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

[Tinyal]

If the (rather few) AA defenders on this thread would bother themselves to

actually read the links I've posted, they would have found details of at least (4) professionally run, double-blind studies that demonstrate the following:

1. AA's success rate is a maximum of 5-13% (defined as those who initially show up at AA and and are still sober 1 year later - not 1 in 20 are still around, from my experience at 1000's of meetings, it's more like 1 in 50.) For those who attend, just think of the quantity of newcomers who show up and are still around 1 year later? A few of the studies demonstrate that less than 1 in 600 people are still sober 10 years later). AA's own past triennial surveys also agree with the 5% figure , although nowadays AA has refused to release the type of data from the survey that would confirm that.

2. Several studies clearly show that attendance at AA (besides giving one - on average - only a 1 in 20 chance of succeeding) significantly increased the users level of dangerous binge drinking.

3. Demonstrates that attending AA increases the abusers chance of dying in comparison to doing nothing at all. That is, AA actually was worse than doing nothing.

With the above conclusions - coupled with the fact that in dozens of high level legal opinions, courts have ruled that the AA program is a religion - it is clear that as a solution to problem drinking, AA is worse than doing nothing, and for many it actually increases both the amount of binge drinking as well as mortally rate for those (usually forced by the legal system) who attend - a natural result of having 'powerlessness' and a fantasy (judeochristian religion) pounded into the heads of vulnerable people.

 

[Dymanic]

Even in your example, there are shared religious beliefs: they all believe in the supernatural (I assume the Yogi does). Now, are they starting an organization of some sort, dedicated to a common purpose (e.g., staying sober, debunking "woo", etc)?

Yes. In this example, fishing.

Atheism, maybe (though there are plenty of critical thinkers who are theists) Militant atheism of the type expressed here? That's as much a religious attitude as the people who come to my door on certain Sundays handing out tracts.

I agree with all of that.

In other words, they don't care about God, they care about staying sober.

The way I would put it is that some of them care about "God"; all of them care about staying sober (nearly all of them anyway; there will always be those who just go to meet chicks, or just to get a free cup of coffee, or whatever).

I've never been to a meeting (ironically, I type that as I drink my 3rd beer of the day), but they don't sound like a religious organization. Maybe they were at one point, like Unitarians?

I don't know much about Unitarians, but early AA was influenced to a considerable extent by the Oxford group, which I would agree was religious (self-examination, acknowledgment of character defects, restitution for harm done, and working with others are concepts taken directly from that group, but I don't see those as inherently religious).

It was effective for you, right?

With the above disclaimer in mind, yes. It may be worth noting that initially I went to AA as an alternative to suicide. I had reached what AA literature refers to as the point of "incomprehensible demoralization", and killing myself was the best solution my tired, soggy brain could come up with. The very fact that I had found a group of people who could not only relate to my state of mind but were so familiar with it that they had invented a tongue-twister to describe it was, by itself, a remarkably healing experience for me. And I didn't kill myself. And I haven't had anything stronger than a cup of coffee ever since. Do I have any good way of knowing for sure that I would not have gotten just as good an outcome some other way? Of course not. But those alternative time lines are fraught with perils of their own.

 

[Complexity]

Complexity - You're arguing from bald assertion to no effect.

I'm not arguing at all - I'm stating opinions, as are you.

 

[Complexity]

It does that a lot I've noticed.

I don't see any point in trying to have a serious discussion with the pair of you.

 

[Pup]

QFT
Nail meet head. It's cool though. We all have our skeptical blind spots.
I thought of an analogy the other day. Who remembers "A Few Good Men."?
(snip)
The literature is a small part of AA. The big book and a fair amount of the literature is dogmatic, just like religion, but those of you that continue to try and pigeon hole AA Alfie because he can't provide hard evidence of his claims refuse to accept reality.
AA worked for this atheist and countless others.
AA keeps 0 records.
AA could care less weather or not courts send convicted criminals to it or not.
AA is to god
What the JREF is to atheism.

Wait. What?

I thought the analogy from the movie was going to be: just because it's not in the book doesn't mean it doesn't exist through peer pressure. You don't need to write out where the mess-hall is, if everyone is supposed to follow the crowd to get there.

So the analogy would be: just because AA doesn't say in the book that you have to believe in the Judeo-Christian god, or just because the JREF doesn't say you have to be an atheist to participate, if the crowd is all headed that way, then you could find yourself sitting alone without a plate in front of you if you don't follow the crowd.

