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

[Gandalfs Beard]

Funny you should bring up the Boy Scouts Mr D, because religious indoctrination is clearly part of their program. And 62% of the troops are directly chartered by Christian Denominations. They are constantly embroiled in discrimination suits as they refuse to admit Atheists and Gays. So YES, the Boy Scouts ARE a Religiously Oriented Youth Group, and AVOWEDLY so.

Example FAIL

The Congressional Oath of Office is a violation of the separation of Church and State and references to God should be stricken. But your attempt to use that oath of office to conflate a Religious Organization with a Political Organization is at best disingenuous.

Example Fail 2

GB

 

[Mr.D]

I also noticed the tendency of many participants in AA to simply switch addictions. Many of my ex-stepfather's meetings were conducted in smoke-filled, caffienated, donut munching sessions.

Are you claiming that the tendency to switch addictions is a defining characteristic of AA members or addicts? If it's the former, then please cite. If it's the later, then your observation isn't really a claim about AA at all.

It is likely, though debatable, that one or two of the twelve steps might actually be psychologically beneficial

Really? Most of the secular variants of the 12 step programs break them out something like this:

1,3 =~ Admitting there's a problem and asking for help
4 =~ Self examination (5 =~ with a peer or therapist)
6/7 =~ Commitment to change underlying problems
8-10 =~ Stop being a jerk
12 =~ Pay it forward.

And you see only possible psychological benefits in only one or two of these?

And for all that AA's rhetoric is that there are 'no rules', this is belied if you actually challenge any of the Steps

Evidence? I don't pray, and I say so. I've never had any AA sanctions because of it.

Nearly all other 12 step programs are based almost entirely on AA's model. And the Judicial system DOES force people into these programs all the time, which amounts to State sanctioning of Religion.

It's not uncontroversial, and some groups choose not to sign court documents. But more to the point, which religion is it sanctioning exactly? Zoroastrianism? Buddhism? Satanism? (Hey, if you want to make Lucifer the God of your understanding, you're free to start your own group!). As far as I'm concerned, as long as the court doesn't specify which group of which 12 step program, it's clear - of State v. Religion (though constant vigilance is surely prudent.)

There are many reasons for Alcoholism, ranging from socio-psychological traumas, political-economic traumas, mere hedonistic inculcation, habituation, and neurological predilections, or a combination thereof.

...

Still, insofar as some forms of Alcoholism may respond to Medical Therapy, a scientific approach of treating the underlying neurological causes instead of the symptoms (self-medicating with alcohol or other drugs) is a far better approach to treatment.

...

Psychological and Psychiatric professionals can also help some "addicts" work through the underlying causes of their problems, such as dealing with depression, schizophrenia, and other issues directly. And other Medical professionals can help people who are often dealing with Chronic Pain issues by self-medicating.

Indeed. But AA doesn't purport to treat neurological or psychological problems (Unfortunately some individuals and groups do), and in fact encourages members to seek outside help for problems other than alcoholism.

In many cases, "addiction" runs rampant in the politically and economically dispossessed and oppressed communities. In which case the best "cure" is political/economic enfranchisement and the curbing of Economic Exploitation.

No argument here, but what does that have to do with AA being or not being a religion?

In conclusion: I am no expert, but I think it should be clear that the Religious and Disease models of addiction often obfuscate the fact that addictive patterns of behaviour are more often than not, SYMPTOMS of deeper problems, for which many people self-medicate.

Note that AA treats alcoholism as a symptom of underlying problems - that it does so using the terminology of 'sins' is indeed using religious terminology, but I will posit that most secular bodies consider things like inappropriate or excessive anger, greed, lust etc. to be character flaws possibly indicative of underlying problems.

Some of the most successful programs have been experimental programs in Europe with psychotropics such as Ibogaine, which gives people a chance to "break" their obsessive patterns of behaviour, which in turn gives people a chance to discover the underlying causes of their problems.

AA is open to such, you know.

I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional by Wendy Kaminer-- which examines the self-help movement over-all from the Pseudoscience of 12 steps to New Age "therapies".

Don't conflate all new-age/self-help with AA. That some new-age movements have borrowed AA concepts and terminology is hardly the fault of AA, just as new agers adoption of some the language of quantum mechanics is not a reflection of the wooish nature of QM.

