Moderated: Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[causeandeffect]

Originally Posted by plouton

I am curious to know what sort of gratification is obtained by this action. I can think of no reason to enter any forum espousing information that will certainly provoke strong negative reactions. If AA is unnecessary for the maintenance of your sobriety, why bother going to any meetings at all. I think it is fantastic that you have found your own way to stay sober, but many people rely on the program for assistance especially in early sobriety. Your actions may be harmful to the newcomer who is relying there he strongly on the fellowship, but may not be aware that. Would it not be better to let others find their own way as you have?

It’s really not about gratification so much as about telling the truth which would help people. You see, dragging people through all these extraneous beliefs and steps, which have nothing to do with sobriety, really only serves to weigh them down, making sobriety harder to achieve than it has to be. For instance, telling people not only that they must believe in God, but also believe that God is going to micromanage their lives, only creates obstacles to the desired goal. Such things account for some extremely low retention rate AA experiences. Believe it or not, you can actually tell people the truth and they can still get and stay sober. If people have strong negative reactions to the truth, something is seriously wrong there.

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

AA makes claims to help the suffering alcoholic. I see no problem in critiquing what AA claims and how that compares to reality. And I'd like to see what evidence you base your comment on that treatment centers use a "crude version of their idea of AA" because I don't believe there is any difference between what a treatment agency uses and what AA groups use -- the big book is on every coffee table and in every hand after all.

It is well known that most treatment centers (at least in the USA) are staffed at the lower levels by AA members. Ergo, the similarities between what goes on in meetings and at the facility.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Research even by pro-AAs seem to show that attending nearly any group-like activity with a focus on developing interpersonal relationships is useful, thereby showing that the 12 steps/12 traditions are superfluous

No. At the time you wrote:

Originally Posted by The Norseman

...based on this study, we don't know if the deciding factor was the AA program itself versus development of a stronger sober social support network in general.

You go from that statement to saying that it's been proven that "the steps are superfluous."

Do you even see the leap in logic?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

You object to the democratic process where the grpoup determines what they do in their meeting>

It's known as mob rule.

Quote:

The serenity prayer is virtually always used - is it Christian?

Quote:

No. It's the serenity prayer.

Originally you said you didn't know if it was christian or not but then someone said it was christian and you automatically respond that it isn't. The depth of your apologetics is ridiculous.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by plouton

I believe that any opinion expressed here has value, even though I may disagree. There is nothing I have read that affects my comfort level in either a negative or positive manner, therefore I need no reasons to dismiss the criticism of others much less flimsy ones.

In your first post you said that the people arguing against AA were doing so without any knowledge of AA itself. But it turns out that many of the people arguing against it have much more experience with the program than you do. Now you twist it around to say that it is unimportant.

That is just poor logic. Either experience is important or it isn't. If it is, their experience trumps yours and your first post is meaningless. If it isn't, then your first post based on your personal experience with AA is meaningless.

Quote:

I may be mistaken, but I believe that AA refers to alcoholism as a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. I cannot recall any literature suggesting that alcoholism is solely the result of his spiritual problems.

You are mistaken. Back in the day, Bill and the boys pushed a disease model of alcoholism that they managed to have accepted by several groups. That model does not hold up to the evidence. If it were a disease the AA program would not cure it. Cancer is a disease and a twelve step program can't cure it.

Quote:

I am curious to know what sort of gratification is obtained by this action. I can think of no reason to enter any forum espousing information that will certainly provoke strong negative reactions.

And yet, you did it. You entered this forum and espoused information that provoked strong negative feelings.

Quote:

Would it not be better to let others find their own way as you have?

And allow them to be indoctrinated with the religion of AA? How do you know AA better serves alcoholics with religion than it would if it dropped the religious baggage from its program?

Quote:

All I really know is that the program is of great value to me. Do I need it to remain sober? Probably not, since I was comfortably sober over a year before returning to the halls of AA. The fear of an early death is a powerful motivator in my life. However, I want to have that support available if the day ever comes that my mind begins to convince me that it is safe to have a few drinks. I can't if my life is to continue. I have also met some extremely good people in addition to picking up a few habits that have definitely made me a more thoughtful and caring person.

There is no evidence to say you can't drink socially. The claim that you can't is just AA propaganda. A lot of people go from being hardcore alcoholics to being social drinkers like normal people.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Complex, neurochemical, behavioral and genetic?

Holy polysyllabic pyrotechnics, Batman! Who knew?