That might be okay if you weren't really hungry anyway and mostly joined for the fitness training and the military discipline, but you'll still be aware that the crowd is over there eating at the mess-hall, acknowledging the power of doorknobs or demanding evidence of a soul, while you're over here alone.

Did I mix enough metaphors there?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm not arguing at all - I'm stating opinions, as are you.

Opinions based on what? Any opinions we have are actually based on some personal experience as opposed to.... well, nothing actually.

I don't see any point in trying to have a serious discussion with the pair of you.

Now you know how we feel.

 

[godofpie]

Wait. What?

I thought the analogy from the movie was going to be: just because it's not in the book doesn't mean it doesn't exist through peer pressure. You don't need to write out where the mess-hall is, if everyone is supposed to follow the crowd to get there.

It doesn't have anything to do with peer pressure. Where did that come from?The point is just because it is not in the literature doesn't mean that it does not exist.

So the analogy would be: just because AA doesn't say in the book that you have to believe in the Judeo-Christian god, or just because the JREF doesn't say you have to be an atheist to participate, if the crowd is all headed that way, then you could find yourself sitting alone without a plate in front of you if you don't follow the crowd.

You really did miss the point. Maybe it wasn't as good of an analogy as I thought it was. The argument the prosecutor was making in my analogy was that because "code red" did not appear in the literature that obviously it was made up and did not exist. AA Alfie has pointed out that AA does not necessarily go by the book. That it is OK to go "off the reservation" when it comes to god and the paranormal.

That might be okay if you weren't really hungry anyway and mostly joined for the fitness training and the military discipline, but you'll still be aware that the crowd is over there eating at the mess-hall, acknowledging the power of doorknobs or demanding evidence of a soul, while you're over here alone.

Did I mix enough metaphors there?

I guess cuz I don't understand this last part at all. Maybe you should put the cork back in the bottle?

 

[Dymanic]

I'm not arguing at all - I'm stating opinions, as are you.

I agree with all but the last three words. It looks like you don't understand what the word, "argument" means in the context of a logical discussion. Lucky for you, you've come to just the right place to get help with this problem.

 

[Dunstan]

A few thoughts and questions for anyone who cares to address them.

First, the thoughts. I accept that, from what I've read in this thread and heard elsewhere, that AA groups vary quite a bit, including in their approach to religion. Some are Bible-thumpers, some don't discuss religion at all. Many AA defenders (and thus, I assume, many AA members) take a "use what works, leave what doesn't" approach.

I also appreciate that the most irritating aspect of what I perceive as AA's religiosity -- the fact that our legal system explicitly or implicitly compels people to participate in it -- is not necessarily something that AA seeks out or encourages. I bet it's pretty annoying to have folks at your meetings who only care about getting their card signed rather than participating.

Basically, I'm on board with the words attributed to Sinatra: "whatever gets you through the night." If AA works for you, at least -- unlike psychics and homeopaths and other things it gets compared to -- you're not being exploited. (Aside from that 13th Step, I guess, if that applies to you.) But I do take issue with what I see as equivocating on the religious overtones, and I find some of the usual defenses about doorknobs and "group of drunks" to be disingenuous.

Now that I've said where I'm coming from, here are my questions:

1) What do you consider to be essential to AA? There must be some core minimum below which one isn't really "doing AA." If someone just stops drinking on his own, without setting foot in a meeting, presumably that's not "doing AA." Is it not drinking + going to meetings? Not drinking + going to meetings + the meetings are anonymous? Not drinking + going to meetings + anonymity + belief in "some kind" of higher power?

2) For those of you (A.A. Alfie and others) who assert that the 12 Steps, the 12 Traditions, and the Big Book are non-binding, options, inessential, etc. -- and I'm not saying you're wrong, as I have no personal knowledge on the subject -- then why all the attempts to shoehorn things into their language? Why talk about doorknobs as a higher power, if a higher power isn't essential to AA? Why use cutesy phrases like "Group Of Drunks" as an acronym for GOD? Why don't those who aren't believers just ignore the word "god" or any steps that involve him/her/it rather than playing word games to try to make it fit? Why doesn't every AA member who isn't a believer just say, "well, you know, that stuff about God is outdated 1930s stuff that isn't essential to the program. I don't believe in God and don't need to, period, so I'm going to 'leave' that stuff, and 'take' what works"? And yes, I'm sure some do, but why don't they all?