 

[Mr.D]

Your original claim:

AA is a RELIGION. End of Story.

So YES, the Boy Scouts ARE a Religiously Oriented Youth Group, and AVOWEDLY so.

I ask again: Are the Boy Scouts a RELIGION? (I freely admit they are religiously oriented)

The Congressional Oath of Office is a violation of the separation of Church and State and references to God should be stricken.

Agreed.

But your attempt to use that oath of office to conflate a Religious Organization with a Political Organization is at best disingenuous.

The conflation is yours. YOU cited the presence of religious terms like "God" in official AA literature as proof ("End of story") that AA is a RELIGION.

I made the counterpoint that the presence of the word "God" in the Congressional Oath does not make Congress a RELIGION.

 

[devnull]

I ask again: Are the Boy Scouts a RELIGION? (I freely admit they are religiously oriented)

You're being silly because you lost the argument.

When I read what he wrote, I interpreted it as "AA is so religious it might as well be called a religion". You are interpreting obvious rhetoric literally as, again, you lost the argument.

My 2c.

 

[Mr.D]

You're being silly because you lost the argument.

When I read what he wrote, I interpreted it as "AA is so religious it might as well be called a religion". You are interpreting obvious rhetoric literally as, again, you lost the argument.

My 2c.

Here : Make it 4c in the pot and get the rhetoric out of the way.

I fully and freely admit that AA has religious qualities.

I claim that it lacks some of the necessary qualities that would make it a religion - and that's what people mean when they call it a spiritual and not religious program.



ETA: Hell, Make it 6c.

I'll even admit that some people and groups mix AA and their own particular religion in a way that makes AA appear overtly and explicitly Christian.

I claim that is insufficient to qualify all of AA as "so religious it might as well be called a religion"

 

[Belz...]

It's not uncontroversial, and some groups choose not to sign court documents. But more to the point, which religion is it sanctioning exactly? Zoroastrianism? Buddhism? Satanism?

Boy it's fun to simply pick a side in a debate and stick to it, eh ?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hobbies become obsessive, not addictive - the word addictive is being misused here. Hobbies are a mental obsession only. Addiction is the physical dependance coupled with the mental obsession.
The physical dependance is the what moves it from (say) a mental disorder to a disease.

I hope that helps clear things up.

So you fundamentally disagree with terms like gambling addiction.

 

[ponderingturtle]

AA Alfie-
I am coming to the conclusion that (most) of the people in this thread that are arguing against AA don't have any real desire to learn about AA or how it really works (which is different for different people).

Or how it is so much more effective than anything else but with no documentation to back it up. You got to take it on faith that it works better than the alternatives.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Bits from the Boy Scouts of America Oath and Law

Are the Boy Scouts a religion?

Of course no one tries to deny that they are a religious organization either. See their banning of atheists, much more direct and clear than AA.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

1. We admitted we were powerless over addiction--that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that The Program, as a power greater than ourselves, could help us toward normal living.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care this program and to the loving care of this group.
4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of our character for ourselves.
5. Admitted to our group, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our faults and misdeeds.
6. Were entirely ready to practice the program in order to remove our defects of character.
7. Humbly asked the help of others in the removal of our short comings and resolved to work to remove these faults ourselves.
8. Made a list of all persons we harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through study and meditation to improve our awareness of law and of the natural forces that govern life hoping only for knowledge of right and wrong and the strength to follow that knowledge.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to addicts and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Changing a few words doesn't change the fact that most of these are essentially religious tenets. Instead of God, The Program and The Group are the "Higher Power". My point that a few of these tenets (yes "1 or 2" was a bit of hyperbole) might have some merit anyway, doesn't detract from the fact that the entire basis for the so-called "Secular" Twelve Steps is still modeled on the AA "Religion". It's an improvement, but not by much.

Mr D:
The conflation is yours. YOU cited the presence of religious terms like "God" in official AA literature as proof "End of story" that AA is a RELIGION.

I made the counterpoint that the presence of the word "God" in the Congressional Oath does not make Congress a RELIGION.

