live the gospel keep that part of our selves under control.
We (or at least I) have thoughts of punching out obnoxious jerks, but we(I) don’t because we(I) attempt to exercise self-control. I am tempted to unclean thoughts by a buxom sister wearing a low-cut shirt/blouse at sacrament meeting, but I catch myself, avert my eyes, and focus my mind on other things, instead of letting a raw comment of “Nice rack, sister!” escape my lips. (And certain women wear those outfits over and over, so maybe no one is telling them about not exposing cleavage at church. So maybe a comment of “Nice rack, sister!” might drive the point home.)
On the net, all the bare bellybuttons and come-on poses by bikini-clad women on all sorts of “clean” web sites (Yahoo mail for instance) tempt me to click into those R-rated web sites. When I do accidentally or unknowingly click into R-rated web sites or R-rated pages on public picture post areas, from there one is tempted into stronger, even X-rated, web sites. But I back out or close the window at the R ones, because I know not to go down those paths.
But years ago, before I joined the church, and during my inactive years, I did have a drinking problem. I know first hand that having alcohol in you causes you to not care about suppressing those thoughts, words, and actions that you would normally suppress. Sure, I had thoughts of saying or doing inappropriate things, as almost all men outside of the gospel (or outside any church) do. I never would have verbally uttered “Nice rack!” in real life even back then, let alone engage in uninvited groping. But alcohol removes the inhibition, so that when under the influence, I did say and do things that I would not have done when sober.
I knew back then that gross comments or uninvited touching was wrong, so I always controlled myself, and was successful when sober. So I don’t think one can necessarily condemn the sober person for having demons as long as he keeps them bottled up.
For instance, I don’t know Mel Gibson’s true opinions towards Jews. But, I do know that what he said when drunk does not necessarily represent his true opinions when sober. He may truely believe those things are wrong, and that’s why he keeps them bottled up or controlled when sober. Just because he was unable to control them when drunk, doesn’t mean he consiously and internally endorses them when sober.
There may be an analogy to the church’s stand on homosexuality. Presidenty Hinckley said someone with same-sex attraction, who realizes it’s wrong and controls those feelings is not a sinner. So maybe a part of Mel Gibson, some “demon” as the saying goes, wants him to blame Jews, but he knows that’s wrong, and when sober he can control those thoughts.
Heaven forbid if I should drink alcohol and not realize it. I know what human passions I work at controlling and eventually purging from my soul. Would you condemn me now in the way people condemn Mel Gibson saying that my presently controlled-and-bottled-up passions are the “real” me?
So this “alcohol just removes inhibitions” line used to condemn people is phoney. Inhibitions are part of who we are. Inhibitions that control or limit bad behavior are good things. If alcohol removes inhibitions, and inhibitions are part of who we are, then alcohol changes who we are.
I’m not saying alcohol absolves people of responsibility. No way. But the line that alcohol reveals the “true” person underneath is also baloney. Our inhibitions are part of our true selves.
Comment by Bookslinger — October 15, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
What Bookslinger said.
Comment by Last Lemming — October 16, 2006 @ 9:04 am
What Bookslinger said and Last Lemming agreed with.
I’ve said and done things when I was drunk that I never thought when I was sober. I don’t think the alcohol necessarily made me say those things, but being drunk, really drunk, just makes you crazy. You say crazy things that are not part of who you are at all.
I did not hate my husband or my children. But when I was drunk, I said and did terribly hateful things. I honestly broke furniture.
One thing I did when I was drunk was to embrace my own self hatred. Out of a haze, I knew I was saying something that made me look worse and I thought I deserved to be hated.
I don’t see Mel Gibson as a racist. I see him as a gorgeous hunk of man from the movies. Maybe he is a racist, but he’s larger than life to me, which is not fair, and is probably a whole other subject.
But as a fellow drunk, been there, done that. Will regret it till the day I die. It doesn’t matter if anyone else forgives me, I’ll never forgive myself.
Alcoholism is a whole different ball game, you guys. Not easy to figure out at all. And certainly not as glibly as most of you tried to do.
Comment by annegb — October 16, 2006 @ 11:03 am
As a convert to the church, I had my bought with alchohol and let me just say I am sooooooo grateful for the Word of Wisdom.
Comment by MW* — October 16, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Interesting discussion. I think Seth R. on the one hand, and Bookslinger and annegb on the other are saying the same thing.
Bookslinger is correct in saying that Mel’s comments don’t necessarily reflect his “true” feelings for Jews. They might, and they might not. Alcohol can be a kind of truth serum. It might make me tell someone “I love you,” an emotion I might really feel but am too shy to admit when sober. At the same time, it might make me tell someone “I love you,” when I really don’t love them (when I’m sober). In this case, it’s the alcohol talking. (I’ve done both, by the way.) Maybe Mel’s true feelings came out, and maybe it was the alcohol talking. And maybe it was both…
Bookslinger’s “nice rack” example is instructive of “both” in that it could be his true feelings (in the sense that he really is impressed by the Sister’s rack), but not his true feelings in regard to the way he generally comports himself — in other words it does NOT represent his otherwise gentlemanly or decent manners or thoughts (which he keeps under control when sober). But the point is that those feelings come from somewhere. (Just as, I’d submit, annegb’s dark feelings about her husband and children came from somewhere, even if those feelings were really directed at herself, and not towards her husband/children.) My point is that Mel’s feelings did not come out of the blue… they had to come from somewhere within. For example, if drunk, I don’t think Bookslinger would ever be guilty of seeing a good looking guy and find himself saying “nice butt” or heaven forbid, “nice package.” (I’m assuming Bookslinger is a raging heterosexual.)