3) Do you think AA should change in any respect? Should there be an updated 12 Steps that cuts out the religious language while leaving in whatever you regard as essential? Should AA refuse to cooperate with court systems (no signing of cards, etc.)? Or anything else you can think of?

4) Can you think of a way to scientifically test AA's effectiveness, without hampering its ability to help people or the anonymity tradition?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

A few thoughts and questions for anyone who cares to address them.

First, the thoughts. I accept that, from what I've read in this thread and heard elsewhere, that AA groups vary quite a bit, including in their approach to religion. Some are Bible-thumpers, some don't discuss religion at all. Many AA defenders (and thus, I assume, many AA members) take a "use what works, leave what doesn't" approach.

I also appreciate that the most irritating aspect of what I perceive as AA's religiosity -- the fact that our legal system explicitly or implicitly compels people to participate in it -- is not necessarily something that AA seeks out or encourages. I bet it's pretty annoying to have folks at your meetings who only care about getting their card signed rather than participating.

I guess it would annoy anyone doing something they don't want: In Australia, we don't have the courts ordering people to AA - we do have them ordered to Addiction Awareness programs, relapse prevention, lifeskill programs and the like instead, as well as community based orders, the usual fines etc.
Either way, there is something educational in both approaches (i.e. look where your addiction or behaviour might take you)

Basically, I'm on board with the words attributed to Sinatra: "whatever gets you through the night." If AA works for you, at least -- unlike psychics and homeopaths and other things it gets compared to -- you're not being exploited. (Aside from that 13th Step, I guess, if that applies to you.) But I do take issue with what I see as equivocating on the religious overtones, and I find some of the usual defenses about doorknobs and "group of drunks" to be disingenuous.

Obviously AA does not support '13 stepping'.
I respect the disingeniousness of the doorknob and group of drunks (especially the doorknob), but is something that has clearly worked for many when it comes to formally doing the stepwork.

As for the following (and previous) my take only and rather general; not AA policy per se.

1) What do you consider to be essential to AA? There must be some core minimum below which one isn't really "doing AA." If someone just stops drinking on his own, without setting foot in a meeting, presumably that's not "doing AA." Is it not drinking + going to meetings? Not drinking + going to meetings + the meetings are anonymous? Not drinking + going to meetings + anonymity + belief in "some kind" of higher power?

First, it goes without saying: don't pick up the first drink under any circumstances. Try getting drunk without it, you can't.

Early days (first year or so): Meetings meetings meeting. Educate yourself about your disease, get a sponsor/mentor and start making some new supportive friends - get phone numbers, ring people and get some self honesty starting. Look for the similarities in peoples stories, not the differences

Years two to five: stepwork and service. Attack the steps as best you can, take a service postion and keep learning about yourself. The steps themselves are great part of the healing process allowing us to rid ourselves of the guilt of the past, make amends and create new ways of approaching life

year five: 'probation' is done: continue with service work and ongoing personal growth and maintenance

2) For those of you (A.A. Alfie and others) who assert that the 12 Steps, the 12 Traditions, and the Big Book are non-binding, options, inessential, etc. -- and I'm not saying you're wrong, as I have no personal knowledge on the subject -- then why all the attempts to shoehorn things into their language? Why talk about doorknobs as a higher power, if a higher power isn't essential to AA? Why use cutesy phrases like "Group Of Drunks" as an acronym for GOD? Why don't those who aren't believers just ignore the word "god" or any steps that involve him/her/it rather than playing word games to try to make it fit? Why doesn't every AA member who isn't a believer just say, "well, you know, that stuff about God is outdated 1930s stuff that isn't essential to the program. I don't believe in God and don't need to, period, so I'm going to 'leave' that stuff, and 'take' what works"? And yes, I'm sure some do, but why don't they all?

Many do exactly what you are saying (reject the "outdated 1930s stuff and the word God): One of the underlying problems with the alcoholic is they are completely delusional - they often think they are perfect and have been lying to themselves for so long they kind of believe it.
The higher power is required to "resore us to sanity" (we were insane by just about any definition), we have to admit that we do not and cannot control everything.
Prior to the development of the 12 steps, there were six. This step was (in part) originally about "complete ego deflation"; admitting something has more power than me is very liberating.

3) Do you think AA should change in any respect? Should there be an updated 12 Steps that cuts out the religious language while leaving in whatever you regard as essential? Should AA refuse to cooperate with court systems (no signing of cards, etc.)? Or anything else you can think of?

Change will be made by consensus. If a change is desired or warranted it will be decided by group conscience (which is essentially just a vote), at group, local, national level.

