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

[Hallo Alfie]

180 degrees wrong would not make it exactly wrong, would it ?

Let's say you are facing one way, then you turn 180 degrees,now you are going completely the opposite way. That would be "exactly wrong".

Yes, and isn't it quite an amazing coincidence that both alcoholism AND Christianity result in you seeing yourself as worthless ?

Whilst in the grips of active alcoholism, one already feels worthless. Recovery and AA does everything to remove that sense of worthlessness and replace it with healthy self-esteem.

You might be right that alcoholism and Christianity result in you seeing yourself as worthless; it's certainly true for the practising alky, I couldn't comment on the practising Christian however.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what AA does for the alcoholic, this might explain your mistrust, scepticism (whatever you want to call it).

To summarise, the program raises one from self-loathing and false ego to a place of self love and healthy self-esteem.

 

[Dymanic]

"In God We Trust" does not belong on secular currency.

As an answer to the question I asked -- "Is the mere mention of God sufficient to render something entirely religious in nature"? -- I guess I'll take that as a "no".

The 12 Steps are not a "mere mention". They explicitly refer to the Christian Deity in 8 out of 12 Steps.

They explicitly do precisely the opposite: they are carefully worded so as to allow for any definition of "Higher Power" that the individual may choose to go with. You are reading far too much into the use of the word, "God". It's a convenience. I will concede that "GodAsWeUnderstandHim" defaults to the God of the Bible in a culture where Christianity is the predominant religion -- but in the same sense, the claim so often made by fundamentalists would have to be accepted as true: the US is a Christian nation. There can be little question as to the identity of "The Creator" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence -- but this is not mere mention; it is the very foundation stone of the entire document. The colonists were not merely claiming that they had rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; they were claiming that they had been endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to these. Everything that followed was built upon that moral principle.

AA is not a religion in and of itself, but it is a religious organization founded and based on Christianity.

It seems reasonable that we try to differentiate "religious" from "religion", but you seem to be making a distinction here that is not clear to me. What you have just provided sounds to me like the definition of a sect. Is AA a sect?

For all practical purposes and in a Nutshell, a religion is the worship of a Deity.

But a specific deity (or deities, as in Hinduism) -- right?

If you had bothered to read any of my earlier posts on this thread, you would have discovered that I have experienced AA and NA, up close and personal.

I've seen about a zillion people come into AA and experience it up close and personal -- bringing all of their personal biases, social conditioning, religious notions, etc along with them -- and head right back out without ever really hearing a word of what was being said. "Like this cup", Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

A textual analysis, and an examination of AA's historical record demonstrate that the Steps of AA are precisely analogues of Christian Doctrine.

And an examination of a broader historical record will demonstrate that most of what is commonly perceived as "Christion Doctrine" turns out to have been borrowed from earlier traditions. Perhaps it is simply a matter of convergence; some ideas are simply more likely than others to gain popularity. The Golden Rule is one example. The idea of blood sacrifice is another. The idea of God using his magic to inseminate a human virgin so she could give birth to him so he could become his own son and offer himself to himself as the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices -- that's a fairly unique twist (except for the first part), but as far as I can see, accepting this as truth is the one thing most critical to "becoming a Christian". There are some in AA for whom this works (and enduring them can be a chore) but great care was taken to allow for those for whom this doesn't work.

By the way, in Catholicism Confession is taken by a priest.

So I've heard. And in psychotherapy, it is to one's therapist that one gives up his secrets. Those who actually endure the trauma of the fifth step in AA (or the analogous process in psychotherapy), and do so with someone who has some experience, may be informed that some of the guilt that has plagued them is guilt which does not rightfully belong to them. An inability to recognize the point at which one's own responsibility ends and someone else's begins may not be a vital aspect of alcoholism, but they do tend to go together a lot. I suppose a Catholic priest might be able to help with that as well, but my view from a distance gives me the impression that it's probably somewhat rare, as those guys have a reputation for thriving on other people's guilt.

I don't believe in "God's Grace", but I do think there can be something powerful and very healing in letting another human being see into those places we usually keep hidden, and talking about those things we usually don't like to talk about. Especially if you've got your head on straight enough to permit you to make wise choices about whom you can trust (and also if you don't find the experience so rewarding that you experience a need to do it all the time; I've seen that happen, and it can be nauseating to watch).