Heh. I interpret this to be friendly kidding and I laughed. In the same friendly spirit, I'll answer your, "who knew" with, "not an AAer!"

Quote:

Group-like activity?

This is also funny as I thought I'd catch flack if I just said 'group'. Ah, well.

Quote:

"Making friends"?

Your command of synonyms is wonderful!

Quote:

What is this?

Yes, quite. My mistake. I keep wanting to type 'AA World Services, Inc.' I obviously mistook 'intergroup' for 'services'.

But, in answer to your query, AA World Services, Inc. is the business of Alcoholics Anonymous which controls from the top down the entire AA structure, sets policies and prints the Grapevine and other official AA publications.

Quote:

I don't so much try, honestly or otherwise, to determine the "best fit" for someone else. They're free to do as they will and I'm free to call an ambulance.

If you don't understand why AA is not out scouting for potential alcoholics, you understand nothing about AA.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying I determine what's a best fit for someone else; I help them make the determination for themselves based in part (hopefully) on what information I can give them.

Quote:

And we thank you.

I will take this in a friendly and non-snarky way and say equally, you're welcome!

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by plouton

Unfortunately, it didn't have a great deal of time to respond to all of the criticisms of my opinions regarding the program of Alcoholics Anonymous. By no means do I suggest that it is a perfect program, however I suppose what confuses me most is all of the opposition to the program presented by many people. If you don't think AA is a good program for you, a loved one, or a friend, then take whatever action is necessary to prevent them from getting involved.

This is precisely what some of us are doing in this thread.

Quote:

I can only speak to my experience was alcoholism and the program. I know, from my own experience, that if I take a drink I lose the choice as to whether or not I will have another. I'm certain that many will suggest that I am simply an individual who lacks self-control of non-alcoholics or I'm just plain weak willed.

I've heard that from a few people who have no clue about alcoholism. I don't think addiction is a matter of willpower, but more and more I'm thinking it is a matter of choice, which you also seem to believe.

Quote:

I believe that any opinion expressed here has value, even though I may disagree. There is nothing I have read that affects my comfort level in either a negative or positive manner, therefore I need no reasons to dismiss the criticism of others much less flimsy ones.

Alright, no problem. I just wonder why you think that time in the program means a whole lot. As I and others have pointed out, there are several posting in this thread who have a lot of sober time in AA with criticisms of the program. You came across to me like you felt that a bunch of years in AA gains some sort of legitimacy. I could be wrong; it's just the impression I got.

Quote:

I may be mistaken, but I believe that AA refers to alcoholism as a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. I cannot recall any literature suggesting that alcoholism is solely the result of his spiritual problems.

Solely? The program taken in the aggregate, I think it says nothing but. Where in the literature does it say alcoholism is a physical problem and what solution does it suggest? A physical one or spiritual one or something else?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

In other words, you're saying yes, AA should override AA's membership, stage a coup and declare itself to be at the top rather than the bottom of the service structure.

You really lost me here. I'm not sure the relevancy of continuing this line of thought, but maybe you can please be more direct with what point you're wishing to make.

Quote:

Congratulations, kicking narcotics is no fun and alcohol withdrawal can be life-threatening, please don't swear off abrubtly. It's faster than opiate detox but far more potentially life-threatening.

Agreed.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

You object to the democratic process where the grpoup determines what they do in their meeting>

It's 'their' meeting only up to a certain point as was amply demonstrated a few months ago. Then they are no longer able to use the AA name nor advertise in AA literature.

You know this; I wonder why you keep thinking that AA is some giant free-for-all with groups doing whatever they want and the membership doing whatever they want, and then claiming that 'the program works'. You at least do this enough to recommend it to some of your clients.

Quote:

No. It's the serenity prayer.

Of course it's Christian; it was written by a Christian Protestant theologian and Bill W. decided to use it.

Hey, I have an idea: why not adopt the LORD's Prayer* there in your Australian groups then. Take advantage of available materials and all that.









*As GOD has been co-opted into 'Group of Drunks' I figured you could use LORD -- 'League of Righteous Dudes.'

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

No. It's the serenity prayer.

Which also happens to be a christian prayer.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by qayak

It's known as mob rule.

And your alternative is what? If the members of a mutual aid society do not have the right to make their own decisions through a democratic process, your alternative is what? Where should the decision-making come from?

There is the AA general board but it is, dang it, made up of people who vote! More mob rule!

And it answers to the membership, rather than vice versa. Kind of like the U.S. Congress is supposed to. More mob rule.

