12 Step Programs and Atheism [Archive]

Ladyhawk

17th January 2004, 06:26 AM

Hey, Zero.....

It really comes down to how much you want to help her, doesn't it? Every atheist is confronted each day with religious references. I mean, we don't avoid driving down streets with churches, right? People still say "God bless you" when we sneeze or have done them a favor and we don't stone them.

You know as well as I do that you're participation in AA and your girlfriend's recovery is important and is not the least bit indicative of your acceptance or rejection of a god as a higher power. You can do this if you feel it's worth the effort. And only you can be the judge of that.

Let's put it this way....if I were in a serious accident, I sure wouldn't ask the ambulance driver to bypass the nearest hospital just because it was St. Something . If you really think AA can help her, then go to the meetings and support her and just turn a deaf ear to the higher power references.

Good luck to both of you!

Mona

17th January 2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The higher power is anything that is higher than you and more powerful.. so how about an eagle or an airplane or a star?

:)

I think of this as the 12 Step Bait and Switch ploy. Yes, members will tell you HP can be anything, but almost all of ones fellow religious group members will behave as if their HP is a supernatural, interventionist god, a premise virtually the entire group shares; the peer pressure can be unpleasant. And of course, the program is incoherent without such a god.

In Step 2, people are to come to believe that this HP can "restore them to sanity"; in Step 3, they are to "turn their lives and wills over to the care" of a god they understand; in Step 5 they admit to a god their wrongs; In Step 6 the person prepares for god to remove all these character defects; in Step 7 god is asked to remove them; in Step 11 one is to seek "prayer and meditation [and]conscious contact with god" and ask to "know his [sic] will."

Now, an eagle, airplanes etc. cannot remove shortcomings, they do not have a will and cannot care for mine or yours, and do not restore people to sanity. The HP required for coherence by the Steps is a personal, interventionist god remarkably like the Xian one from which he is directly modeled by the founders. At meetings of 12 Step groups, the preponderant tradition is to close with the Lord's Prayer.

I know some non-theistic people who managed to use a 12 Step program merely for the social support for whatever their problem is. But some simply cannot hack the pervasive religiosity (which they insist in The Program is mere "spirituality"). In multiple jurisdictions courts have ruled it is unconstitutional for judges, probation officers or parole boards to coerce anyone to attend 12 Step programs precisely because of the enormous religious component therein.

Mona

17th January 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Ralph
A lot of people use "The God Thing" as an excuse to keep using
and this is a very common issue.

I am genuinely happy that you were able to make a success of AA/NA notwithstanding your non-theism. However, it is attitudes such as yours that so many find patronizing and intolerant in that program. I know, for a fact, that the "God thing" is not an "excuse" for a lot of people who simply cannot abide the heavy theology and religiosity of 12 Step programs, coupled with what is frequently an attendant, strong peer pressure to "do God." Some of these seekers have gone on to success in places like this: Lifering Secular Recovery (http://unhooked.com)

Dancing David

17th January 2004, 08:15 AM

Wow, wonder of wonder miracles of miracles... and then they say something about god, and every warning signal of irrational behavior goes 'ding', and my defenses go up to maximum. As a 'helping' professional' and a human I have had frequent immersion in the waters of 'recovery'.

The simple truth is that the key of 'unrecovery' is denial, and if you have been involved in a 'denial-based system' then the consequences of overcoming denial will be as great as the consequences anyone overcoming living in a denial based system of communications. As I have heard myself say many a time, "the only person that you are denying the truth to is yourself", and the result of that is only one thing.

Not talking about the 'truth' is the active force in any 'denial-based system' and for the players in a denial based system 'not talking rules' are the ones that allow the active players to maintain the system of denial-based choices. Family systems that are based upon the No Talikng Rule are frequently based in 'shame-based systems', 'family history of abuse' and family history of 'power and control issues'. 'Nuff Said !?

If you are involved in any system that is involved in you overcoming 'issues in your life' then it is essential to be in a system that 'rewards you for telling the truth' and being in a system that says you 'absolutely must put your faith in God' makes you think that you are in a denial based system and that you are about to be 'fed' a 'cart full of utter bullshine'.

And the truth about recovery is that it involves 'telling the truth' and to do that you have to do it in an enviroment where you feel 'safe'. Because you have to be safe in any group of people involved in 'thier recovery', you have to find the systems and groups that are safe for you! In 'twelve step programs' this is reffered to as the mystical quest of 'your home group'. And it is the key to 'recovery' because if you feel you can't tell the truth, then 'you are not going to go anywhere'.

This is even more difficult for those who are not 'the primary locus of control in a denial based system' and as such there are 'many more reasons' as a 'submissive player' in a 'denial-based' systems may have difficulty 'telling the truth' because there may be 'severe consequences' for 'breaking the rules' in the denial based system.

And as such if you are involved in any sort of 'recovery' as some sort of innocent bystander who is involved in a 'train wreck' of a 'family based interaction', IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT YOU BE ABLE TO TO THE TRUTH AS YOU SEE IT!

WHAT AM I SHOUTING/?

Oh, sorry about that, but as a bystander, passive player or freaking survivor of a 'denial based system' of a 'family train wreck' it is essential that people be allowed to speak the truth as they see it. So that means that you will have to find a home group that speaks thier minds the way that you speak your mind, and that may mean searching for many different ways to take care of yourself.

If you speak your own truth you will immedeatly know if you are in a 'denial based system'. What I fould useful at twelve step meetings was this :
wherever they say Higher Power you say 'doing something other than what got me here in the first place'
and whenever they talk about submiting to higher power you put 'telling the truth'
and where ever they say Turning My Life Over to a Higher Power you just say 'taking care of myself'.

I 'kin garuntee' that if you learn to tell the truth that it will help you in your 'recovery'. And it just means learning to 'bite your tounge' until you 'find your home group' while you learn to think 'a better way of doing things' every time they say 'Higher Power, the program, and/or God'. And if you just think 'telling the truth' where ever they say 'turning my life over to my higher power, working the steps, really doing the program'.

Of course you have to be careful about you tell the truth when you think that god, religion and spirituality are a some sort of 'denial-based' system.

Peace

Zero

17th January 2004, 08:17 AM

Hey everyone, thanks for the posts...

She's doing well, she's 4 years sober, but she still has stuff going on, and I guess I'm supposed to join this Al-Anon stuff to make sure I'm ok too. The thing is, I want to do it right, but it seems overburdened with religious thinking. It seems sort of bullsh*t, you know? I don't know that I could actively participate in it when I find it to be ridiculous. I'm coming from the place that Mona talks about(thanks), where it seems like thinly veiled Christianity. From the Al-Anon website:

2. For our group purpose there is but one authority — a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants— they do not govern.

Sounds like a church, doesn't it? That doesn't sound like you are talking about an eagle or a star.

Zero

17th January 2004, 08:24 AM

More importantly, to me it feels like these 12-step programs are all about transfering the addictive or other negative behaviour into a more 'benign' but just as controlling idea. I understand all about the idea of not trying to control everything, and just accepting thingsfor what they are, but for me that includes avoiding any sort of pseudo-religious thinking as well.

Mona

17th January 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Zero

She's doing well, she's 4 years sober, but she still has stuff going on, and I guess I'm supposed to join this Al-Anon stuff to make sure I'm ok too. The thing is, I want to do it right, but it seems overburdened with religious thinking.

But do you feel you need a support group? My discomfort with what you report-- and it is not uncommon -- is that 12 Step programs have become so pervasive they now have one for some 200 different issues/disorders. What this has done is casued the theology, tenets, slogans and evolving mores and doctrines of the 12 Step cult/religious movement to essentailly saturate the United States. Basically, in the eyes of many, everyone "needs" the Steps.

AA, of course, was the first 12 Step program, founded by Bill Wilson (and his pal Dr. Bob) in the 1930s. Wilson had a religious experience while drying out in the hosptial, and thereupon joined a then-popular "cult" known as The Oxford Movement. Initially, he tried to reach other "alcoholics" via Oxford, which was not at all just for alcoholism. After a few years, however, he rewrote the Xian tenets of Oxford, making them somewhat more ecumenical and adopting euphemisms like "character defects" for "sin"; AA then became a group just for those struggling with alcohol.

Wislon was a very smart man, and was familiar with the writing of psychologist/philosopher William James, who took a pragmatic view that conversion experiences could be used to overcome unhealthy habits. (There is ample evidence that this is true for some people.) Wilson explicitly founded AA on the "conversion experience" model, and all of the 12 Step programs follow it.

For those who want it, great. But it is not right for everyone, and I wish members would be more honest about the nature of their program.