 

[Belz...]

Let's say you are facing one way, then you turn 180 degrees,now you are going completely the opposite way. That would be "exactly wrong".

Sorry but as long as I don't get the full 360 degrees I don't buy it.

Whilst in the grips of active alcoholism, one already feels worthless. Recovery and AA does everything to remove that sense of worthlessness and replace it with healthy self-esteem.

...dependent upon a higher power. Yeah, that'll do it.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what AA does for the alcoholic, this might explain your mistrust, scepticism (whatever you want to call it).

Perhaps you're right. Of course, my only knowledge of AA is from north-american chapters, so...

 

[AlBell]

Perhaps you're right. Of course, my only knowledge of AA is from north-american chapters, so...

If you were drinking alcoholically prior to attending AA (which doesn't seem to have helped) what suitable and efficaceous help did you find?

And if you didn't have a drinking problem what was your interest in AA?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

As an answer to the question I asked -- "Is the mere mention of God sufficient to render something entirely religious in nature"? -- I guess I'll take that as a "no".

Knock yourself out. Never mind that your premise is unfounded.

They explicitly do precisely the opposite: they are carefully worded so as to allow for any definition of "Higher Power" that the individual may choose to go with. You are reading far too much into the use of the word, "God". It's a convenience.

No they aren't "carefully worded". They are Weaselly Worded, but very poorly, as they are still obvious Christian references. And it's not a "convenience" either. I don't have to "read into it", because the statements are so blatantly explicit.

I will concede that "GodAsWeUnderstandHim" defaults to the God of the Bible in a culture where Christianity is the predominant religion -- but in the same sense, the claim so often made by fundamentalists would have to be accepted as true: the US is a Christian nation.

It's not a "default" when it is actually the explicit verbiage of Protestants. AA was originally founded by Protestants, for Protestants. Therefore your analogy to the claims of Fundamentalists is as specious as your other analogy.

There can be little question as to the identity of "The Creator" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence -- but this is not mere mention; it is the very foundation stone of the entire document. The colonists were not merely claiming that they had rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; they were claiming that they had been endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to these. Everything that followed was built upon that moral principle.

So now, after attempting to (unsuccessfully) tar me with the Fundamentalist Brush, you turn right around and fall into the trap you set for me . I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just "forgot" that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians, and that the "God" referred to in the Declaration of Independence was EXPLICITLY Nature's God, not Jehovah:

Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

It seems reasonable that we try to differentiate "religious" from "religion", but you seem to be making a distinction here that is not clear to me. What you have just provided sounds to me like the definition of a sect. Is AA a sect?

Assuming again, that you haven't bothered to read my earlier posts (which is the best spin I can put on it), AA is a Religious Support Group for Alcoholics.

Is a Christian Youth Group a Sect? How about a Christian Lobbyist Group? Or a Christian School? If those organizations fit YOUR definition of "sect", I have to wonder what dictionary your looking in.

For all practical purposes and in a Nutshell, a religion is the worship of a Deity.

But a specific deity (or deities, as in Hinduism) -- right?

Close...As in the Protestant Christian Deity.

I've seen about a zillion people come into AA and experience it up close and personal -- bringing all of their personal biases, social conditioning, religious notions, etc along with them -- and head right back out without ever really hearing a word of what was being said. "Like this cup", Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

So, after dismissing my arguments because you presumed I had no experiences, you now dismiss my arguments because my experiences don't count (compared to yours I suppose).

How dishonest can you get? Now you know why I prefer not to argue from anecdote.

And an examination of a broader historical record will demonstrate that most of what is commonly perceived as "Christion Doctrine" turns out to have been borrowed from earlier traditions. Perhaps it is simply a matter of convergence; some ideas are simply more likely than others to gain popularity. The Golden Rule is one example. The idea of blood sacrifice is another. The idea of God using his magic to inseminate a human virgin so she could give birth to him so he could become his own son and offer himself to himself as the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices -- that's a fairly unique twist (except for the first part), but as far as I can see, accepting this as truth is the one thing most critical to "becoming a Christian".