Which is your favored method of top-down dictatorship, since you're against democracy?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

No. At the time you wrote:

[Norseman said]Research even by pro-AAs seem to show that attending nearly any group-like activity with a focus on developing interpersonal relationships is useful, thereby showing that the 12 steps/12 traditions are superfluous

You go from that statement to saying that it's been proven that "the steps are superfluous."

[Norseman said]...based on this study, we don't know if the deciding factor was the AA program itself versus development of a stronger sober social support network in general.

Do you even see the leap in logic?

I see where it looks like I was inconsistent, yes. Let me try to put forth my claim as unambiguously as possible.

So. I shouldn't have said 'we don't know'. The studies show that there is evidence that groups are beneficial. Those same studies specifically state that the 12 steps are most likely not the deciding factor that groups are beneficial -- which is the null hypothesis. In other words, the studies did not disprove the null hypothesis, so I find it reasonable to say that AA has been proven to not work.

The real leap here is that when it is shown that groups in general are helpful with people dealing with all kinds of life issues, AAs are quick to say that it's the AA program itself which has saved me/you/my brother/my mother/your cousin when it has been demonstrated so far that it's not the case.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

No, it's not really my opinion. It's medical fact. I will get the citations for these papers, but for now you'll have to settle for titles: Neurobiology of Chemical Dependence by Gilpin and Koob (2008); Acetaldehyde mediates alcohol activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system by Mel, Enrico, Peana, and Diana (European Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 26, pp. 2824–2833, 2007); Positron Emission Tomography As A Tool For Studying Alcohol Abuse by Thanos, Wang, and Volkow (2008); Substance Abuse
Is a Disease of the Human Brain: Focus on Alcohol by Raymond Anton (2010); The Potential of Neuroscience to Inform Treatment by George Koob (2010).

Like I said AA folks like to call it a spiritual disease. It is are lingo. AA is a philosophy for living not a medical treatment plan. So I don't see the need for all your medical links. I am not asking or looking for medical solutions when talking about AA.

Quote:

Please read my post number 5651 wherein I address the two articles that Minoosh linked to, my direct quotes from those articles, my link responding to it and my conclusions.

I stand by my comment.

Quote:

AA makes claims to help the suffering alcoholic. I see no problem in critiquing what AA claims and how that compares to reality. And I'd like to see what evidence you base your comment on that treatment centers use a "crude version of their idea of AA" because I don't believe there is any difference between what a treatment agency uses and what AA groups use -- the big book is on every coffee table and in every hand after all.

There is a big difference. Many Treatment Centers based their clients success there by the effort put forth in completing the first 4 steps. In order to receive a positive report from the Treatment Center you have to do a fourth step, you are forced to. It is in your best interests to do it because it can and will be sent to one if not all three, Judicial, Insurance Company and employer.
This is three big reasons AA and AA Treatment Centers are different.
You really have to witness this for yourself to appreciate the vast differences.

Quote:

Yes, it's the suffering alcoholic's problem that AA sadly doesn't care enough to address. One size fits all, it's not for everyone, move along it's jails, institutions or death for you.

This has been discussed ad nausea and it seems this is what you choose to believe. I say so be it.
Sadly, it is jails, institutions and sometimes death for many. Check any survey concerning the populations of jails, prisons and institutions and see the number one reason why the inmates are there. Drugs and alcohol.

Quote:

Ever hear of Sequential Request Compliance Tactics? Also individually known as the low-ball, the bait-and-switch, and the foot-in-the-door techniques? Read up on them, they're quite interesting especially when viewed in the light of AA's recruiting tactics.

Still trying to understand this comment????

Quote:

Anyway, how did you come up with the number of 30%? That I'm only 30% right?

30% Low bottom
60% med bottom
10% high bottom
I got this from 26 years of being in and around AA.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Nobody else seems to be asking the hard questions for which AA has no answer; scientists and researchers, meanwhile, are busily answering these questions and more in an attempt to improve the lives of millions of people across the world. AA is content to wallow in archaic and discredited notions of what alcoholism is and how to treat it and I think people have a right to know this and the reasons why so they can make the best informed choices for themselves in dealing with their addictions.

You are neither a scientists, Doctor or researcher. You are a poster on a blog. Why would you think that has profound relevance to persuading folks that AA is archaic. Seriously here, why would your message be heard??
AA doesn't treat Alcoholism it has a philosophy for a "design for living". AA has principles for alcoholics if they choose to want them.
There is no 100% guarantee, just a message from a guy who once almost drank himself to death.