Dymanic

17th January 2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

And the truth about recovery is that it involves 'telling the truth' and to do that you have to do it in an enviroment where you feel 'safe'.
I agree with that enthusiastically. I think this is 'the missing reading' (WHY it works).

Originally posted by Mona

I know, for a fact, that the "God thing" is not an "excuse" for a lot of people who simply cannot abide the heavy theology and religiosity of 12 Step programs, coupled with what is frequently an attendant, strong peer pressure to "do God." A lot of people don't need an excuse -- they don't have a problem. Those that do -- and that want recovery -- face some difficult work. Listening to the crap about Gawd is the least of it. Creative excuse-making is typically part of the pattern, often reaching the level of an art form. It might be child care issues, scheduling difficulties, commuting expenses, lack of parking, fear of mugging, or a sudden resolve to tackle some urgent task, but whatever it is, it's always something. Thing is, we all do it. Because we all do it, it's easy for us to spot when others are doing it, especially once we get to know each other. As members of a support group, one of the things rely on the others for is to call us out on that sort of thing. Of course, because these others are not perfect either, it is quite possible that, because of their own issues, they may derive an inappropriate measure of satisfaction from this process (but that doesn't necessarily keep it from being effective!).
For those who want it, great. But it is not right for everyone, and I wish members would be more honest about the nature of their program.
Now you want honesty...from drunks and dope fiends. Honestly, I'm not sure what the heck it's all about, but I know it worked for me, and since I'm an atheist, I don't think it was God. Something about...belonging.

Originally posted by Zero

More importantly, to me it feels like these 12-step programs are all about transfering the addictive or other negative behaviour into a more 'benign' but just as controlling ideaI'd say there is a certain amount of truth to that, but it isn't the whole story. I don't see how a feeling of what the program is all about could possibly be complete and accurate prior to actual participation in it. I have yet to meet a single person whose preconcieved ideas about that were confirmed by that experience.

Just go, dude. If you don't like it, quit. What's the big deal?

Mona

17th January 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

I think this is 'the missing reading' (WHY it works).

A lot of people don't need an excuse -- they don't have a problem. Those that do -- and that want recovery -- face some difficult work. Listening to the crap about Gawd is the least of it. Creative excuse-making is typically part of the pattern, often reaching the level of an art form.

Many human beings will find reasons not to do things that will help them; it is common knowledge among those related to, or who work with, the mentally ill that they (the mentally ill) often will not take their meds, won't go to their shrink & etc. But that is a distinct issue from being told, as people are, that it is "AA on the one hand, or jails, death and institutions on the other," and fearfully nevertheless having to reject AA due to the smothering religiosity.

It can freak a person out to believe AA is the *only hope they have (which is frequently told to people in treatment and by therapists), only to find that if one is going to use AA one is going to be participating in religious services at which a sacred text is read and revered, and where everything good and true that happens is attributed to a Higher Power, and where it is a great taboo to claim credit for anything one has done or achieved -- all praise must go to HP/God and/or the group. I submit it is beyond reasonable for the kinds of people who post on a board like this to feel completely and utterly alientated in such a milieu. Excuse-making is not -- or certainly not necessarily -- implicated.

And yes, I do ask for honesty from people, whether they have a history of drug/alcohol abuse or not. If people in AA are "working such a good program," one would think their character defects have been resolved sufficiently (removed by their god) that they could tell newcomers the truth, to wit: that AA is predicated on a religious conversion experience and that most members, and the sacred text, do not embrace non-theists as anything but misguided folks who are not right yet. People will often rise to expectations; in AA/NA it is a truism that everyone there lies "because they are drunks/addicts," even long after they have quit. This is group-think that can be harmful. In any event, and to repeat, yes, members owe newcomers the truth.

Ralph

17th January 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Mona

I am genuinely happy that you were able to make a success of AA/NA notwithstanding your non-theism. However, it is attitudes such as yours that so many find patronizing and intolerant in that program. I know, for a fact, that the "God thing" is not an "excuse" for a lot of people who simply cannot abide the heavy theology and religiosity of 12 Step programs, coupled with what is frequently an attendant, strong peer pressure to "do God." Some of these seekers have gone on to success in places like this: Lifering Secular Recovery (http://unhooked.com)

The vast majority of meetings I went to did NOT push religion.
Maybe the meetings you went to did but that wasn't my experience.

I DID see a lot of people use "the god thing" as an excuse. If it wasn't that --then it was something else. Some people just don't want to stop using and feel the need to justify it with lame excuses.

Sorry if you find that to be patronizing. It's just reality as far as I'm concerned.

You are an addict right.......................

Zero

17th January 2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Mona

But do you feel you need a support group? My discomfort with what you report-- and it is not uncommon -- is that 12 Step programs have become so pervasive they now have one for some 200 different issues/disorders. What this has done is casued the theology, tenets, slogans and evolving mores and doctrines of the 12 Step cult/religious movement to essentailly saturate the United States. Basically, in the eyes of many, everyone "needs" the Steps.

AA, of course, was the first 12 Step program, founded by Bill Wilson (and his pal Dr. Bob) in the 1930s. Wilson had a religious experience while drying out in the hosptial, and thereupon joined a then-popular "cult" known as The Oxford Movement. Initially, he tried to reach other "alcoholics" via Oxford, which was not at all just for alcoholism. After a few years, however, he rewrote the Xian tenets of Oxford, making them somewhat more ecumenical and adopting euphemisms like "character defects" for "sin"; AA then became a group just for those struggling with alcohol.

Wislon was a very smart man, and was familiar with the writing of psychologist/philosopher William James, who took a pragmatic view that conversion experiences could be used to overcome unhealthy habits. (There is ample evidence that this is true for some people.) Wilson explicitly founded AA on the "conversion experience" model, and all of the 12 Step programs follow it.

For those who want it, great. But it is not right for everyone, and I wish members would be more honest about the nature of their program. Thanks for the info...I'm pretty sure this stuff isn't for me. I don't do 'conversion' well, so it would be a waste of time for me to even go. It would be nice to have contact with others who are living with alcoholics, but I don't need all the spiritualistic bagage that comes with it.

Mona

17th January 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Ralph

The vast majority of meetings I went to did NOT push religion.
Maybe the meetings you went to did but that wasn't my experience.

How do you define "pushing" religion? Was the Big Book read from? Were the Steps posted on the wall and did meetings revolve around themes in one of the twelve? The Steps are incoherent without a personal deity to whom one must submit, so I cannot see how you were at *step meetings where religion was not a pervasive theme.

What is a Twelve Step program without the Steps and the deity which is their foundation? Only *one step even mentions alcohol, the first; the rest are largely about getting right with a god and having a conversion experience/spiritual awakening. So if you were going to 12 Step meetings, and using the Big Book, I cannot fathom how religion could not have suffused the experience.

As for me and my interest in ths subject, my undergrad degree is a BA in religious studies with an emphasis on modern American religious movements, including the Twelve Step movement. That is my academic interest. My personal interest is the same reason as yours. But I am not one who is "too smart for the program," (and I implore any of you AA/NA defenders to hold back on the dismissive sloganeering). My problem with it was that I cannot get what I need in a religious environement.

So, I went to the organization I linked earlier. It took some initiative and searching on my own, since no one where I live had any notion if there are alternatives; such was my lazy excuse-making.

This is more personal than I really want to get, and I fear being ridiculed and humiliated by Steppers regarding an issue that is interwoven with profoundly tragic events in my life. Some are nice people, but many employ a large arsenal of group-protective slogans and accusations that are standardly applied to dissidents. But this much I will say: I sat crying in a 12 Step therapists office begging him to find me something else, and he coldly looked at me and said (slinging AA slogan 126(B)) "Your best thinking got you here." No, actually, my best thinking got me OUT of there, and online to an alternative. Never again will I immerse mysef among Steppers with their 252 group-think and (often) cruelly used slogans.

Zero

17th January 2004, 11:04 AM

So, Mona, what you are saying is that AA and other 12-Step programs resemble cults on a deep level?

Certainly, you get the strong impression that these are religious organizations, with all the issues that come with it. I have no doubt that we will see at least one post defending AA as the right solution for every person, which is pure nonsense, as far as I am concerned.

Mona

17th January 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Zero
So, Mona, what you are saying is that AA and other 12-Step programs resemble cults on a deep level?

I want to be careful here, since I dislike the word "cult," which in common parlance means "a new religion I do not like." But it is a non-pejorative term when used by secular students of religion, e.g. cultural anthropologists, sociologists, historians.