As for the court system, I feel totally unqualified to comment as I do not live in a part of the world where these mandates are handed out.

4) Can you think of a way to scientifically test AA's effectiveness, without hampering its ability to help people or the anonymity tradition?

Sadly, not really.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

... snip..blah blah... they would have found details of at least professionally run, double-blind studies that demonstrate the following:
1. AA's success rate is a maximum of 5-13% defined as those who initially show up at AA and and are still sober 1 year later -

Imagine that 5 - 13% still sober after one year. That's not bad going, wonder if any other therapy has anything near close to that? What's that? No, well whod have guessed?

2. Several studies clearly show that attendance at AA significantly increased the users level of dangerous binge drinking.

And they were moderate drinkers prior to AA right?

3. Demonstrates that attending AA increases the abusers chance of dying in comparison to doing nothing at all. That is, AA actually was worse than doing nothing.

Right, AA is the cause of their deaths, not alcoholism.
Interestingly 100% of everyone actually dies.


So why do you still attend this religious cult? Moreover, why did you persist with it for all these years?
Oh yes, to see your friends and stay sober - not for religion.
It seems AA can work without one being religious, ergo religion not required, ergo: NOT RELIGIOUS! - Imagine, you are the very example of same we had been looking for all along.

Thanks.


eta
Curiously, I have just returned from an AA meeting and apart from the serenity prayer (which I like to call an affirmation) the word God was mentioned once, by one speaker out of nine. Ironically the meeting was in a church.

 

[Pup]

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie, and am only going by the scene quoted, so I may be missing the larger context.

It doesn't have anything to do with peer pressure. Where did that come from?The point is just because it is not in the literature doesn't mean that it does not exist.

Exactly (in reference to the bolded part). If something isn't in a book, but "everyone knows" it exists and knows how they're supposed to respond to it, then peer pressure is the obvious way to create a group consensus.

You really did miss the point. Maybe it wasn't as good of an analogy as I thought it was. The argument the prosecutor was making in my analogy was that because "code red" did not appear in the literature that obviously it was made up and did not exist. AA Alfie has pointed out that AA does not necessarily go by the book. That it is OK to go "off the reservation" when it comes to god and the paranormal.

It's a double-edged sword.

Even if individuals claim AA isn't religious and point to passages in the book to prove it, saying the book says "higher power" rather than "a god," that doesn't mean what they're claiming is true. Peer pressure will trump the words in the book, for better or worse.

I guess cuz I don't understand this last part at all. Maybe you should put the cork back in the bottle?

You don't understand it, so you accuse me of being drunk? Um, yeah, that really impresses me. Obviously, I wasn't. I didn't understand the point of your movie analogy, either. Should I conclude that you were drunk?

To make it clearer:

If someone doesn't choose a higher power, they'll endure pressure to do so. It's "optional," just like going to the mess hall is optional, but it's clearly the direction that the crowd following the 12 steps is going.

The fact that people are told to choose a doorknob if they want, shows how vital the whole concept of a higher power is. Even something silly is better than going against the group pressure to name a "higher power," an expression that we all know is commonly used by religious organizations.

 

[Dymanic]

What do you consider to be essential to AA? There must be some core minimum below which one isn't really "doing AA." If someone just stops drinking on his own, without setting foot in a meeting, presumably that's not "doing AA."

Another interesting question. I'm tempted to stick with the above analogy and ask whether there is some core minimum below which one isn't really "doing skepticism". The answer seems to be that that can mean so many different things to different people that it can only be taken on a case-by-case basis, and it may even be impossible to answer in a way that completely avoids the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I don't think there really are any absolutes, or any guarantees.

For the person still reeking of booze from his last binge, "doing AA" is not likely to consist of anything more than just showing up. It's not unusual to hear members report having attended regularly for years (and stayed sober) before ever making any serious attempt at the core concepts mentioned above: self-examination, acknowledgment of character defects, restitution for harm done, and working with others. (There are some so bold as to fancy themselves qualified to declare others to be "dry drunk" on the basis of a perceived lack at having made those efforts, but I've never been one of them).

Conversely, it's not unusual to hear members report having failed to stay sober despite having done those things (sometimes having come to see this as simply a necessary part of the process for them).