Quote:

I'm wanting the most number of people get the best affordable help that's available.

Who doesn't want this?? Everyone who is remotely concerned with alcoholism and drug addiction wants the best available help.
Don't you ever think that Minoosh, Alfie, Pro Bono, myself ect....are not empathetic to these thought processes. We most certainly are and have expressed this over and over. Maybe you are not seeing this for some reason??
Norseman you are not alone.

Quote:

Surprising though it may be to you Danny, other people might just be interested in learning about this stuff when it's so common in the US to claim that AA is the only thing out there and available. It's long past time to begin challenging the myths that AA propagates.

I do not believe that people think AA is the only solution. If this was the case are numbers would be staggering, 15 to 20 million probably. Churchs, Out-treatments Plans, Residential Treatment Centers with Out-Patient Treatment Plans and other programs take their share also.
I do agree though their should be even more opportunities.
I really don't have a problem if people do not want to go to AA.

[DannyB II]

Quote:

Norseman wrote:
Anyway, I was a medical nightmare which I've essentially completely recovered from. The withdrawals from all that oxy were the worst experience I've ever had in my life, though. Even more than a year of thrice-weekly physical therapy appointments I had to go through to be able to walk again were a cakewalk comparatively speaking.

I too recovered from narcotics. No it wasn't fun at all. I can not imagine this being coupled with physical pain.
I salute you.

[DannyB II]

[quote]

Originally Posted by qayak

You are mistaken. Back in the day, Bill and the boys pushed a disease model of alcoholism that they managed to have accepted by several groups. That model does not hold up to the evidence. If it were a disease the AA program would not cure it. Cancer is a disease and a twelve step program can't cure it.

You are stretching it a bit here gayak. The phrase spiritual disease or being a alcoholic means you have a disease or alcohol(ism) ism. Are all part of the lingo used in AA.
I think gayak that you know for a fact that Bill or Bob never tried to have this included as medical jargon.

Quote:

There is no evidence to say you can't drink socially. The claim that you can't is just AA propaganda. A lot of people go from being hardcore alcoholics to being social drinkers like normal people.

I don't know many hardcore drinkers in my life right now that are still drinking. I mean the ones who have recovered. Not one.
But then again my definition of a hardcore drinker may be different from yours.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

It’s really not about gratification so much as about telling the truth which would help people. You see, dragging people through all these extraneous beliefs and steps, which have nothing to do with sobriety, really only serves to weigh them down, making sobriety harder to achieve than it has to be.

]

I guess you are after an easier softer way. Which would you recommend?

Some have suggested CBT as an option, the 12 steps (accidentally or by design) incorporate a lot of CBT: it is taking that good hard look at yourself we often hear of, but no-one seems to know exactly what it is.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

For instance, telling people not only that they must believe in God, but also believe that God is going to micromanage their lives,

This is untrue and demostrably so.

Originally Posted by Bamberger

It is well known that most treatment centers (at least in the USA) are staffed at the lower levels by AA members. Ergo, the similarities between what goes on in meetings and at the facility.

Evidence.

"It is well known" is not evidence.
But even if it were true, why are not the people who have recovered using other methods in the mix of lower level staff?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

It's 'their' meeting only up to a certain point as was amply demonstrated a few months ago. Then they are no longer able to use the AA name nor advertise in AA literature.

Actually I have avoided (and will continue to do so) getting involved in that discussion for a nuymber of reasons which I will not go into here and now. That said I was commenting on the use of the Lord's prayer as an option for the group.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Of course it's Christian; it was written by a Christian Protestant theologian and Bill W. decided to use it.

So did the US Army. I guess they are a Chritian outfit too?

Originally Posted by Bamberger

Which also happens to be a christian prayer.

Sure. And the 10 commandments loosely morph into western laws as well. Whoopie!

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

(talking about the serenity prayer)
Of course it's Christian; it was written by a Christian Protestant theologian and Bill W. decided to use it.

Not so fast. They aren't really sure who wrote it and if it was meant to be a theological statement or a poem.
Were the words changed by someone who was theocratic.
They simply don't know??
Here is a link citing what I am saying: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/11prayer.html

I have heard this many times over the years, the confusion about who wrote the serenity prayer and was it a prayer to begin with.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

AA World Services, Inc. is the business of Alcoholics Anonymous which controls from the top down the entire AA structure ....