But yes, in that sense, AA absolutely is a cult. If you go here (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/aa.html) you will see that AA is profiled as one of several hundred religious cults by the University of Virginia's religious movements project. This entry, btw, was once more emphatic about the religiosity of AA, but it was inundated with complaints by AA defenders and has been modified to claim that AA is open to those with any belief or none, and a more benign description about the supposed lack of pressure on, and openess to, non-believers. I can send you to sites not attempting neutrality, and these would take strong exception to that more benign characterization. I personally would as well, with the exception of some large metropolitan areas like NYC where there are explicitly non-step, agnostic meetings.

The reason I'm not inclined, however, to post some of the more shrill anti-AA sites is (1) I don't think AA is the nefarious and dangerous organization many of them find it to be, and (2) that stuff raises the level of discussion to nastiness real fast. AA *is* religious and there often is unpleasant pressure applied to those who do not get with the whole step program, most especially the god stuff. AA has taboos and a huge array of slogans that can be, and often are, used as swords against dissident members. This is not unlike other cults that employ group-think and common sayings and rigid attitudes to protect the group from heretics; shunning, ostracism and such are common tools of group protection and AA is very defintitely not an exception, at least in many places and the experiences of many.

For those who can thrive there, great, and I mean that sincerely. But I feel it is important, both for those who need something different and their validation, and also as a matter of intellectual integrity, to examine how the Twelve Step movement really functions, both in individual lives and also in the culture at large.

hammegk

17th January 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Mona

I wish members would be more honest about the nature of their program.

Like their ability to recognize ********? (No, it isn't ESP.)

What is your drug of choice? Cocaine? Wine? Beer?

Zero

17th January 2004, 12:11 PM

"Cult" is a word that I don't mind using, of course, but that's what this feels like to me. It seems very protectionist, religious, and seems to exclude any contrary thinking. Seems to me as though it is saying you can't recover without adopting a religious worldview, which seems cultish to me.
I know that people [i]say[/.i] a 'higher power' is just a metaphor, but in practice I cannot see it as anything more than blatantly religious, and that has nothing to do with dealing with addiction, at least for me.

(BTW, I quit drinking the old fashioned way- willpower and coffee! I know that most people can't do that, but it is that different wiring of the brain that maybe has something to do with me not accepting a 12-Step program as gospel.)

Zero

17th January 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Like their ability to recognize ********? (No, it isn't ESP.)

What is your drug of choice? Cocaine? Wine? Beer?

Gee...I though we would have to wait at least an hour more before someone made a comment like that!

hammegk

17th January 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Zero

(BTW, I quit drinking the old fashioned way- willpower and coffee! I know that most people can't do that, but it is that different wiring of the brain that maybe has something to do with me not accepting a 12-Step program as gospel.)

What made you think you might be an addicted to alcohol? Many people who are not alcoholics are binge drinkers in their younger years.

Ralph

17th January 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Mona

How do you define "pushing" religion? Was the Big Book read from? Were the Steps posted on the wall and did meetings revolve around themes in one of the twelve? The Steps are incoherent without a personal deity to whom one must submit, so I cannot see how you were at *step meetings where religion was not a pervasive theme.

What is a Twelve Step program without the Steps and the deity which is their foundation? Only *one step even mentions alcohol, the first; the rest are largely about getting right with a god and having a conversion experience/spiritual awakening. So if you were going to 12 Step meetings, and using the Big Book, I cannot fathom how religion could not have suffused the experience.

As for me and my interest in ths subject, my undergrad degree is a BA in religious studies with an emphasis on modern American religious movements, including the Twelve Step movement. That is my academic interest. My personal interest is the same reason as yours. But I am not one who is "too smart for the program," (and I implore any of you AA/NA defenders to hold back on the dismissive sloganeering). My problem with it was that I cannot get what I need in a religious environement.

So, I went to the organization I linked earlier. It took some initiative and searching on my own, since no one where I live had any notion if there are alternatives; such was my lazy excuse-making.

This is more personal than I really want to get, and I fear being ridiculed and humiliated by Steppers regarding an issue that is interwoven with profoundly tragic events in my life. Some are nice people, but many employ a large arsenal of group-protective slogans and accusations that are standardly applied to dissidents. But this much I will say: I sat crying in a 12 Step therapists office begging him to find me something else, and he coldly looked at me and said (slinging AA slogan 126(B)) "Your best thinking got you here." No, actually, my best thinking got me OUT of there, and online to an alternative. Never again will I immerse mysef among Steppers with their 252 group-think and (often) cruelly used slogans.

Well Mona----people tend to find what they're looking for. If they want excuses they'll find them. If they want to get sober--they'll take from the program what's beneficial to them and find a way to make it work. Nobody said AA/NA was the only way. It's simply ONE way and it's worked pretty well for some people.

I'm not religious either. The first meeting I went to was what was known as an "old-timers" meeting. Lots of people who were older than I was---for them-religion was important and yes they talked a lot about God. Some of them also grew up in a time where booze was exceptable--but drugs weren't and they seemed to feel drug users were a different animal. This wasn't for me.

Instead of whining about it I simply went to other meetings. Eventually I found some NA meetings where religion wasn't stressed. If you wanted it fine--but nobody said I had to believe in God,or else.

If you feel a need for something that's "officially atheist or agnostic"----fine. Whatever you do that works for you is fine but you are WAY off base with your accusations that AA/NA is a cult.

Some people NEED the religion---some don't. You can obtain sobriety through AA/NA whether you belive in the standard Christian God, Mungantu the turtle God, or nothing at all.

It depends on what you're looking for.........................

Zero

17th January 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

What made you think you might be an addicted to alcohol? Many people who are not alcoholics are binge drinkers in their younger years. I never said I was an alcoholic...did I? I just quit because I got tired of being hung over.:D

Dymanic

17th January 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Zero

2. For our group purpose there is but one authority -- a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants -- they do not govern.
I consider this the most significant of the twelve traditions. To anyone who would refer to any twelve step program as a 'cult', I would suggest a more careful examination of the implications of this policy.

This is the anonomous part of the 'Anonomous'. It means exactly what it says, but it is so contrary to the way things ordinarily work whenever people form groups for any specific purpose that it is easy to look right at it and not get it. Anonomous doesn't just mean that we don't make a practice of fronting each other off in public as members, or using a public spotlight (i.e., celebrity status) to extol the virtues of our experience as members. It does mean that, and this can be important, say for someone whose professional status might be threatened by public knowledge of a substance abuse problem. But, more significantly, it means that there aren't any bigshots; it's about principles rather than personalities. I don't see how you can have a cult without a power structure and an icon, no matter what they say at the University of Virginia.

Mona:
I do understand what you are saying. I think anyone who has attended more than a few AA meethings has encountered the sort of rigidity you describe, and it is undoubtedly the norm in many groups. It became easier for me to tolerate that once I realized that AA is not a place where a bunch of fixed people help a bunch of broken people. The most confrontational and rigid-thinking individual is usually the one who is barely hanging on hiself; his in-your-face approach is a desperate attempt to (vicariously) keep his own monster in a cage.

Mona

17th January 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

What made you think you might be an addicted to alcohol? Many people who are not alcoholics are binge drinkers in their younger years.

The word "alcoholic" has no medical meaning; it is a folkterm, but sometimes a useful one. It is surpassingly common for AA members to claim that anyone who stops drinking w/out their program was never a "real" alcoholic. This, of course, is tautological.

In point of fact, Dr. George Vaillant -- a Harvard physician on AA's Board of Trustees -- has studied success rates of those released from treatment and found that failure rates are just as high for those trying AA as those who do not stick with it. Indeed, Vaillant, to his surprise, found that more people get sober on their own and/or with conventional life supports, such as family and church. (Again tautologically, XA members will claim a very high success rate for those who "really work the program"; it is inconveivable to many that it is the program that does not fit every individual. They must assign blame to the individual.)

I note hostility from you. This is a not uncommon reaction from XA members to dissident views and criticism, and when applied to someone newly sober and frightened in the roooms of XA, it can be traumatic and harmful. In any event, I prefer to discuss these matters civilly.

Mona

17th January 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

If you feel a need for something that's "officially atheist or agnostic"----fine. Whatever you do that works for you is fine but you are WAY off base with your accusations that AA/NA is a cult.

Some people NEED the religion---some don't. You can obtain sobriety through AA/NA whether you belive in the standard Christian God, Mungantu the turtle God, or nothing at all.

It depends on what you're looking for.........................