Bottom line, I think it is impossible to say if Mel is a racist based on this one example. But because he said them, I think we can say that there are definitely some race issues percolating somewhere in his head, (which to me, is not a surprise, given the much publicized debate over whether his Passion film was anti-semetic and given his father’s history.)
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 16, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
” But because he said them, I think we can say that there are definitely some race issues percolating somewhere in his head, (which to me, is not a surprise, given the much publicized debate over whether his Passion film was anti-semetic and given his father’s history.)”
It shouldn’t be a surprise for anyone on any topic. We all get exposed to a wide variety of things good and bad. Even Satan can whisper things to us. (I forget the BoM reference to that.) Satan even teaches people the secret combination thing.
There’s a passage in “Miracle of Forgiveness” where Spencer Kimball describes a woman who came to see him as “pretty (or beautiful) of face and form.”
Of “form”” I thought? “Form” as distinct from her “face” ? What the heck was an apostle (at the time he wrote it), writing about what a woman looked like below the neck? It dawned on me, that EVEN AN APOSTLE, could tell when a woman had a nice “FORM” (as separate from her face.)
“Holy Mackeral!” I thought. The good apostle had CHECKED HER OUT!
Seth: I want to specifically address a couple of your assertions.
“Actually, it simply amplifies whatever mood you happened to be in already. So if you felt happy before the beers, now you feel really happy. If you were depressed, now you’re really depressed.
Same with behavior and character. It just amplifies behavior patterns that were already there.”
It’s more complicated than that. There are stages of drunkenness. One may start out as happy and lively, and progress to depression. Second, being under the influence of alcohol may amplify something that you have under total control when sober, but not something else which is closer to the surface; and it may vary from time to time.
“A normally gentle man doesn’t suddenly become abusive with his wife just because of four beers. A man who maintains a respectful view of women doesn’t suddenly “go pervert†on us. “
Yet there are many men who abuse women only when they are under the influence, and never when sober.
Rather than an amplifier or a de-inhibitor, it’s probably more accurate to think of alcohol as a depressant, and an anesthetic. Many people turn to it to numb emotional pain.
Only in very small quantities does it seem to act as mainly a de-inhibitor or to “loosen up” people. But then that’s also over-generalized. People drink for different reasons, different types of reasons, and there are many many responses to it depending on the type of person, their state/condition, their reasons for drinking, their tolerance level, etc.
Comment by Bookslinger — October 17, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
I think the issues were percolating in his brain, first from his father, then from the movie he made which was perceived to be anti-semitic. I didn’t see the movie, but what I did see seemed to be accurate. I’m pretty sure I’m not anti-semitic, but I believe the Jews crucified Christ. We live in this politically correct world where if the truth is offensive, color it.
I think he was drunk out of his mind, not thinking straight and went right to his own achilles heel, the foment in his own head. And shot himself in the foot, which is what alcoholics do.
We say, “when we’re good, we’re damn good. And when we’re bad. . .”
Comment by annegb — October 17, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
Technically some Jews crucified Christ. I’m not sure it fair to say the people as a whole did. Group responsibility is difficult to pin down even when majorities are at work. I have a hard time believing that the majority of Jews had harsh feelings against Jesus at the time.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 17, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
We all have the blood of Jesus on us, just as much as those who set Him up, tortured Him and hammered in the nails.
Comment by Steve EM — October 17, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
But that’s not the point, is it? I mean, how can people say Mel Gibson set out to be anti-semitic when in truth Jews did kill Jesus.
Any more than oh, Spielberg set out to be anti-German when he made Schindler’s List and made the point that Germans killed Jews.
Neither of them added the caveat “Some” but they were just making a movie, telling a story.
Any of you guys think you could get really really drunk and not shock yourself? And the people who respect you? Think again. And you know you are not “like that.” Alcohol, mind-altering drugs, do just that. Alter the mind, impair the judgement. There is evil in all of us. Also good. Blanket condemnation of the alcoholic, apart from the alcohol, is not realistic or ultimately truthful.
Comment by annegb — October 19, 2006 @ 10:29 am
Annegb,
I think you make a good piont, and I have a question for you. I don’t know how many times I’ve been with a drunks who revealed to me they used to greatly enjoy a certain sexual favor which stopped or petered out when they got married. Each time, I’ve thought to myself, “I’d pass out from booze before discussing something that private face-to-face.”. So were these guys alcoholics? I never knew any of them to come to work impaired, drive drunk, etc.