This belief certainly explains a lot.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

It's 'their' meeting only up to a certain point as was amply demonstrated a few months ago. Then they are no longer able to use the AA name nor advertise in AA literature.

We Agnostics
http://http://weagnostics.com/

Do they not appear to be using the AA name? Do you want other examples?

No one can advertise in AA literature. General areas put out meeting guides. Not all meetings are listed. In the Toronto case changing the steps led to de-listing. It was a local decision, not made by World Services as you originally claimed. AA World Services gets its power from the membership. I am really, really not making this up.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

... I wonder why you keep thinking that AA is some giant free-for-all with groups doing whatever they want and the membership doing whatever they want ...

Because it is. In fact this is another poster's main beef. Members can claim the program works. AA literature tends to be circumspect. We can go 'round and 'round on what "AA claims," but show me the claim, OK? And don't confuse it with the claims of individual members.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Of course it's Christian; it was written by a Christian Protestant theologian and Bill W. decided to use it.

If that's your definition then the Lord's Prayer is Jewish.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

So. I shouldn't have said 'we don't know'. The studies show that there is evidence that groups are beneficial. Those same studies specifically state that the 12 steps are most likely not the deciding factor that groups are beneficial -- which is the null hypothesis. In other words, the studies did not disprove the null hypothesis, so I find it reasonable to say that AA has been proven to not work.

Were these studies accepted by any of the governing bodies within the medical industry, boards ect....
Or is this study just someones opinion who happens to wear a white coat sometimes?

Quote:

The real leap here is that when it is shown that groups in general are helpful with people dealing with all kinds of life issues, AAs are quick to say that it's the AA program itself which has saved me/you/my brother/my mother/your cousin when it has been demonstrated so far that it's not the case.

It is not a leap at all since the reason we say this is because the fellow brothers and sisters that worked with us and helped us were in AA.
As far as being demonstrated, I doubt that seriously. All I read was someones intellectual opinion.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

The studies show that there is evidence that groups are beneficial. Those same studies specifically state that the 12 steps are most likely not the deciding factor that groups are beneficial

I've gone back and read the links I could find and didn't see where anyone said this. If you can, please post a link or quote from a study to support this assertion.

Quote:

"Wired" magazine said:

To begin with, there is evidence that a big part of AA’s effectiveness may have nothing to do with the actual steps.

But that statement was based on the fact that group support in general is helpful, not on any testing of the steps.

Besides which, I earlier brought up synergy. What if there is no single "deciding factor"?

[causeandeffect]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Which is your favored method of top-down dictatorship, since you're against democracy?

The idea of group conscience meetings sounds good and democratic, but what happens when the group is full of crazies? Can their conscience really be trusted? No, because they’re crazy and have some extremely dangerous ideas. Here’s one example of concerned AA members who complain about the practices of other groups that they deem cults.

Quote:

Nevertheless according to these self-appointed “professionals” depression has been re-diagnosed as self pity (in one instance that we know of this masterly insight was presented not by a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst, nor by a general practitioner or consultant – no, this profound conclusion was arrived at via the services of a plumber).

snip

This has undoubtedly contributed to a great deal of entirely unnecessary suffering and in some extreme cases to suicide. This we regard as both unacceptable and unforgivable.

http://aacultwatch.co.uk/medication.aspx

Keep in mind that these members of the cult within a cult don’t just keep to their own group. They go to other groups, every one they can, to proselytize. I’ve seen them hit every meeting in town. And their brand of crazy infects other groups and even some sensible seeming individuals. I should know. It happened to me twice in very early sobriety, and I quickly learned to hide the fact I was on medication. I was persuaded to discontinue my medication by a very trusted, sensible member and the results were nearly deadly. Then another tried it on me just a couple months later. Neither was a member of this local group, and in fact were both from different groups all together. I’m lucky I survived. But when this happens, members just dismiss the suicides as “not working a good program”, no matter how good a program the victim worked. No one will ever admit they persuaded someone to discontinue medicine.

This group of concerned AA members seems to think that other groups warn their members against such practices but I can assure you, it rarely happens. That may be what their group conscience does, but I can assure you, nobody wants to admit these things happen, because doing so would give AA a black eye. So they would rather look the other way and pretend it doesn’t happen, with deadly results.