This is difficult to discuss without tempers flaring, and the reason is that the subject tends to draw out those with two distinct and opposite kinds of experiences: (1) Those for whom XA is regarded as literally having been life-saving, and (2) Those who experienced XA as a traumatic assault and an alien group-think environment.

My goal is not to detract from the positive testimony happy Steppers offer for their program. But, it is a fact that XA is wrong for many, and that XA members virtually always blame the individual who does not succeed there -- they did not "work a good program."

But as to the cult thing, AA simply is a cult, as academics define that term. If you like, I could post some criteria and plug in how AA conforms, up to and including the "cultic confession" phenomenon. Indeed, among the more disturbing things I found in AA was the strong emphasis on self-debasement and breast-beating to a nodding crowd of fellow penitents who nearly all agree that trying to "take back one's will" rather then letting HP run one's life is utter folly. This is the stuff of religious movements/cults. There is much else, like a charismatic leader founder, and a sacred text. Then there is the "loaded language" used only by the initiated. Really, XA conforms to most working sets of criteria for a "cult."

Mona

17th January 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

But, more significantly, it means that there aren't any bigshots; it's about principles rather than personalities. I don't see how you can have a cult without a power structure and an icon, no matter what they say at the University of Virginia.

Well, but AA had a charismatic leader and founder, Bill W., who very defintitely is revered among the membership; pilgrimmages are made to co-founder Dr. Bob's home in Ohio. Further, AA can be very rigid in its social hiercarchy, where those with "time" are accorded great -- even guru -- status. The more time, the more respect. And, while at the meeting level AA is anonymous, it is also a corporation with offices in NYC (in a church), that sees to such things as suing peple who use the Big Book in violation of copyrights and otherwise "speaking for" AA, and issuing a newsletter. Further, the lucrative treatment industry is 95% dominated by AA/NA members and promoters, who are selling Step principles and then funnelling their consumers into volunteer AA. (Which creates a lucrative revolving door, given that relapse is so common.)

But even without all that, a strucure is not necessary for a religious movement/cult to exist as such. This might be the time to point out that "cult" is not necessarily a bad thing. Mormons were once a cult, as indeed was Xianity in Rome at one time. Ditto the Salvation Army which generally does good things.

I do want to say I appreciate your civil and open-minded approach to these issues. Criticizing XA can expose one to a great deal of animosity from faithful and happy members. I don't find that pleasant, but then obviously I decided to run the risk.;)

hammegk

17th January 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Mona

I note hostility from you. .... In any event, I prefer to discuss these matters civilly.

Care to answer the question I asked of you, specifically?

To save time, it was, "What is your drug of choice? Cocaine? Wine? Beer?"

In point of fact, Dr. George Vaillant -- a Harvard physician on AA's Board of Trustees -- has studied success rates of those released from treatment and found that failure rates are just as high for those trying AA as those who do not stick with it.
Personal & private communication to you, or could you provide a citation where this study was published?

Ralph

17th January 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Mona

This is difficult to discuss without tempers flaring, and the reason is that the subject tends to draw out those with two distinct and opposite kinds of experiences: (1) Those for whom XA is regarded as literally having been life-saving, and (2) Those who experienced XA as a traumatic assault and an alien group-think environment.

My goal is not to detract from the positive testimony happy Steppers offer for their program. But, it is a fact that XA is wrong for many, and that XA members virtually always blame the individual who does not succeed there -- they did not "work a good program."

But as to the cult thing, AA simply is a cult, as academics define that term. If you like, I could post some criteria and plug in how AA conforms, up to and including the "cultic confession" phenomenon. Indeed, among the more disturbing things I found in AA was the strong emphasis on self-debasement and breast-beating to a nodding crowd of fellow penitents who nearly all agree that trying to "take back one's will" rather then letting HP run one's life is utter folly. This is the stuff of religious movements/cults. There is much else, like a charismatic leader founder, and a sacred text. Then there is the "loaded language" used only by the initiated. Really, XA conforms to most working sets of criteria for a "cult."

"Self-debasement--breast-beating"????...........Again--I saw some examples of this but it was hardy typical.

I think your drawing your conclusions about from your own limited experience. Much of what you talk about as being characteristic of XA..were not things that I saw in my neck of the woods.

You really seem to making issues out of nothing. The "loaded language" for example.

Yes--AA has it's own terminology. It was hardly some kind of "secret language for the initiated" though.

Just look at the JREF board and some of the terminology you see here. Does the average person know what a "woo-woo" is?

I also lurk on a weight lifting board---there's quite a few terms there that a non-lifter wouldn't understand. It's not because it's a cult though.

Dymanic

17th January 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Mona

AA simply is a cult, as academics define that term. If you like, I could post some criteria and plug in how AA conforms, up to and including the "cultic confession" phenomenon.
Well, we've had threads on "What is a cult" before, and my conclusion is that the term is not particularly crisp, and largely subjective. You might start a new thread on that if it is that important to you. I would concede that there are many whose investment in XA (now there's a term I do like) crosses a threshold that makes it a cult for them (just as a certain level of interest in (say) Star Trek can do).

Well, but AA had a charismatic leader and founder, Bill W., who very defintitely is revered among the membership Ha! I knew you were going to say that. The response is trivial: James Randi (but you might've guessed I'd say that).

Indeed, among the more disturbing things I found in AA was the strong emphasis on self-debasement and breast-beating to a nodding crowd of fellow penitents who nearly all agree that trying to "take back one's will" rather then letting HP run one's life is utter follyAnother complaint I consider to be not without some valid basis. You are right, this can become a game. And it can be disturbing. Or boring. Or amusing. Or deeply touching. But, as Dancing David pointed out above, essential to the process of recovery is 'coming out of hiding'; finding someone with whom one's secrets may be safely shared; one's feelings -- for an addict/alcoholic, one's feelings are secrets -- especially from one's self (which is a lot of the problem). Obviously, it doesn't have to be XA, and indeed, some groups might turn out to be a very bad place to do that, and most groups will include some individuals that would make very poor choices for this. I think there's a certain amount of luck involved.

This is difficult to discuss without tempers flaring, and the reason is that the subject tends to draw out those with two distinct and opposite kinds of experiences: (1) Those for whom XA is regarded as literally having been life-saving, and (2) Those who experienced XA as a traumatic assault and an alien group-think environment.
There is a third type, perhaps the most common of all: those who experience it as both. It has been said that XA is a place where the disturbed are comforted, and the comfortable are disturbed. When I first got to the program, my ability to process stuff emotionally was out of whack to a degree that can only be fully appreciated by someone who has experienced it first-hand (or at least from real close up). As I gradually let myself start feeling again, I went through various phases. During some of these phases, what I needed was to be confronted; during others what I needed was to be supported. My friends in the program tried their best to do those things for me, but they didn't always get it right. It happens. You take what you think you can use, you leave the rest right there in the room.

Mona

17th January 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Personal & private communication to you, or could you provide a citation where this study was published?

Thus is from an article by Stanton Peele, who reviewed Vaillant's book in The New York Times, tho I do not think this is that review:

"The treatment industry's spokespersons often claim that all untreated alcoholics end up dead, deathly ill, or in jail. In fact, studies show so much natural remission that one investigator calls alcoholics who recover on their own 'the silent majority.' George Vaillant, a psychiatrist who supports the disease concept of alcoholism, worked in what he called 'the most exciting alcoholism program in the world.' It consisted of hospital detoxification, compulsory AA attendance, and a counseling program based on the disease concept. Yet Vaillant had to admit that his patients fared no better after eight years than alcoholics who were left to their own devices! He reflected. 'Perhaps the best that can be said... is that we were certainly not interfering with the natural recovery process.'"

Link to Peele's whole article

here (http://www.peele.net/lib/harvmed.html)

I believe it was Vaillant's 1983 book The Natural History of Alcoholism, wherein he reported that over 60 percent of those who overcame their alcoholism didn't enter any kind of treatment, including AA. This he found by tracking people released from his treatment center where the Twelve Steppers fared no better than others he was tracking.

Vaillant also said this in The Grapevine (AA's newsletter) a few years ago:

>>Grapevine: You said about 40 percent of the people who remain abstinent do it through AA. What about the other 60 percent? Could we in AA be more open, more supportive of these?

George Vaillant: Yes. You know, if you're batting 400, it's all right to miss a few. I think the fact that AA knows the answer to an extremely complicated problem is probably all right.
But it doesn't hurt at the level of GSO for AA to have humility and understand that 60 percent do it without AA.<<

As to my "drug of choice," I'm not clear on why that would matter to this discussion, but for several years I drank harmful quantities of alcohol. I didn't even want to get sober until a shrink convinced me that it was exacerbating my Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the wake of multiple awful events, including the death of my child. He was right: alcohol does make even all that much worse. (Research on the effects of a lot of alcohol on the limbic system is quite illuminating.)