I've seen people for whom AA itself seems to have become an addiction, at least at times; if you want to hide from your life, AA meetings can be a great place to do that. Whether that is a healthy or unhealthy thing again seems entirely subjective and depends on too many factors to calculate. I doubt that I could have stayed sober initially if I hadn't had a place to hide out for a while, but that's me. On the other hand, the inclusion of the personal stories in the AA Big Book were intended to permit it to be a "meeting in print" for those unable to attend for whatever reason, and there are numerous stories of individuals who have recovered using the 12 steps, and who consider themselves members of AA, despite never having attended a face-to-face meeting.

Can you think of a way to scientifically test AA's effectiveness, without hampering its ability to help people or the anonymity tradition?

No. And if that (or some truncated version of that) had been the title of this thread, I would have passed it by.

 

[marplots]

A few thoughts and questions for anyone who cares to address them.

Now that I've said where I'm coming from, here are my questions:

1) What do you consider to be essential to AA? There must be some core minimum below which one isn't really "doing AA." If someone just stops drinking on his own, without setting foot in a meeting, presumably that's not "doing AA." Is it not drinking + going to meetings? Not drinking + going to meetings + the meetings are anonymous? Not drinking + going to meetings + anonymity + belief in "some kind" of higher power?

In my opinion, to the extent AA helps someone, it is dependent on a sense of community, the AA group itself. This is quite similar to group therapy with one essential difference -- the continuity aspect. We come to know and care about others in the group, even outside of meetings.

This circumscribed community, whose focus and purpose is sobriety, gives it cult-like aspects. The group is a protected and walled-off comfort zone where alcoholics can feel safe among others who share an essential quality and the goal of abstinence. I think all of the power AA has is set firmly in this idea of "tribe."

"Hello, I am Hank, and I'm an alcoholic." This is as powerful an admission as a statement of faith in a Baptist church. To publicly make this statement is to join the tribe. But there is an important difference between AA and straight religion: While Jesus is the goal in a fundamentalist church, sobriety is the goal in AA. That puts religiosity in (at least) the backseat of the car, maybe the trunk.

AA is willing to backpedal on God if God is interfering with someone's sobriety.

And this answers the original question in the thread, "Why do they insist AA is not religious?" They insist on it because claiming the robes of religion keeps some people away. And the purpose, the belief, is that AA helps drunks get sober. Everything is in service to this goal.

The belief may be incorrect and baseless. But the sense of community and the power social proof holds over us is very real.

If AA worships anything, it worships sobriety. If you wish to be a true heretic, you wouldn't bring up atheism, you would bring up a belief that social drinking is a good idea and moderation should be the goal instead of abstinence. That will get you shunned faster and more thoroughly than any talk of atheism.

A higher power concept is a tool. Getting someone to attend meetings is a rather more important tool. Acknowledging time sober is a tool. Telling your story to others is a tool. None of these is primary, only sobriety is.

I think it also explains why people quit going. At least it does for me. I simply didn't like hanging around the other people there. In my view, they had let addiction become more of a celebrity in their lives and take up more space than it deserved, they seemed stuck.

I lost my connection with the community when the community no longer fit me and I it. I moved on. Now I'm in the JREF community.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Imagine that 5 - 13% still sober after one year. That's not bad going, wonder if any other therapy has anything near close to that? What's that? No, well whod have guessed?
.

Yea the 5% from AA is miles better than the 5% who just decide that drinking is ruining their lives and stop on their own.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

To make it clearer:

If someone doesn't choose a higher power, they'll endure pressure to do so. It's "optional," just like going to the mess hall is optional, but it's clearly the direction that the crowd following the 12 steps is going.

On what do you base this assertion of "pressure"?

In my opinion, to the extent AA helps someone, it is dependent on a sense of community, the AA group itself. This is quite similar to group therapy with one essential difference -- the continuity aspect. We come to know and care about others in the group, even outside of meetings.

... respectful snip...

I lost my connection with the community when the community no longer fit me and I it. I moved on. Now I'm in the JREF community.

Great post, I wish I had been able to say that.

Marplots, would it be fair to say you simply reached the point of exit in your personal 'stages of change'?
Many do, many stay in AA.

On the stages of change.. a brief overview on a model:

Stage 1: Pre-contemplation - one is not even thinking about change and or are in denial)
Stage 2: Contemplation - Hmm, perhaps I do.
Stage 3: Decision - yes I do have a problem.
Stage 4: Action - I commence making the changes required/desired.
Stage 5: Maintenance - I continue using the tools required to achieve my goals.
Stage 6: Exit - goals achieved, maintenance no longer required, I exit my maintenance/the program.