Here’s a list theses concerned AA members compiled of these groups who do this.

http://aacultwatch.co.uk/CultmeetingsUS.aspx

http://aacultwatch.co.uk/cultmeetings.aspx

This isn’t the only way a group conscience decision can be dangerous. I’d bring out the rest, but in order to prove it, I’d have to link you to a forum where the victims are trying to heal. I don’t want them to be terrorized again by AA members as they have in the past.

[causeandeffect]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

]

I guess you are after an easier softer way. Which would you recommend?

Quote:

This is untrue and demostrably so.

Actually, it’s demonstrably correct:

Step 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
Step 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

Step 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

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

As I see it, asking God to do all your work for you is the easier, softer way.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

In other words, the studies did not disprove the null hypothesis, so I find it reasonable to say that AA has been proven to not work.

I know you find it reasonable. But formally: Is "AA has not been proven to work" the same thing as "AA has been proven not to work"?

Be careful about citing that 5 percent success rate, though, for the reasons I posted earlier.

[plouton]

First of all, I would like to say that it is quite interesting to watch the evolution of various conversations in this thread. I would like to be clear and state that any of my contributions should not be misunderstood and perceived as antagonistic in order to generate negative or hostile discourse. Nothing could be further from the truth. In an environment such as this, I avoid taking any messages directed towards me has personal. Sometimes this is not always easy to do, but fortunately with the written word one has time to consider their response several times before posting it. I also wish there was more time in my day for lengthier contributions to the conversation.

Quote:

Believe it or not, you can actually tell people the truth and they can still get and stay sober

I certainly do believe that this is true and your intentions are sincerely and faithfully expressed in an attempt to help others. However, I also believe that the word "truth" should have the possessive determiner "my" preceding it, grammatically speaking. It seems to me (at least in my opinion) that are referring to your views as "the truth" might be somewhat presumptuous. I daresay that no one persons view on most (maybe all) topics, especially such as the current one, can be labeled as "the truth".

Unfortunately, it is late and that is all I have time for tonight. Morning is coming fast and I have a lot to accomplish.

Everyone have a great day!

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

And your alternative is what? If the members of a mutual aid society do not have the right to make their own decisions through a democratic process, your alternative is what? Where should the decision-making come from?

There is the AA general board but it is, dang it, made up of people who vote! More mob rule!

And it answers to the membership, rather than vice versa. Kind of like the U.S. Congress is supposed to. More mob rule.

Which is your favored method of top-down dictatorship, since you're against democracy?

I am against any democracy where individual rights are not protected. Democracy is nothing but mob rule without a charter to protect the rights of the individual. The U.S. has such a charter as do most democratic countries. AA on the other hand does not have one which is why the religious majority get to dictate to the non-religious minority on such personal issues as a god belief.

Even the Girl Guides of Canada saw the vindictiveness of forcing non-religious people to conform to religious beliefs. This was after the word "God" was replaced by "God As You Know Him" or "Higher Power." They did the right thing and removed all religious references in their literature so that all people have the right to their own beliefs within the organization.

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Of course it's Christian; it was written by a Christian Protestant theologian and Bill W. decided to use it.

Ironically that very same theologian saw Buchmanism (which AA essentially is) for the lazy theology it is. Theology, lazy or not, is ultimately religion.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

The idea of group conscience meetings sounds good and democratic, but what happens when the group is full of crazies? Can their conscience really be trusted?

"Group conscience" in my experience is usually concerned with stuff like whether to renew the lease or what color to paint the room. I've never heard of it being used to tell an individual member what he or she should do. So I don't really know where the element of danger arises. Sorry I'm just picturing questions like, "Should we put up curtains or blinds?"

Quote:

And their brand of crazy infects other groups and even some sensible seeming individuals. I should know. It happened to me twice in very early sobriety, and I quickly learned to hide the fact I was on medication. I was persuaded to discontinue my medication by a very trusted, sensible member and the results were nearly deadly.

When you say a "trusted" member, do you mean you trusted that member? Why did you trust that person more than your doctor? And I'm still wondering what it has to do with the "group conscience."

It sounds as if maybe you're saying that there is an AA group which has decided its members can't sponsor people on medication??

And that mainstream AA people, who run the cult watch, have called them on it?

Quote:

Then another tried it on me just a couple months later. Neither was a member of this local group, and in fact were both from different groups all together.

Wait. I don't know what "this local group" is. Did you have a regular group and get talked out of taking medication by visitors from another group?

Quote:

This group of concerned AA members seems to think that other groups warn their members against such practices but I can assure you, it rarely happens. That may be what their group conscience does, but I can assure you, nobody wants to admit these things happen, because doing so would give AA a black eye. So they would rather look the other way and pretend it doesn’t happen, with deadly results.