Comment by Steve EM — October 19, 2006 @ 10:54 am
t seems to me this priest is probably guilty of having sex with Foley … but he’s saying they were just in a sauna naked together. Certainly a potential example of someone admitting to a questionable situation while denying the greater evil happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/19/foley.priest.ap/index.html
Abusive Catholic priests just keep showing up and showing up and showing up. I heard on the news yesterday that settlements between the Catholic church and victims, in the United States, have topped 1 billion dollars. Hard to fathom.
Comment by danithew — October 19, 2006 @ 11:23 am
Interesting … as I read the article further, the priest is saying he had a problem with tranquilizers and may not remember what happened on one occasion where he was with Foley.
Sounds like a variation on the alcoholism excuse.
Comment by danithew — October 19, 2006 @ 11:25 am
I don’t know what they are, Steve, but you might not pass out, you might have an interesting discussion. And I’m wondering what that “certain sexual favor” is. But don’t tell me! Really!
The majority of drunks are functioning. They hold jobs, etc. The homeless bum on the corner is actually a small part of the alcoholic population.
Not that I’m an expert on drunks. I’ve actually be sober since January 1, 1974. But I did some pretty awful things before I blacked out and woke up three days later.
Daniel, I did that once. I didn’t have sex in a sauna with a priest, but I posted a reply on the wrong thread.
I was sober at the time, too.
Comment by annegb — October 19, 2006 @ 11:29 am
I don’t disagree with the comments that have been made thus far that have observed the downside to alcohol consumption. I’ve had a few bad experiences with alcohol, but I’ve had many more good experiences with it. (The same could be said of a lot of things, even Church.) If taken responsibly, alcohol can help bridge anger / pain / resentment / shyness / fear / etc and bring people together, heal old wounds. Many a time this has happened with me. (Of course, it can do the opposite as well — create anger, pain, resentment, etc.) I’m just pointing out that like many things in this beautiful, complex world, alcohol (like religion) is not a black and white thing… results vary. As such, there is no question in my mind that abstinence is the best policy for some people.
Comment by Matt Thurston — October 19, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
annegb,
For background I used to have a drinking problem and did drink to the “sir, you’ve been over served” and passout points a number of times. But I don’t think I was addicted/alcoholic because, with the support of family and friends, I stopped the day I turned the problem over to Jesus (no AA, no treatment, no DTs, etc). Anyway, I never discussed something as private as sex with my wife to anybody face-to-face, but plenty of my drunk associates have mentioned a pleasurable activity their wives did before marriage that pretty much stopped at marriage. And I know I would be passed out drunk before having such a discussion with anybody.
I do hear you regarding functional alcoholics. I had an employee with a drinking problem once who was a top performer for 15 years (my service was shorter than that). While he was getting over his problem with the help of company resources we arranged, I learn he had been going to bed drunk for many years, which didn’t effect his work until his liver was damaged, whereby he began coming to work impaired with alcohol in his system from the night before. Perhaps his experience is typical and why the job is often the last thing to go.
Comment by Steve EM — October 19, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
In my opinion, that’s a rather short-sighted and dangerous attitude. And I’ll even go so far as to say there appears to be some self-justification in there.
Alcohol may temporarily dull and suppress anger, pain, resentment, shyness, fear etc. But it doesn’t treat or cure them. Alcohol doesn’t fix anything. And more insidiously, it masks the problems while slowly building the problem of alcohol addiction.
Alcohol may be a “social lubricant” that appears to bring people together. But if alcohol is the center around which people congregate (ala Cheers TV show), such as the gang from the office getting together for drinks after work on Friday, then it is also an artificial temporary “fix.” One you stop drinking, you’re no longer friends with your drinking buddies if the only reason or occasion for socializing them was while drinking.
The Cheers TV show was mainly about losers with no real life. I hated that show. I used to be a regular “corner bar going” guy, and in every bar I was in, the regulars were a bunch of sorry losers. The homey warm-fuzzy theme song of the show was in direct opposition to the reality of people who are regulars at a bar. Eventually I woke up. Though the main factor in me giving it up was that my body developed intolerance to alcohol. Even one drink poisoned my body, and it was almost like a hangover even when I didn’t cop a buzz.
If you want that sort of comraderie with people with whom you have no other reason to congregate, I’d suggest a weekly Saturday breakfast or lunch at a Bob Evans or Denny’s or similar restaurant.
Matt, I hope I misunderstood your post, or that it did not represent your true attitude towards alcohol. If alcohol is a bridge, it’s a bridge to a bad place, not a bridge to the real solutions of the anger/pain/resentment/etc.
Comment by Bookslinger — October 19, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
Thanks Bookslinger. As a recovering drug addict. I appreciate your comments. I don’t believe we are supposed to go through life finding the easy way out or taking substances in our bodies so we feel more comfortable in certain stituations. I’ve learned that true character comes from facing those situations as a clean and sober person. It’s actually a lot more fun in the long run. It’s more fun to ask the Lord for help than relying on a substance to make my life easier or more comfortable.
Comment by Dea — October 20, 2006 @ 1:18 am