Mona

17th January 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

"Self-debasement--breast-beating"????...........Again--I saw some examples of this but it was hardy typical.

I think your drawing your conclusions about from your own limited experience. Much of what you talk about as being characteristic of XA..were not things that I saw in my neck of the woods.

You really seem to making issues out of nothing. The "loaded language" for example.

Yes--AA has it's own terminology. It was hardly some kind of "secret language for the initiated" though.

Just look at the JREF board and some of the terminology you see here. Does the average person know what a "woo-woo" is?

I also lurk on a weight lifting board---there's quite a few terms there that a non-lifter wouldn't understand. It's not because it's a cult though.

Actually, "woo woo" seems to have penetrated to the Internet culture at large; at least I've seen it on several political lists on which I participate, usually in reference to California. But then, the same is definitely true of Stepper rhetoric, much of which has spread into the culture at large.

And I do not claim AA is "secretive." It is not at all, neither are many other "cults." Nevertheless, it has literally hundreds of aphorisms/sayings/slogans common to its sub-culture, and terminology, as well as theology, exclusive to it. Taken together, the language, the sacred text, the theological tenets and shared religious activities and understandings (such as God's will being expressed in the "group conscience"), the charismatic founder, the confessional rituals done in front of other members, all of these in the aggregate support that AA is a "cult." (I mean, one doubts your weight lifting club expects you to confess your sins to another lifter and to a god of your undersanding, or that it reveres a text that mentions god and the need for god over and over.)

And the language *is* loaded. Some terms, such as"dry drunk," (which I am sure some are applying to me) is regurly hurled at people who are either sober outside of AA, or not "working the program" as others think they should.

That all said, I *do* understand that there are some groups in some places where AA is very laid back. Sort of like the Unitarians in relation to other Xian denominations. But AA also has its "thumpers," people you all yourselves consider to be Big Book fundamentalists. So, yes, there are "liberal" AA groups and fundie ones, just as one finds in Xianity -- but both are religious movements, and in their infancy both were "cults." I will say, that time is moving AA out of the cult category and simply into being an American-based religious movement. At this point, AA even has sects, just as eventually happens with virtually all religions.

Mona

17th January 2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Ha! I knew you were going to say that. The response is trivial: James Randi (but you might've guessed I'd say that).

Actually, I might also have said it. But JREF is not a religious cult so much as a cult of personality. As I have said, cults can do good things.:)

You make some good points about people who find AA to be neither or both a curse and blessing. Some of my friends in my secular, non-step group feel that way. It is very common for incoming members to spend some initial time venting about XA, but we try to keep that limited, for several reasons, First, we don't want a reputation as a feverish anti-XA group, which has made Jack Trimpey and his Rational Recovery a freak show. Second, a large minority of us also use XA, and do not care for a steady diet of excessive bashing.

But enough members do have anger and issues with XA that it falls legitimately within the boundaries of support to let them vent. It can get tricky to know where to draw the line on that.

Mona

17th January 2004, 05:39 PM

Oh, and hemmegk, I want to add this:

Vaillant wrote of his study in his book, "The Natural History of Alcoholism" :

"It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world. But then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ... After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease. ...Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling."

Stanton Peele -- who I openly acknowledge as an AA critic -- reviewed Vaillant's book for The New York Times and also examined Vailant's study data, and it was *Peele who explicitly noted:

"Of those who quit drinking on their own, none of the twenty-one men followed up since the end of the study were abusing alcohol. ...Relapse was more common for the AA group: 81 percent of those who quit on their own either had abstained for ten or more years or drank infrequently, compared with the 32 percent of those who relied on AA who fall in these categories."

Dymanic

17th January 2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Mona

But enough members do have anger and issues with XA that it falls legitimately within the boundaries of support to let them vent. It can get tricky to know where to draw the line on that.
I'm tellin ya. Venting is a natural part of the process, (whether or not it's part of an actual solution) but at some point the needs of the group as a whole do take priority over that. A steady diet of excessive bashing can easily be had in most any barroom anyway.

As far as the numbers you're quoting, I've always been a little curious about that myself. I can't imagine how good data on that would be collected, but on my own observation, I'd guess those kinds of percentages probably aren't far off the mark. Frankly, I tend not to regard the chances of genuine recovery for any person with a serious substance abuse problem as being very good under any circumstances, but that may just be my naturally cheery personality shining through.

I've noticed that every additional day of sobriety places me in a statistically smaller group -- an observation I try to use as incentive to continue paying attention to the fact that there is something about me that makes me a little different in some ways from a lot of others, and making an effort to do what I need to do to take care of that.

Something I'll share with you (oh no, that word!) is that twelve years ago (when I was just barely two years sober) one of my kids was killed in a car wreck. It was two weeks after his seventeenth birthday. The gathering of the highly disfunctional clan which that event inspired was a surrealistic nightmare which no newly sober alcoholic should be expected to indure. I was one of only two adult family members who didn't try to drink through it. Looking back, I realize that I was hanging on to my sobriety the way they were using booze ...in the same desperate way. Somehow, even then, I was able to appreciate the fact that the situation was not without a certain amount of levity, in a Stephen King sort of way. But they all went home (finally) and the shock started wearing off, and that's when I needed a support group...and I had one. Those people closed in around me, led me around like a kid. Just...walked through it with me. AA may not have taught me to believe in God, but it has helped me to believe more in people. I think that's what I really wanted anyway.
I will say, that time is moving AA out of the cult category and simply into being an American-based religious movement.
Here's where I gotta butt heads with you again. The so-called sacred text to which you have referred is devoid of any specific theological dogma; it's strictly a fill-in-the-blanks proposition. I don't see how you justify giving it the label 'religious movement' (but I suppose I could just be in denial about that).
But JREF is not a religious cult so much as a cult of personality.
Making hasty conclusions might be one of your character defects.

...juuust kidding.

Mona

17th January 2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Something I'll share with you (oh no, that word!) is that twelve years ago (when I was just barely two years sober) one of my kids was killed in a car wreck.

Yes, I completely know how awful that is. Mine was 19 when the collision occurred. Some 4-6 weeks thereafter, my ex decided it was time to leave me for a guy. That was followed in short order by the surving son's announcement that his 15-yr-olf girlfriend was knocked up and my "best friend" luring me to move to NY to go into a law partnership with him, to "start over." What he didn't say was he was repulsed by my grief and that he really just wanted my investment of the wrongful death proceeds and my labor. Me, personally, well, I was no longer any fun and he spent every minute in that office letting me know that was how he felt. It was hellish, his treating me that way while I was also dealing with the other losses and trying to meet intense professional obligations.

Prior to all this, I liked alcohol too much, but not to the point where it interfered with my life. That changed very rapidly. So, I spent two yrs going literally insane and drinking more and more.

When I finally told my partner that I would die (by my own hand) or end up insane if I stayed with the firm, and so left, I was a wreck. Made the rounds of shrinks and concluded that among my issues the drinking had to be dealt with first.

But I was back in the Midwest by then, and AA in my area is just very religious. Couldn't do it.

About your issue with the sacred text: what you deem "not specific" theology is actually very specific indeed. The God written of in the BB is a particualr deity with specific attributes, and there is a STRONLGLY "suggested" model of success in the Steps for cooperating with him. He is all-powerful, removes character defects, and is a Being to whom one should surrender control of one's will. He is a monotheistic god and personal. One can "fill in the blanks" coherently only with a monotheistic, personal god capable of running one's life. And, among the group members, there is a common appeal to the "fill-in-the-blank" deity, who becomes fucntionally the same god by referring to him in-group as HP. All the gods are melded into the AA Higher Power for purposes of group functioning, prayer and homage to the God.

One point that I think is very important is this: non-theistic people and/or Randi fans who get sober in AA/NA, cannot, without being hypocrites, wax too strongly against religion and the benefits it holds for many. After all, they themselves give a lot of lattitude and credit to a religious movement filled with devout theists, because it happens to be a movement that greatly helped them. I cannot imagine any other movement or institution with equal amounts of god talk that would be defended by the kind of people who would sign on to JREF.

Dymanic

18th January 2004, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Mona

One can "fill in the blanks" coherently only with a monotheistic, personal god capable of running one's life
This is a discussion I have had on many a previous Saturday night, in many a coffee shop, or standing outside a meeting hall. Maybe what's important is where I wasn't, which is somewhere getting loaded. I have often wondered if the steps and all that are just so much busy work; something to keep us occupied while the actual magic takes place -- something which derives from us simply being in each other's company. It's almost like it was crafted deliberately to insure that we would have plenty to argue about.