WHO IS "THEY"? Sorry to shout but I can't track your sentences. Mainstream AA? The people who run the cult watch? The members of groups that have devised bizarre sponsorship rules through the "group conscience"? Mainstream AA people who assume others in AA are warned against certain practices?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Besides which, I earlier brought up synergy. What if there is no single "deciding factor"?

Which has formed a large part of my argument for some time. There are different things with AA for each person. There is a "suggested" step process, there are meetings to share, theior is fellowship and community, there is personal honesty and reflection, there is self-improvement, encouragement etc etc etc/

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Actually, it’s demonstrably correct:

Step 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
Step 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

Step 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

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

As I see it, asking God to do all your work for you is the easier, softer way.

Hang on. You said the steps made it harder, now you are saying it makes them easier. Which is it?

I would ask you again though what method would you recommend for someone getting sober if not AA?

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by qayak

AA on the other hand does not have one which is why the religious majority get to dictate to the non-religious minority on such personal issues as a god belief.

AA has no coercive powers.

Do you still think someone can make you believe in God?

I'd say that's a boundary issue. Learning healthy boundaries is a big part of therapy and - in my experience - of AA.

Poor boundary setting:
"qayak makes me angry."

Good boundary setting:
"I respond with anger to what qayak says."

Even better:
"I respond with anger to what qayak says. I wonder why? What is my part? I need to find out, because it's my blood pressure that goes up, not his."

Originally Posted by qayak

Even the Girl Guides of Canada saw the vindictiveness of forcing non-religious people to conform to religious beliefs.

Vindictiveness? "A disposal to seek revenge"? Do you believe the Girl Guides came to see that they were disposed to seek revenge?

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I know you find it reasonable. But foAArmally: Is "AA has not been proven to work" the same thing as "AA has been proven not to work"?

Be careful about citing that 5 percent success rate, though, for the reasons I posted earlier.

AA has not been proven to work. Therefore the so-called 5% is off by roughly 5%, assuming the 5% itself is the rate that occurs when nothing is done.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by Bamberger

Ironically that very same theologian saw Buchmanism (which AA essentially is) for the lazy theology it is. Theology, lazy or not, is ultimately religion.

So is your point here that Buchmanism is bad. Bill is guilty of having a very short experience with Buchmanism so the millions that came after this experience should have to pay penitence.
I have heard this condescension happen every time Buchman is brought up. I fail to see where anything negative happen during Bills experience with them or after he left the organization.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

The idea of group conscience meetings sounds good and democratic, but what happens when the group is full of crazies? Can their conscience really be trusted? No, because they’re crazy and have some extremely dangerous ideas.

I see, all AA members are crazy and it seems you would rather a totalitarian type organisation?

AA is not set up like this and for some very good reasons; a quick journey through the 12 and 12 will help you out there. No doubt you have read it and understand what I am saying.

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by DannyB II

So is your point here that Buchmanism is bad. Bill is guilty of having a very short experience with Buchmanism so the millions that came after this experience should have to pay penitence.
I have heard this condescension happen every time Buchman is brought up. I fail to see where anything negative happen during Bills experience with them or after he left the organization.

I wasn't saying Buchmanism was bad (although I think it was). I was saying that it was a religion. AA is the sequel to that religion, albeit a more narrowly focused one.

[Minoosh]

There is a French saying: "There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience."

To get a clear conscience, you make amends for wrongs you've done. To do that you need a realistic idea of what is and isn't your fault, and what you can and can't fix. You can't change the past, or other people's personalities. But you can make a start on your own emotional state.

Examining your fears, resentments and secrets ideally allows you to discard beliefs that no longer serve you.

I imagine some people on this thread will think this process has nothing to do with staying sober, while others might see potential value but disagree that it's a "spiritual" exercise. Some may believe that only mental-health professionals should be allowed to help.

For people who want it, I support the mutual-aid model, where drunks help drunks, addicts help addicts, etc. I don't know how to shelter people from all the potential harm in the world without cutting them off from a wealth of potential healing. In any case it's not my call. AA will remain a free community resource that costs nothing and compels no one to attend. If you're ripe to fall into the hands of a manipulative messiah figure, I don't know how to protect you from the next "savior" whose crosses your path.

[causeandeffect]

Originally Posted by DannyB II

Were these studies accepted by any of the governing bodies within the medical industry, boards ect....
Or is this study just someones opinion who happens to wear a white coat sometimes?