Apparently Mr D, you are a dishonest debater as well as a conflater. AA is not simply a religion because it only "occasionally" uses religious language. It is almost entirely couched in religious language, and a Belief in God is foundational to AA that is hammered home again and again in the Steps themselves (which, as has been pointed out, aren't really "suggestions" at all).

There is a world of difference between that and disingenuously conflating it with the inappropriate insertion of "God" into supposedly secular Loyalty Oaths. But you know that and are simply trying to score a dishonest point.

Evidence? I don't pray, and I say so. I've never had any AA sanctions because of it.

Goody for you that YOU weren't sanctioned. I'm sure those who have been given the cold shoulder are happy for you.

I ask again: Are the Boy Scouts a RELIGION?

I never said they were. I said they were a Religiously oriented Youth Group, largely made up of Christians that Discriminate against Atheists and Gays, and intends to instill religious values. And they make no bones about it. Your point is again designed to obfuscate and conflate.

Are you claiming that the tendency to switch addictions is a defining characteristic of AA members or addicts? If it's the former, then please cite. If it's the later, then your observation isn't really a claim about AA at all.

No, it's a claim about the ineffectiveness of AA.

It's not uncontroversial, and some groups choose not to sign court documents. But more to the point, which religion is it sanctioning exactly? Zoroastrianism? Buddhism? Satanism? (Hey, if you want to make Lucifer the God of your understanding, you're free to start your own group!). As far as I'm concerned, as long as the court doesn't specify which group of which 12 step program, it's clear - of State v. Religion (though constant vigilance is surely prudent.)

Depending on the particular program, AA is either Christian or a form of Universalism. But seeing as the language I quoted is from the Official AA Website, it's readily apparent that it is foundationally Judeo-Christian, following from a Monotheist model.

The point is that it IS Theistic at all. But again, you know this and are just trying it on to see if I'm dumb enough to buy your sophistry.

AA is open to such, you know.

Oh REALLY!!! Ibogaine trials have been suppressed in the US. And I bet you won't be able to back that up with an Official AA statement from its National or International offices. Though, I'll grant that maybe you'll find some local group or individual somewhere that is open to it.

But, when I challenged a regional spokesperson on a talk radio programme, they adamantly opposed the idea of using psychotropics as a means to break patterns of habituation. Admittedly, that is anecdotal, but I have yet to see any official statement from AA to the contrary.

Don't conflate all new-age/self-help with AA. That some new-age movements have borrowed AA concepts and terminology is hardly the fault of AA, just as new agers adoption of some the language of quantum mechanics is not a reflection of the wooish nature of QM.

Why not? If the shoe fits.... You haven't demonstrated that the religious tenets of AA are any more effective than that of Norman Vincent Peel or Werner Erhardt or Marianne Williamson.

There is a clear lineage of the merging of early 20th century Protestant "self-help" movements with the various 19th and 20th century Spiritualist, Theosophist, and other such Movements. In the late 70's and 80's they all became part of the "New Age", borrowing freely from each other in a Neo-Syncretic manner.

As to New Agers adopting Quantum Mechanics, it was the other way round. Physicists themselves were finding parallels between the implications of the New Physics and Eastern Mysticism.

In the end, I'm not opposed to AA merely because it is religious, I am opposed to fraudulent claims that it is NOT. And I am opposed to its fraudulent claims of effectiveness. And I am opposed to its ubiquitous and dubious claims to being the Gold Standard of Treatment.

I am opposed to the fact that it has usurped the Moral High Ground and controls the Framing of the debate when it comes to issues of Decriminalization and Legalization of other drugs. I am opposed to its inherently religious philosophies and pseudo-psychology which has been adapted to secular forms. I am opposed to its conflation of Sin and Disease. And I am opposed to its ideology.

for those few it benefits, more power to them. But its about time that AA and its derivatives were entirely separated from the Judicial and Medical systems and relegated to being what they are: Religious support groups for those so inclined to join them.

GB

 

[GrandMasterFox]

But alcoholism IS drinking.

Actually... You're wrong. For once, A.A.Alife is correct.

Even the CDC recognizes Alcholisim as a disease and it makes a special note to differentiate between alchoholism and alchohol abuse.

A person can be an achoholic without touching a single drink the same way that a person can be gay or straight and still be a virgin.