The historical context for AA is that it was founded on Protestant Christian Doctrines. That some of those Christian doctrines were borrowed from other Religions centuries ago isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. It's a Red Herring.

There are some in AA for whom this works (and enduring them can be a chore) but great care was taken to allow for those for whom this doesn't work.

Yes, I concur that there are some (a few) people that benefit from a Christian Support Group for Alcoholics. I have never said there weren't any.

But as is apparent from the actual wording of the Steps, very little care was taken to allow for those for whom it doesn't work.

Yes, it is true that in some local chapters, some words are changed in an attempt to remove the "God stuff" to achieve more Universalism and/or Secularism, but that can't hide the fact that the Steps are still inherently the same Protestant Steps disguised to placate non-Christians.

Nor does it change the fact that the Official Website of the Parent Organization posts the Original Protestant 12 Steps on their website.

By the way, in Catholicism Confession is taken by a priest.

So I've heard. And in psychotherapy, it is to one's therapist that one gives up his secrets. Those who actually endure the trauma of the fifth step in AA (or the analogous process in psychotherapy), and do so with someone who has some experience, may be informed that some of the guilt that has plagued them is guilt which does not rightfully belong to them. An inability to recognize the point at which one's own responsibility ends and someone else's begins may not be a vital aspect of alcoholism, but they do tend to go together a lot. I suppose a Catholic priest might be able to help with that as well, but my view from a distance gives me the impression that it's probably somewhat rare, as those guys have a reputation for thriving on other people's guilt.

Well you didn't quote my complete statement at that point. And the 5th Step is the big Confession Step. And your statement seems one of your least disingenuous statements. But Steps 6 & 7 demonstrate that thriving on guilt is not confined to Catholic Priests:

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

I don't believe in "God's Grace", but I do think there can be something powerful and very healing in letting another human being see into those places we usually keep hidden, and talking about those things we usually don't like to talk about. Especially if you've got your head on straight enough to permit you to make wise choices about whom you can trust (and also if you don't find the experience so rewarding that you experience a need to do it all the time; I've seen that happen, and it can be nauseating to watch).

Fair Enough . Probably the most reasonable of all your statements in this particular post. I couldn't agree more with this. No Woo, No Religion, No Confession, just a Sharing of Pain and Suffering.

One can get this from a wholly secular non-12 Step program (say, Rational Recovery for example), or from a trusted friend, psychiatrist, or counselor. If this is the key, the Religious 12 Step program is not only unnecessary for Non-Christians, it can actually be detrimental to them, pushing people away who really do need help.

GB

 

[Dymanic]

It's not a "default" when it is actually the explicit verbiage of Protestants. AA was originally founded by Protestants, for Protestants.

Yet they went out of their way to invent awkward phrases like "A power greater than ourselves" and "God as we understood him". You are of course free to continue to assume that every time anyone uses the word "God" they are referring to the God of the Protestants. You'll be wrong quite often, especially if the ones using that word are AA members, but it's your choice.

So now, after attempting to (unsuccessfully) tar me with the Fundamentalist Brush...

Asking what the test is, and considering whether it works when it applied universally or only when applied selectively, is an examination of the logic. We do that sort of thing here. Try not to take stuff personally.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just "forgot" that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians, and that the "God" referred to in the Declaration of Independence was EXPLICITLY Nature's God, not Jehovah

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that if I argued that the quotes we're examining primarily originate with Jefferson (who was not a Deist) borrowing heavily from Locke (who wasn't either), you would be able to come up with counter arguments until we filled an entire thread with the exchange. Possibly fun, but not necessary for our purposes here. For our purposes here, it is sufficient to make the simple observation that "God" defaults to the God of the Christian Bible in a culture where Christianity is the predominant religion, and I'll stand by that.

So, after dismissing my arguments because you presumed I had no experiences, you now dismiss my arguments because my experiences don't count

Barely sober alcoholics quite often stumble into AA and, based on their past experiences, reach the hasty conclusion that it's some sort of church. Some of them, if their preconceptions are strong enough (childhood indoctrination into some church can do it) may continue to treat it that way. Get enough of them together in a group, and I will concede that it effectively IS a church. If your experiences are with such a group, then that's unfortunate. I believe I mentioned the blind men and the elephant thing somewhere above. Are you familiar with that metaphor?