One point that I think is very important is this: non-theistic people and/or Randi fans who get sober in AA/NA, cannot, without being hypocrites, wax too strongly against religion and the benefits it holds for manyThat I find that statement so irritating, that my mind leaps up with about nine different levels on which I could argue that, is probable cause to investigate the possibility that that is something I personally need to take a closer look at. Hypocricy bothers me a lot, but never more than when it's me practicing it (it's happened once or twice).

Pending the outcome of that, I will limit myself to this one demurrer: my view is that something happens to people in AA that has nothing to do with religion -- even if they think it does.

The original XA program, AA, emerged out of a culture saturated in Christianity. That its history and literature should reflect this is no more surprising that when the same is found of many other social structures with essentially nonreligious functions. Many who enter AA, having sufferred extensive emotional abuse at the hands of various religious power mongers, are quick to assume that the rules in AA will be much the same as what they have previously encountered. If a particular group contains enough of those individuals, this may actually be essentially the case, but any one group does not represent the whole of AA any more than does any one individual.

The door to AA opens right out onto the street, and those who enter bring their emotional baggage with them, their cultural baggage, and, yes, their religious baggage. (Sometimes even their actual baggage). For many, religion has been another addiction, another way to hide, another way to escape, another manipulative tool used either by them or against them. But it's hard to run those games in AA, at least in the groups I've been in. Some of the most scathing diatribes I've ever heard against organized religion in general and God in particular were delivered at AA meetings.

Ralph

18th January 2004, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Mona

Yes, I completely know how awful that is. Mine was 19 when the collision occurred. Some 4-6 weeks thereafter, my ex decided it was time to leave me for a guy. That was followed in short order by the surving son's announcement that his 15-yr-olf girlfriend was knocked up and my "best friend" luring me to move to NY to go into a law partnership with him, to "start over." What he didn't say was he was repulsed by my grief and that he really just wanted my investment of the wrongful death proceeds and my labor. Me, personally, well, I was no longer any fun and he spent every minute in that office letting me know that was how he felt. It was hellish, his treating me that way while I was also dealing with the other losses and trying to meet intense professional obligations.

Prior to all this, I liked alcohol too much, but not to the point where it interfered with my life. That changed very rapidly. So, I spent two yrs going literally insane and drinking more and more.

When I finally told my partner that I would die (by my own hand) or end up insane if I stayed with the firm, and so left, I was a wreck. Made the rounds of shrinks and concluded that among my issues the drinking had to be dealt with first.

But I was back in the Midwest by then, and AA in my area is just very religious. Couldn't do it.

About your issue with the sacred text: what you deem "not specific" theology is actually very specific indeed. The God written of in the BB is a particualr deity with specific attributes, and there is a STRONLGLY "suggested" model of success in the Steps for cooperating with him. He is all-powerful, removes character defects, and is a Being to whom one should surrender control of one's will. He is a monotheistic god and personal. One can "fill in the blanks" coherently only with a monotheistic, personal god capable of running one's life. And, among the group members, there is a common appeal to the "fill-in-the-blank" deity, who becomes fucntionally the same god by referring to him in-group as HP. All the gods are melded into the AA Higher Power for purposes of group functioning, prayer and homage to the God.

One point that I think is very important is this: non-theistic people and/or Randi fans who get sober in AA/NA, cannot, without being hypocrites, wax too strongly against religion and the benefits it holds for many. After all, they themselves give a lot of lattitude and credit to a religious movement filled with devout theists, because it happens to be a movement that greatly helped them. I cannot imagine any other movement or institution with equal amounts of god talk that would be defended by the kind of people who would sign on to JREF.

Why do you continue to apply your own standards to others?

I got sober through NA/AA and I'd suggest it as a good starting place for anybody who wants to get sober. It's certainly the height of hypocricy to criticize it when you're not sober yourself and have never even tried the program.

I'm also a non-theist and a Randy fan. I don't think belief in both makes you a hypocrit.

Maybe in the Midwest it's still the 30's but the AA I'm familiar with has changed to fit the times. Religion and a belief if God is NOT required. There are Big book" meetings if you happen to like the Big book but it's hardly help up like the bible is viewed by fund.christians.

The overall tone of most of the meeting I went to was mainly-anti-religion so please don't condemn AA on what happens in your neighborhood...................................... ........

Mona

18th January 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Ralph

Why do you continue to apply your own standards to others?

I got sober through NA/AA and I'd suggest it as a good starting place for anybody who wants to get sober. It's certainly the height of hypocricy to criticize it when you're not sober yourself and have never even tried the program.

You are making two erroneous assumptions that I think I've at least implicitly contradicted in prior posts. First, I am sober and I got that way in an alternative program. (As is true for many in AA, I did have two relapses that I nipped in the bud with the support in that program.) Second, I have been to 3-4 dozen AA meetings in two states. I highly recommend the non-step, agnostic meetings in the West Village of NYC, held in the Gay, Lesbian and Transgenderd Center. The rest in NY and the ones I attended in the Midwest were wrong for me for the reasons I have already set forth.

More importantly, even if I were a gutter drunk, I've offered facts for my claims and stated them calmly and respectfully; my arguments can be addressed on their own merits. I am for obvious reasons reluctant to see this discussion devolve into one about me personally. Several yrs ago I entered this sort of debate in another forum and several of the XA members became absolutely vicious and used my personal history in a manner I could not deal with among people in an unsafe environment. (I will say that other XA members were angry at what was said to me about having a "pity party" over my son's death and that sort of thing, and emailed me apologizing.)

I've been respectful of what everyone else here has had to say about their own experiences, and I have happily conceded the validity of much that they report. On one more point I'll do that again: Dymanic is right that just having some place to go and "stuff to do" may in and of itself be a magic for getting sober; the religious busy work and discussion in AA and afterwards at the coffeeshop is clearly something that helps a significant number of people.

But please hear me: I did not respond well to AA and I am *not alone among people who found the experience unpleasant, and even very harmful. I know a woman sober 22 yrs who found AA to be horrible, and ended up in a psych ward trying to properly do her 4th Step to her sponsor and group's satisfaction -- she is not in AA anymore, and she was my primary help in my secular group. There are many others I have met with varying unpleasant tales to tell about XA. (And, as I have said, some in my group feel attachment to XA or at least to friends they have made there, and hold a more positive if ambivalent view of it.)

So, I think this discussion is important, and I want to engage it. But I simply cannot handle being attacked about my personal history and will not continue if there is any of that. That just has to be one of my boundaries, and I will return the favor to everyone else.

Dancing David

18th January 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

What made you think you might be an addicted to alcohol? Many people who are not alcoholics are binge drinkers in their younger years.

I think that the nature of addiction is that it is self defined.

Mona

18th January 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

That I find that statement so irritating, that my mind leaps up with about nine different levels on which I could argue that, is probable cause to investigate the possibility that that is something I personally need to take a closer look at. Hypocricy bothers me a lot, but never more than when it's me practicing it (it's happened once or twice).

Please let me clarify that I am not attempting to attack you or anyone else personally. I'd like to keep the discussion focused on people and organizations in general, and not get into accusations and ad hominems .

Also, my views on the subject of religion vis-a-vis atheists and skeptics are somewhat out of step with those held by most non-religionists. I am one, in many contexts, to think that we skeptics tend to devalue the role religion plays in people's lives and in the culture. Myself, I do not think magical thinking and belief in the supernatural is ever going to disappear.

(I peruse the Brights board on occasion, and there I have seen atheists propose a project that is quintessentially religious, as a few of the more perceptive there pointed out -- but not me, I do not argue there. The religious impulse hits nearly all of us.)

I have a response to your point about many in AA being anti-religion, but I honestly do not want to insult you or make you angry. I am aware of that phenomenon and it has been used by XA critics in a manner supporting that XA is an independent, freestanding alternative religion for many who use it. But again, I can tell this is a landmine of a subject and I do not want a lot of flames directed at me because it is also an area of emotional vulnerability for me.

I dunno, maybe it is time for a chorus of Kum Bah Ya?:)

Dancing David

18th January 2004, 08:30 AM

Mona,
you have my sympathy, the AA/NA route is not for every one, it is a program that is good for the people who like it but it does not benefit everyone who attends.(The statistics of failed treatment are true for all forms of addiction treatment, it is a process of selfdiscovery and therefore fraught with great mystery.)
And despite the common wisdom in AA 'that's just because they don't want to get sober', it is true that thier method puts many people off and is actualy detrimental to some people.
On Max's previous thread there was more discussion of the alternatives recovery movements. I prefer a simpler version of the rational recovery , without all of Jack Trimppey's anti-AA rhetoric.
It is well know that AA was founded by men with certain issues and that thier path to recovery may not work for every one. Jeanee Kirkpatrick and others founded SOS to avoid certain issues in AA.