A person's sexual preference is not a choice but choosing to have sex with an individual is a choice.
(sorry for a terrible analogy but it's the only one I can think of)

Now I would agree with you that it would seem that "disorder" would be a better fit than "disease", but I'm not a doctor, psychologist, lawyer or any professional in the field so I would have to go by what the professionals say unless anyone can discredit their credentials to do so.

I posit that one of the defining characteristics of a religion is that one cannot belong to more than one at a time. (I'll note that by this definition, certain modern movements like universalism aren't clearly religions either)

That's a form of sematics. The definition of religion is already shaky enough as it is without us all going to run up to our current dictionaries and look up whether it fits or not. How many threads do we have open on it already?

I understand that you responded to a specific post and you are correct to a certain extent, but let's focus on the original op of whether or not AA is religious rather than religion.

And while we're at it, let me ask you since the issue of "disease" was raised.

As I said above, why is the entire process of AA based on religious\cultish\quackery oratory?
Seriously, if this is a medical issue why don't we have a medical treatment?

Let's take the reasoning that A.A.Alife gave to show that AA works:
1)He knows it does
2)Many people believe it helped them
3)Just try it out
4)What's the harm?

Seriously, have you ever heard of a real medical treatment that gives that as a reasoning for a treatment?
This is quite often recited amongst religions, cults, new age treatments and other form of quackery but never in the medical communinty.

Furthermore, A.A.Alife was repeatadly asked "what are the rules\charactaristcs of the AA treatment?" to which he constantly responded with the siliness of "there are no rules"
So every single person on earth is in AA from the moment of birth as there are no rules to follow or break.

How many medical treatments do you know that are completely undefined?
Of course the undefine part is completely absurd. AA does have some basic form, but why is it so hard to flat out say its guidelines?

How many medical treatments do you know that are completely unmonitored?
Again, how do we know that 12 steps is the way to go?
Maybe 11 are enough to do the trick better?
Maybe there is a 13 one that would do a much better job overall?
Who monitors and performs the double blind study to check the efficiency of variations (as well as comparing to no treatments)?
Heck, what are the big numbers and why doesn't AA publish them constantly?
Again, common practice amongst medical professionals but not amongst quacks and cults.

In this instance, absense of evidence is evidence of absence.
If the numbers would be in their favor, they would publish them and shove them to everyone's face and rightfully so.
But they don't and there's a reason to it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I read the first couple of pages on this thread and the last couple, so forgive me if anyone has already covered the following:

... big snip...

In conclusion: I am no expert,

Only the relevant bits have been retained.

But alcoholism IS drinking. Look at me for instance: I have trouble staying away from food. Candy and chocolate, specifically. It's an addiction, to a degree, but I'll be damned if someone calls it a disease.

They don't, no one else here has that I recall.

How am I "yet to explains this", exactly ?

Religious cults are dangerous and harmful. Cloaking such religiosity in a veil of salvation for desperate people, if done intentionally, is downright evil.

Religious cults may be harmful, but that would be a discussion for another time.
How is AA "dangerous", "harmful" and "downright evil"?

Or how it is so much more effective than anything else but with no documentation to back it up. You got to take it on faith that it works better than the alternatives.

Who has said that?
Show me some stats on the alternatives. I really want to see them, I have asked repeatedly for them, and guess what? Nada!

In the end, I'm not opposed to AA merely because it is religious, I am opposed to fraudulent claims that it is NOT. And I am opposed to its fraudulent claims of effectiveness. And I am opposed to its ubiquitous and dubious claims to being the Gold Standard of Treatment.

Where is this (bold) claim made, except perhaps by individuals who do not represent AA?

I am opposed to the fact that it has usurped the Moral High Ground and controls the Framing of the debate when it comes to issues of Decriminalization and Legalization of other drugs.

You really have to back these lies up with something GB

I am opposed to its inherently religious philosophies and pseudo-psychology which has been adapted to secular forms. I am opposed to its conflation of Sin and Disease. And I am opposed to its ideology.GB

That's nice, but we really don't give a flying run at a doughnut about what you support or oppose, we are having a discussion. Get off your soap box and get with the program mate.

And while we're at it, let me ask you since the issue of "disease" was raised.