That some of those Christian doctrines were borrowed from other Religions centuries ago isn't relevant to the discussion at hand

I could not disagree more. You would dismiss much that is of value for no other apparent reason than that it is subsumed under Christian doctrine. My position is that Christianity lays claim to certain ideas that are universal; that existed long before Christianity did; that are not essential to Christianity or any religion; and that are not even religious in nature. In labelling AA a Christian organization and deriding it on that basis, you are validating Christianity's illegitimate claim to those ideas.

But Steps 6 & 7 demonstrate that thriving on guilt is not confined to Catholic Priests:

The key thing you're missing here is that while Catholic priests (allegedly) thrive on other people's guilt, alcoholism thrives on the alcoholic's own guilt.

One can get this from a wholly secular non-12 Step program (say, Rational Recovery for example), or from a trusted friend, psychiatrist, or counselor.

No argument there. But that's not the question this thread was created to address.

If this is the key, the Religious 12 Step program is not only unnecessary for Non-Christians, it can actually be detrimental to them, pushing people away who really do need help.

I think most people who have had experience in trying to "help" alcoholics is that if they don't want help, there's practically nothing you can do that won't push them away (and the more they need it, the more that's the case). AA isn't for people who need help.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Yet they went out of their way to invent awkward phrases like "A power greater than ourselves" and "God as we understood him". You are of course free to continue to assume that every time anyone uses the word "God" they are referring to the God of the Protestants. You'll be wrong quite often, especially if the ones using that word are AA members, but it's your choice.

What's so "awkward" about "a power greater than ourselves"? Standard stuff for a religious viewpoint. "God as we understood Him" isn't awkward either, but it is a weaselly (and poor) attempt to camouflage the obvious reference to a Male Deity.

So now, after attempting to (unsuccessfully) tar me with the Fundamentalist Brush...

Asking what the test is, and considering whether it works when it applied universally or only when applied selectively, is an examination of the logic. We do that sort of thing here. Try not to take stuff personally.

A disingenuous attempt to wriggle out of a false representation of my position.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just "forgot" that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians, and that the "God" referred to in the Declaration of Independence was EXPLICITLY Nature's God, not Jehovah.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that if I argued that the quotes we're examining primarily originate with Jefferson (who was not a Deist) borrowing heavily from Locke (who wasn't either), you would be able to come up with counter arguments until we filled an entire thread with the exchange. Possibly fun, but not necessary for our purposes here. For our purposes here, it is sufficient to make the simple observation that "God" defaults to the God of the Christian Bible in a culture where Christianity is the predominant religion, and I'll stand by that.

Not only disingenuous, but historically inaccurate. Or maybe you think that Jefferson's Deist version of the Bible somehow makes him a Christian, rather than a Deist with an admiration for some of Christ's moral teachings, though not his alleged Divinity. Maybe you think Jefferson's use of the Deist term "Nature's God" is pure happenstance, bearing no relation to Deism at all.

And again, it's not a "default" when it was the original intent of the founders of AA, and continues to be a huge part of the official literature.

So, after dismissing my arguments because you presumed I had no experiences, you now dismiss my arguments because my experiences don't count

Barely sober alcoholics quite often stumble into AA and, based on their past experiences, reach the hasty conclusion that it's some sort of church. Some of them, if their preconceptions are strong enough (childhood indoctrination into some church can do it) may continue to treat it that way. Get enough of them together in a group, and I will concede that it effectively IS a church. If your experiences are with such a group, then that's unfortunate. I believe I mentioned the blind men and the elephant thing somewhere above. Are you familiar with that metaphor?

An attempt to dodge the uncomfortable fact that you used dishonest debate tactics.

That some of those Christian doctrines were borrowed from other Religions centuries ago isn't relevant to the discussion at hand

I could not disagree more. You would dismiss much that is of value for no other apparent reason than that it is subsumed under Christian doctrine. My position is that Christianity lays claim to certain ideas that are universal; that existed long before Christianity did; that are not essential to Christianity or any religion; and that are not even religious in nature. In labelling AA a Christian organization and deriding it on that basis, you are validating Christianity's illegitimate claim to those ideas.

I don't deride AA at all. But I do deride the untruth that AA is not Religious. Nor do I dismiss the 4 Steps that aren't explicitly religious.