It is not a leap at all since the reason we say this is because the fellow brothers and sisters that worked with us and helped us were in AA.
As far as being demonstrated, I doubt that seriously. All I read was someones intellectual opinion.

I'm glad you brought up the word intellectual. Here's a little quote from the big book so everyone can see where your position came from.

[QUOTE[If you think you are an atheist, and agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you.

Big Book p.181, Doctor Bob’s Nightmare.
[/quote]

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Bamberger

AA has not been proven to work.

And you think that's the same thing as AA has been proven not to work. OK, I'm beginning to see where the confusion is coming from.

[causeandeffect]

Originally Posted by plouton

However, I also believe that the word "truth" should have the possessive determiner "my" preceding it, grammatically speaking. It seems to me (at least in my opinion) that are referring to your views as "the truth" might be somewhat presumptuous.

Plouton, I don’t believe you to be antagonistic, and I’d like to clarify my statement. Perhaps I should have used the word “fact” instead of truth. Tiny had said:

Quote:

"No higher power - of any kind - nor any sort of fantastical or religious belief or action, is required to get and maintain sobriety, nor is any of it required to live a happy, joyous, and productive life".

This is a fact that has been statistically proven. Most people get and maintain sobriety without AA or any specific religious belief. In fact, you’re much better off without it.

http://www.thecleanslate.org/self-ch...out-treatment/

But even if it wasn’t a statistical fact, and was only Tinyal’s truth, or my truth for that matter, why would it be such a bad thing to say it? Why would one question the right someone has to express their own truth in an AA meeting? Because it defies the dogma?


Minoosh, I’m sorry if my post was cryptic. AA cultwatch is very concerned about a number of actions of certain groups who go by the designations: Primary Purpose, Back to Basics, and Into Action, as well as Clancy I’s Pacific Group (which has something like 500 people), Midtown and their migrants, the Atlantic Group (I assume, providing they are in cultwatch’s radar) and some others including some in the UK. These rogue groups are aggressive recruiters and no, they won’t sponsor members on medication. The pressure to conform to these groups’ expectations is more intense than usual. AA cultwatch have indeed called them on it, but they still continue to pressure people to forego their meds. They are not going to change because they believe they are doing God’s will. Cultwatch may be warning its members against these practices, but the average group does not.

The two members I spoke of earlier were not members of any of these groups. They attended different meetings and didn’t know each other. The trusted member was a revered old timer with 25 years. Yes, I trusted that member. The other was a sponsor, but not for long after the suggestion to get off my meds. I complied only because I was told as a newcomer to trust the process and to trust the members of AA and all the answers to life were in the big book.

As far as group conscience meetings go, they are not all about curtains. When a group is sick, what is their conscience going to look like? The problem is that the traditions provide no oversight, no accountability, no protection and no boundaries. Groups like this are allowed to operate with impunity and there is nothing anyone can do about it, only because there are no leaders. One study I can’t find, because I lost a lot of bookmarks, said that as many as 30% of AA members say they were pressured to get off their medicines—any kind of medicine. Fortunately, many don’t comply.

Quote:

Hang on. You said the steps made it harder, now you are saying it makes them easier. Which is it?

I would ask you again though what method would you recommend for someone getting sober if not AA?

Both. Relying on God to run your life for you is a lazy cop-out and won’t effect any necessary changes, therefore making it harder.

What would I recommend? Anything not devised by a dishonest, failed stock scammer whose whole philosophy stems from a “white light” experience from God that was actually induced by the hallucinogenics belladonna and henbane and other toxins—a man who remained “naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty” even in his years of sobriety. That fact should tell you something about how well reliance on God works.

Quote:

[i] AA has no coercive powers[i]

Well, except for little statements like:

“Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant.”

12&12 p.174

Common guys, you know this material as well as I do!

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Both. Relying on God to run your life for you is a lazy cop-out and won’t effect any necessary changes, therefore making it harder.

Got it.
It's easier and harder at the same time.

Hang on ......

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

What would I recommend? Anything not devised by a (perjoratives snipped) — man who remained human.

ftfy (italics mine)

Now, what do you mean by "anything"?

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

And you think that's the same thing as AA has been proven not to work. OK, I'm beginning to see where the confusion is coming from.

I never said that AA has been proven not to work, only that it has not been proven to work any better than doing nothing. That's what the null hypothesis is all about.