As I said above, why is the entire process of AA based on religious\cultish\quackery oratory?
Seriously, if this is a medical issue why don't we have a medical treatment?

We do. It is called detox, rehab and maintenance.
AA forms part of the maintenance for many. There are others too (gasp), I am wanting some stats on them by the way.

Furthermore, A.A.Alife was repeatadly asked "what are the rules\charactaristcs of the AA treatment?" to which he constantly responded with the siliness of "there are no rules"

Correct.

A very difficult thing to understand in a world from which we demand order and structure.
But there it is, there are no rules save for the guidance provided by the 12 traditions.

Heck, what are the big numbers and why doesn't AA publish them constantly?
If the numbers would be in their favor, they would publish them and shove them to everyone's face and rightfully so.
But they don't and there's a reason to it.

Correct, it is called anonymity.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

GMFox:
Even the CDC recognizes Alcholisim as a disease and it makes a special note to differentiate between alchoholism and alchohol abuse.

A person can be an achoholic without touching a single drink the same way that a person can be gay or straight and still be a virgin.

True, but the CDC and the Medical Community's lumping together of all forms of alcoholism into a disease model is dubious, and politically (rather than medically) based on the Sin/Disease model that has become the de facto model for addiction. It has become more a PC article of Faith, thanks to AA's cultural propaganda. This is probably one of the key reasons why I dislike AA so much.

As I pointed out earlier, the reasons for "addictive" behaviour are varied, and shouldn't all be treated in the same manner. The Medical Community has truncated its own ability to respond empirically by adopting the "Disease" Model of "addiction".

Indeed, it's even debatable that some forms of "addiction" are always "bad" and must always be treated. The Medical Community (particularly in the US), with its strong ties to the Pharmaceutical/Insurance complex make big money off of this dubious classification of "addiction" as "disease".

It's not so easy to separate out the political/economic factors that drive the growth of the Mental Health Industry from ACTUAL biological problems stemming from neurological and psychiatric disorders. Often, people self medicating with relatively safer drugs like Marijuana, are forced by the legal system to buy expensive, dangerous, and barely tested pharmaceuticals.

Chronic Pain sufferers are forced into strict dosage regimens of opiate based drugs when higher doses might actually be more beneficial, because doctors have been constrained by the political ideology of addiction.

AA is directly responsible for creating much of the Puritanical language, and shaping the political debate--particularly in the US, and by extension its allies--surrounding "Addiction", Prohibition, and the Drug War. It is no accident that it was founded by Protestants, and that it continues to promote a Puritan Ideology.

GB

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Someone asked me here the other day (and apologies to who it was) whether I felt it was OK for the courts to send individuals to AA as punishment. I hedged at the time as I wished to think about it some more.

Bear in mind that here in Australia, there is no "go to AA" type punishment, they are sent to counsellors like me for assistance with drug and alcohol, relationships, men's bahavioural change, anger management etc.

I have given this some more thought and no, I don't think it is OK on a number of levels (I paraphrase a little):-
I don't think it is in line with AAs traditions
- we should be self supporting...
- ..not get drawn into outside issues.
- attraction not promotion.
I also think the state is abdicating from its responsibilities in some ways.
- (while I reject the "religion" judgements) it is tantamount to imposing someone to go attend something that may fall outside their personal convictions. That said, so could prison, a psychologists, counsellors and others.
- given the free cost of AA, it smacks of handing the cost elsewhere (this saves both the state and/or individual in terms of $). I'm not sure that 'punishment' per se, should be free in terms of financial cost, time, effort etc.
- It puts a very negative slant on AA as it has been framed in terms of a punishment from the outset.
- It also gets people to AA that simply aren't ready (i.e. pre contemplative) and that is a waste of time for everybody.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

True, but the CDC and the Medical Community's lumping together of all forms of alcoholism into a disease model is dubious, and politically (rather than medically) based on the Sin/Disease model that has become the de facto model for addiction. It has become more a PC article of Faith, thanks to AA's cultural propaganda. This is probably one of the key reasons why I dislike AA so much.

You'd better ring and let them know, quick!
They've been waiting on your advice.