This is true for nearly anything whether going on a diet, smoking, drinking, moving house, anything. One can have lapses and relapses within there naturally and there are periods of ambivalence also.

It is true some stay in AA for years, why not? I have friends who do service with their local sporting club years after they stopped playing. Why? Social networks etc.

Yea the 5% from AA is miles better than the 5% who just decide that drinking is ruining their lives and stop on their own.

It really seems we should take the middle ground on the 5 to 13% figure. I'm going to use 9% from now on.
So, now we are up to 15% (9 in AA + 5 who just stop) of alcoholics that get some relief.
How many more through:
Psychologists?
Psychiatrists?
Religion and clergy?
detoxes?
rehabs?
Pharmacotherapy?
Other self-help programs?

Another 5%, 10%? Have you any figures on this?

In the stats you provided, how many meeting and/or how long did those that 'failed' at AA stay?

It also seems to me that you and others like suggest/infer that AA claims 100% success. Moreover, that any success is based on religion. Please show me where that has been suggested.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It also seems to me that you and others like suggest/infer that AA claims 100% success. Moreover, that any success is based on religion. Please show me where that has been suggested.

Not at all, you just need to show it is actually more effective than methods that do not have all those religious elements, and not just be like mother Teresa and have good press coverage.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Not at all, you just need to show it is actually more effective than methods that do not have all those religious elements, and not just be like mother Teresa and have good press coverage.

Why? (Attempted move of goalposts noted).

Who said AA was more effective? Not me, no-one here that I recall. I have repeatedly said that AA does not have the market cornered on recovery. The fact is that most alcoholics die alcoholic deaths and absolutely nothing works 100% of the time.

You are making assertions of claims that have never been made, and that is rather dishonest.

 

[godofpie]

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie, and am only going by the scene quoted, so I may be missing the larger context.

My apologies. It had not occurred to me that there was anyone left on the planet that had not seen that movie. I thought you were being intentionally disingenuous.

The fact that people are told to choose a doorknob if they want, shows how vital the whole concept of a higher power is. Even something silly is better than going against the group pressure to name a "higher power," an expression that we all know is commonly used by religious organizations.

It is "a power greater than ourselves" which eventually translates into "higher power" for discussion purposes. You seem to be equating "higher power" with god. I chose and still choose the group. For me, it was not that far of a stretch. These people sitting before me were a power greater than me. They were able to accomplish what I had not. No god necessary.

 

[Tinyal]

To answer the question of what is the minimum requirements to say one is practicing the AA program, the answer is the 12 steps. Over and over, at 1000's of meetings I've personally attended, I've been told (and I've heard it said by others more times than I can count) that is one isn't doing the 12 steps, then one isn't doing AA. Period.

Remember too, that going to meetings wasn't considered necessary - when Bill wrote the book, and in his writings, it's stated many times that the only thing necessary to get sober is reading the book and practicing the 12 steps.

Not getting a sponsor.

Not going to meetings.

Getting back to the topic of whether or not AA is religious, a quick search of my big book (not a complete list by any means) brings up the following - all written personally by Bill Wilson, all part of the core AA program (as all of the big book is).

Edited by Locknar: 

Quoted material removed and can be found here: http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/BigBook/toc.htm

Reading all that - only a small fraction of the core of the AA program - is there anyone left who doubts that AA is a religious (particularly a smorgasbord of the Judeochristian beliefs)?

I could go on and on - but I think that's far more than is necessary to speak to the question of whether or not AA is solidly religious. If some groups and individuals decide to 'pick and choose' and ignore the god bothering part, well swell for them!!! It means, however, they are no longer practicing AA - they are practicing their own program.

If one completely removes god from the AA program, what one ends up with is very similar to SOS (save our selves), a secular alternative to AA; let me say this again differently - if you remove god from AA, you no longer have AA, but some other alternative, secular program.

I urge anyone with an open mind - any skeptic - any humanist - any freethinker or atheist, to read the following link from AA's big book - the chapter titled 'To the Agnostic'. My favorite quote (which by itself goes a long way to proving my assertion, albeit it only 1 of hundreds of similar cases - is " This books main objective is to find a Power Greater than yourself to solve your alcoholic problem" - that power being, of course, the God of Bill's Understanding (that he took wholesale from Buchanism otherwise known as the home of facist god-crazed nutcases - the Oxford Group)
It's so full of BS, slimy words, and god-bothering it should make any critical thinker nauseous.

The Link:
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/BigBook/pdf/BigBook_chapt4.pdf