The only objection that I have to the AA model is that they view sobriety as the only challenge to a person's life and some people have other 'issues' that lie behind thier use, and therefore you can be sober and very depressed and it won't help you to go to another meeting.

Almost all recovery programs suffer from another fault: they don't encourage people to leave the program and find out other ways to advance themselves. I encourage people who have been sober for two years to still check in with thier home meeting on a regular basis but to expand thier lives outside of thier recovery network.

I am very gald you found you path and it is very hard, Ralph may have been very lucky , I have met a lot of abusive people in the twelve step programs who violate all sense of ethics and morality in thier struggle to maintain thier vision of what everybody elese recovery should be. i have seen arrogant people sneer and abuse the other people in the group and just basicaly get thier jollies by deriding every one around them. And there are some 'helping professionals' who are that way too.

I am also very glad that Ralph found what he needed.

Dancing David

18th January 2004, 08:38 AM

Ralph.

In the Midwest they are not so progressive in thier attitude towArds the original AA programs, you can be abused for trying to substitue other phrases for 'God and Higher power', you obviously have a very good area to attend meetings in, but the religous intolerance and overbearing nature of AA is a real problem to the organization. Because of the nature of the twelve traditions the oversight group cannot go and police the subgroups or the behavior of various memebers.
Just as there are members of the group who abuse/exploit others members of the group there are groups that are very abusive to thier members.
Sponsorship is one of the best and worst aspects of AA, Mona is sharing an experienece that many people have encountered in AA meetings , it is a real and unfortunate phenomena, that is why i recommend people shop around for their home group.

Ralph

18th January 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Mona

You are making two erroneous assumptions that I think I've at least implicitly contradicted in prior posts. First, I am sober and I got that way in an alternative program. (As is true for many in AA, I did have two relapses that I nipped in the bud with the support in that program.) Second, I have been to 3-4 dozen AA meetings in two states. I highly recommend the non-step, agnostic meetings in the West Village of NYC, held in the Gay, Lesbian and Transgenderd Center. The rest in NY and the ones I attended in the Midwest were wrong for me for the reasons I have already set forth.

More importantly, even if I were a gutter drunk, I've offered facts for my claims and stated them calmly and respectfully; my arguments can be addressed on their own merits. I am for obvious reasons reluctant to see this discussion devolve into one about me personally. Several yrs ago I entered this sort of debate in another forum and several of the XA members became absolutely vicious and used my personal history in a manner I could not deal with among people in an unsafe environment. (I will say that other XA members were angry at what was said to me about having a "pity party" over my son's death and that sort of thing, and emailed me apologizing.)

I've been respectful of what everyone else here has had to say about their own experiences, and I have happily conceded the validity of much that they report. On one more point I'll do that again: Dymanic is right that just having some place to go and "stuff to do" may in and of itself be a magic for getting sober; the religious busy work and discussion in AA and afterwards at the coffeeshop is clearly something that helps a significant number of people.

But please hear me: I did not respond well to AA and I am *not alone among people who found the experience unpleasant, and even very harmful. I know a woman sober 22 yrs who found AA to be horrible, and ended up in a psych ward trying to properly do her 4th Step to her sponsor and group's satisfaction -- she is not in AA anymore, and she was my primary help in my secular group. There are many others I have met with varying unpleasant tales to tell about XA. (And, as I have said, some in my group feel attachment to XA or at least to friends they have made there, and hold a more positive if ambivalent view of it.)

So, I think this discussion is important, and I want to engage it. But I simply cannot handle being attacked about my personal history and will not continue if there is any of that. That just has to be one of my boundaries, and I will return the favor to everyone else.

I didn't mean to imply you were still using. I was trying to point out that many of AAs detractors ARE---and never really came close to following the program.

What I object is your suggestion that someone avoid AA or Alanon
on the basis of the fact that it PUSHES religion.

It may very well in some meetings--but I think it would be better for Zero to keep an open mind and actually go to several meetings rather than discard the idea based on what you're suggestion to him.

One of the things that was suggested to me was to go to a lot of different meetings. One of the reasons is to help you find & hook up with a group you're reasonably comfortable with.

You admit you only went to a few dozen meetings yet it took me quite a bit longer than that before I stumbled onto some groups that I felt comfortable with.

I don't deny there a meeting full of AA "nazis" but you're putting down the whole organization based on some very limited experience.

Again--people tend to find what they're looking for. If you want sobriety without the religion--you can find it in AA/NA if you're willing to look for it..................

Mona

18th January 2004, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
On Max's previous thread there was more discussion of the alternatives recovery movements. I prefer a simpler version of the rational recovery , without all of Jack Trimppey's anti-AA rhetoric.
It is well know that AA was founded by men with certain issues and that thier path to recovery may not work for every one. Jeanee Kirkpatrick and others founded SOS to avoid certain issues in AA.

.

Thank you for your comments, David. I, too, find Trimpey's anti-XA rhetoric simply over the top and counter-productive. For those who like his substantive recovery approach, however, SMART exists -- it is run by folks who split w/Trimpey over many issues, including his anti-XA jihad. If you Google SMART (sorry, cannot recall what the acronym stands for) you might find something that appeals to you.

Also, Jean Kirkpatrick founded Women for Sobriety, not SOS. Jim Christopher founded SOS in conjunction with the Council for Secular Humanism. My group, Lifering, split from SOS several years ago in order, among other things, to be independent of CSH. But our approach is virtually identical to SOS's and we have members of both groups.

Christopher, btw, is not an XA basher, and gives credit where it is due to Wilson. He simply, as a skeptic and atheist, found it necessary to create a group where religion was not the focus of recovery.

Ralph

18th January 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Ralph.

In the Midwest they are not so progressive in thier attitude towArds the original AA programs, you can be abused for trying to substitue other phrases for 'God and Higher power', you obviously have a very good area to attend meetings in, but the religous intolerance and overbearing nature of AA is a real problem to the organization. Because of the nature of the twelve traditions the oversight group cannot go and police the subgroups or the behavior of various memebers.
Just as there are members of the group who abuse/exploit others members of the group there are groups that are very abusive to thier members.
Sponsorship is one of the best and worst aspects of AA, Mona is sharing an experienece that many people have encountered in AA meetings , it is a real and unfortunate phenomena, that is why i recommend people shop around for their home group.

I agree...and I don't doubt you'll find more religion at meetings in the midwest than you do in New England.

I also think though, that if people do as you suggested--shop around a little--they can find a group they're comfortable with.

I'm sure even the bible belt has it's share of atheists & agnostics.

Dancing David

18th January 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Ralph

I agree...and I don't doubt you'll find more religion at meetings in the midwest than you do in New England.

I also think though, that if people do as you suggested--shop around a little--they can find a group they're comfortable with.

I'm sure even the bible belt has it's share of atheists & agnostics.

There are one or two of us. ;)

Mona

18th January 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Ralph

It may very well in some meetings--but I think it would be better for Zero to keep an open mind and actually go to several meetings rather than discard the idea based on what you're suggestion to him.

One of the things that was suggested to me was to go to a lot of different meetings. One of the reasons is to help you find & hook up with a group you're reasonably comfortable with.

You admit you only went to a few dozen meetings yet it took me quite a bit longer than that before I stumbled onto some groups that I felt comfortable with.

I don't deny there a meeting full of AA "nazis" but you're putting down the whole organization based on some very limited experience.

Well, Zero's inquiry I guess got lost in a larger discussion. But I do agree that he loses nothing by trying Al Anon.

As for me "putting down" the organization and my "limited" experience, well, I'm trying to be objective and evenhanded, but that can appear as an attack to those not situated where I am. In addition to my own experiences, I've heard the accounts of hundreds of others in Lifering and elsewhere, some of whom spent years in XA. (And, running online meetings, it has fallen to me to keep the focus on sobriety support instead of anti-XA venting that has to be kept within some bounds.) Additionally, I've read vast amounts of literature on recoveryand recovery politics. So, I think I'm pretty well informed and have a license to offer some opinions.

hammegk

18th January 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

I think that the nature of addiction is that it is self defined.

I'm not up on the latest definitions; individual biochemistry is thought to play a part the last I've read, but "self-defined"? Maybe, but the addict is the last to find out.