AA is directly responsible for
1/. creating much of Puritanical language, and
2/. shaping the political debate--particularly in the US, and by extension
3/. its allies--surrounding "Addiction", Prohibition, and the Drug War.
It is no accident that it was founded by Protestants, and that it continues to promote a Puritan Ideology.

GB

Unbelievable BS!

First: Back up 1, 2 and 3.
The define Puritanical Ideology for us.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

AAAlfie:
Only the relevant bits have been retained.

Spoken like a true Quack!

You have no argument because I demonstrated your lies with AA's own words. Very convenient of you to snip them instead of responding.

Your response to my comment about AA setting itself up as the Gold Standard of Treatment:

Where is this (bold) claim made, except by individuals who do not represent AA?

So you defend AA, but you don't represent it? How does that work exactly? Besides which, the Official AA website's menus are quite revealing:

(Part of a drop down menu on AA's website)
Information For Professionals
About A.A. - Newsletter for Professionals
A.A. as a Resource for the Health Care Professional
A.A. as a Resource for Drug & Alcohol Court Professionals
A Message to Correctional Professionals
Members of the Clergy Ask About Alcoholics Anonymous
Is There an Alcoholic in the Workplace?
If You Are a Professional, A.A. Wants to Work With You
Anonymity Letter to Media
Request Information by Mail

Oh Yeah! Right! NO Hubris there.

Me:
I am opposed to the fact that it has usurped the Moral High Ground and controls the Framing of the debate when it comes to issues of Decriminalization and Legalization of other drugs.

AAAlfie:
You really have to back these lies up with something GB

AA is a direct descendant of the Protestant Temperance and Prohibition Movements. As a prominent force and widely accepted standard, AA's Puritan ideology and language has largely defined the political debate surrounding such issues, and continues to do so to this day.

The so-called "Secular" 12 Steps is a testimony to how far into the collective consciousness Protestantism has reached. As have the Just Say No and Abstinence Only messages.

AAAlfie:
That's nice, but we really don't give a flying run at a doughnut about what you support or oppose, we are having a discussion. Get off your soap box and get with the program mate.

Yes, you're so unconcerned that you spend an inordinate amount of time on your own soapbox engaging in unsubstantiated attempts to convince us that AA has no religious/political agenda. Forgive me for deigning to step on your Holy Toes, and not bowing to your eternal wisdom.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Because you're an Aussie AAAlfie, and your political system hasn't been as corrupted by the Theocratic designs of Right Wing Evangelical Protestants as it has here in the US, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Its not within the purview of this thread to give you a history lesson. Suffice it to say that YOUR Australian Protestant Temperance Movement lost the battle for Prohibition. Here in the US they succeeded for 13 brutal years from 1920-1933, and their rhetoric has held the "high ground" except briefly in the late 60' and 70's.

Then came Reagan and the 80's, and "Just Say NO" and "Abstinence Only" again became the rhetorical currency of the politically correct. And AA (remember, AA was started in the late 30's after the failure of Prohibition by Protestants for Protestants) has been a Major Player in the Modern Temperance Movement.

And actually, some prominent members of the medical community do occasionally question the current political ideology only to commit career suicide.

This is all Factual History. But I'll let you do your own damn research. You're on the JREF forum, I rather thought you might be better informed.

GB

 

[ponderingturtle]

Who has said that?
Show me some stats on the alternatives. I really want to see them, I have asked repeatedly for them, and guess what? Nada!

You made the claim that it is significantly more effective back your claim up.


Oh yea you just lie about even making that claim.

 

[Belz...]

Actually... You're wrong. For once, A.A.Alife is correct.

Even the CDC recognizes Alcholisim as a disease and it makes a special note to differentiate between alchoholism and alchohol abuse.

A person can be an achoholic without touching a single drink the same way that a person can be gay or straight and still be a virgin.

So, you're saying that alcoholism is genetic ? I don't buy it. SOME people may have genetic predilections but people can and do abuse all sorts of stuff, alcohol included.

 

[Belz...]

They don't, no one else here has that I recall.

So that only applies to alcohol ? Strange.

Religious cults may be harmful, but that would be a discussion for another time.
How is AA "dangerous", "harmful" and "downright evil"?

Because it's a religious cult ?

Gee, that was easy.