Originally posted by Mona

But it doesn't hurt at the level of GSO for AA to have humility and understand that 60 percent do it without AA.
It would be interesting to see the raw data that this 60% is based on. Meaningful stats on alkies & druggies is notoriously hard to come by so sar as I know.

As to my "drug of choice," I'm not clear on why that would matter to this discussion ...
Oh? Many of us can see why it is might matter if you do, or do not, admit to some personal involvement, I suspect ...

but for several years I drank harmful quantities of alcohol.
Many do. Why do you believe you are an "alcoholic"? I really am not interested in your answer, but assume you do consider yourself one. Or perhaps you've graduated to "social drinker" now?

Your response to the last question is of interest, btw.

(Research on the effects of a lot of alcohol on the limbic system is quite illuminating.)
Ummm, ok.

As to the actual topic, an atheist in Al-Anon does have a few choices, if he/she can agree that one's personal ego-driven best-efforts to date have resulted in the current situation.

GOD = Good Orderly Direction. Ask your electromagnetic field to begin re-arranging your brain wiring & biochem to better assist you in reponding to "life".

Zero

18th January 2004, 10:09 AM

What I find interesting is that several posts in this thread have implied that if you don't get on board with AA/AlAnon, it is because you are in denial and really don't want help.

hammegk

18th January 2004, 10:34 AM

A decent shrink maybe $120/hr, once a week (& a few years), or AlAnon $0, or "who needs it". Your choice; no one except you & your girl have a clue as to your codependency issues, if any.

The shrink will help you look for them anyway. :D

Zero

18th January 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
A decent shrink maybe $120/hr, once a week, a few years or
AlAnon $0, or "who needs it". Your choice; no one except you & your girl have a clue as to your codependentcy issues, if any.

The shrink will help you look for them anyway. :D Jeez, I don't feel codependent...she was sober for a few years before I met her, and I specifically decided to date her because she didn't need me to fix her...maybe I'm ok.

Ralph

18th January 2004, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

There are one or two of us. ;)

I have it on good authority that there are least five. That's assuming you count Nebraska of course......

Ladewig

18th January 2004, 11:10 AM

The word "alcoholic" has no medical meaning; it is a folkterm, but sometimes a useful one. It is surpassingly common for AA members to claim that anyone who stops drinking w/out their program was never a "real" alcoholic. This, of course, is tautological.

The official AA position on this matter is outlined in the book Alcoholics Anonymous which states that AA does not have a monopoly on sobriety and there are other ways to quit. Of course, given the size of AA (and many (but not all) of the personality types found there) the average person will hear a fair amount of crap. But (and this is a big but) there is a fair amount of useful stuff as well. If one can separate the wheat from the chaff, one can find support and insight. Bottom line: choose your meetings carefully.

Some larger cities, like Chicago, have AA meetings specifically designed for atheists and agnostics (sometimes listed as AAAA). Most are open meetings which allow people related to or involved with recovering or practicing alcoholics to attend.

Even if you can't find any meetings you like, you can read the AA text and try to find a passage or two that you like.

---------------
As for regional differences, I've heard more Bible references in Alabama than any midwestern state. Although the absolute worst (in terms of religious references) was Ireland - very Catholic meetings.

Dancing David

18th January 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

I'm not up on the latest definitions; individual biochemistry is thought to play a part the last I've read, but "self-defined"? Maybe, but the addict is the last to find out.

Duh Hamme, I do sling the biopsychoscial around, I am using addiction from the clinical stand point.
a-diction, or against speech, an addict is one who continues in a behavior they have said that they wish to stop.
The definition of ' substance dependance' would indicate a severe decline in the life function of the individual with the 'substance problem'. Then there are all sorts of problems with mood altering behaviors.

-snip-

Many do. Why do you believe you are an "alcoholic"? I really am not interested in your answer, but assume you do consider yourself one. Or perhaps you've graduated to "social drinker" now?

An interesting point but also the slippery slope for those who really can't conrol thier substance use.
I have know many 'type-two' alcoholics, some seem to be able to drink without harm.

[/B]

Mona

18th January 2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig

As for regional differences, I've heard more Bible references in Alabama than any midwestern state. Although the absolute worst (in terms of religious references) was Ireland - very Catholic meetings.

Really?Last time I was so incautious as to discuss recovery politics oinline, one of my fiercest detractors was an Irishmen living in the old sod, an atheist, who insisted Ireland AA was largely free of the religioisity I was describing in AA. He assured me this was a purely American thing; however, this fellow is also pretty anti-American.

Mona

18th January 2004, 03:45 PM

I have know many 'type-two' alcoholics, some seem to be able to drink without harm.

Yes, but I do not consider myself a candidate for this, and my group, like AA, is abstinence-based. Not that I dismiss other programs like Moderation Management out of hand, but at some point many of us have to accept it is not a workable approach for us.

Ladewig

18th January 2004, 09:17 PM

Really?Last time I was so incautious as to discuss recovery politics oinline, one of my fiercest detractors was an Irishmen living in the old sod, an atheist, who insisted Ireland AA was largely free of the religioisity I was describing in AA. He assured me this was a purely American thing; however, this fellow is also pretty anti-American.

Could be. I shouldn't have made such a broad statement based on a single meeting. As for the rest of Europe, I agree with your friend. Many meetings do not use the Lord's Prayer.

Zero

18th January 2004, 10:25 PM

You know what bugs me most? That there are 'recovery politics' at all. I think I'll take my chances with coffee and cigarettes...

Dymanic

19th January 2004, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Zero

You know what bugs me most? That there are 'recovery politics' at all.
Wherever there are people, there are politics. This is the reason for the traditions which say that "each group shall be autonomous", "the only authority is the group conscience", and "leaders do not govern". Authority flows from the bottom up, never from the top down. It works pretty well, though not perfectly.

Zero, I don't know if you have a problem or not. Only you can decide that. If the way you relate to the people in your life seems healthy and balanced, if you aren't seeing a recurring pattern of disastrous relationships, if you don't spend an inordinate amount of your time cleaning up somebody else's messes, then you might not get a lot out of Al-Anon. But 'alanonism' can be as debilitating a condition as alcoholism or addiction can. Here's a famous quote:

"A co-dependent is somebody who, when they fall off a cliff, somebody else's life flashes before their eyes."

Zero

19th January 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Wherever there are people, there are politics. This is the reason for the traditions which say that "each group shall be autonomous", "the only authority is the group conscience", and "leaders do not govern". Authority flows from the bottom up, never from the top down. It works pretty well, though not perfectly.

Zero, I don't know if you have a problem or not. Only you can decide that. If you are satisfied with the way you relate to the people in your life seems healthy and balanced, if you aren't seeing a recurring pattern of disastrous relationships, if you don't spend an inordinate amount of your time cleaning up somebody else's messes, then you might not get a lot out of Al-Anon. But 'alanonism' can be as debilitating a condition as alcoholism or addiction can. Here's a famous quote:

"A co-dependent is somebody who, when they fall off a cliff, somebody else's life flashes before their eyes." LOL, ok, I see your point, and I think I can safely give Al-Anon a pass...I used to do the codependency, but I have cured myself of it here lately. So, I'm thinking I'm good...I still think it would be nice to find other people who live with alcoholics, just to know what sort of stuff to expect, but I don't need help on the co-dependant issue.

Dymanic

19th January 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Zero

I don't need help on the co-dependant issue.That may be true. I'm not saying it's not, please understand that -- how the heck would I know anyway? Just be aware that, as with addiction, one of the characteristics of co-dependency is an inability on the part of the afflicted person to recognize (or refusal to acknowledge) that they have a problem. This may in fact be even more so with someone who does not have a substance problem. It's probably fair to say that most of those who reach the advanced stages of alcoholism or drug addiction are at least aware that they have a problem, if nothing else. Plus, some degree of what is called 'co-dependency' is not only unavoidable, but healthy.

I still think it would be nice to find other people who live with alcoholics, just to know what sort of stuff to expect, Now see, there's where Al-Anon can help, and I'm just saying you don't have to let the God stuff prevent you from being the benificiary of the experience those people can offer. I mean, if I needed some kind of surgery, or tech assistance, I'd want the best expert in the field. (Or, if I didn't want to pay for that, the best free expert available). I wouldn't care so much if he was always rattling on about Atlantis, or area 51, or Ra the sun god, as long as he knew what he was talking about with regard to the details of my specific situation. If you've made the decision to have an alcoholic in your life, there are a few tips that can make things a lot easier for the both of you. In the long run. Though they may not seem like they are making things easier. It can get complicated.