The continuous references to God as "Him" hardly paint a Universalist picture. And the fact that Christianity borrowed from other Religions doesn't make it any less Religious, no matter how much you and other AA members try to put a Universalist Spin on it. This is why it is a Red Herring.

But Steps 6 & 7 demonstrate that thriving on guilt is not confined to Catholic Priests:

The key thing you're missing here is that while Catholic priests (allegedly) thrive on other people's guilt, alcoholism thrives on the alcoholic's own guilt.

The key thing YOU'RE missing is that AA and its members thrive on the guilt of others.

One can get this from a wholly secular non-12 Step program (say, Rational Recovery for example), or from a trusted friend, psychiatrist, or counselor.

No argument there. But that's not the question this thread was created to address.

Actually it is quite to the point of the OP, which was posted by someone trying to understand why AAers bother to deny the blatantly religious doctrines of AA.

I think most people who have had experience in trying to "help" alcoholics is that if they don't want help, there's practically nothing you can do that won't push them away (and the more they need it, the more that's the case).

Anecdote and Assumption.

AA isn't for people who need help.

And like AAAlfie, when it inconveniences your argument, you ditch the very precept that you and AA stake your claim to exist on, that Alcoholics need help.

If AA isn't for people that need help, then what IS the actual agenda?

GB

 

[Belz...]

And if you didn't have a drinking problem what was your interest in AA?

I'm interested in everything.

 

[Dymanic]

What's so "awkward" about "a power greater than ourselves"?

Eight syllables where one would do, if what you assert were valid; and inexplicably vague where specificity counts big. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is an important precept in Christianity. Implicit in that is that other gods do exist, and to allow or even encourage the individual to pick and choose among them -- or invent new ones, or pick anything he likes and call it his "higher power" (aka "God") -- is impossible for me to resolve with any form of Christianity I'm familiar with. I don't think even Unitarians would go that far.

A disingenuous attempt to wriggle out of a false representation of my position.

I plead not guilty. Read it again. I was challenging you to explain what I saw as an inconsistency in your logic. There is a difference between a reductio ad absurdum argument and the burning of a strawman. The latter accomplishes nothing, and I try to avoid it.

Not only disingenuous, but historically inaccurate.

As I said, that long-running debate could be the topic of an entire thread, but I don't think it would be helpful or appropriate to conduct it here.

The key thing YOU'RE missing is that AA and its members thrive on the guilt of others.

I understand that that is your impression. I've made it clear that I disagree with that as a generality; if anything, I would say (as a generality) that AA and its members thrive on helping others overcome their feelings of guilt. "We will not regret the past nor wish to shut the door on it". Of course, not everybody gets that, and I would allow for exceptions. (To be consistent with the comparison between AA members and Catholic priests, I'd have to, having known more than one AA member who was a Catholic priest; who'd have figured one of those guys might have a drinking problem?) People struggling to come to terms with their own shortcomings often prefer to focus on those of others. It may actually be helpful if accompanied by a little insight, such as that contained the AA witticism that says: "You can take someone else's inventory, but you have to keep it". I don't see this as a matter that can be settled by proof, or even evidence. It's too subjective, too general, and too speculative. I don't see much to be gained by continuing to bat it back and forth.

Anecdote and Assumption.

If you thought my intent was to present that as incontrovertable scientific truth, then your capacity for misunderstanding is holding up well.

If AA isn't for people that need help, then what IS the actual agenda?

AA is for people who want help.

 

[AlBell]

I'm interested in everything.

Ok, just JAQing around. Have a pleasant life.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, just JAQing around. Have a pleasant life.

What does this have to do with anything ? You seem to have a nice predilection for irrelevancy.

You asked a question. I answered. I'm interested in the subject because things interest me. And no, I'm not a professor in psychology at Yale who's written ten volumes on AA. So what ?

Have an UNpleasant life, will you ? Oh, you've already started.

 

[The Norseman]

The problem is, the FIRST THREE STEPS completely and utterly contradict the Steps you quoted. As do most of the OTHER Steps which are entirely religious in nature.

Thus, MOST of the Steps actually advocate the abdication of responsibility to God, and is a clear call for the Sinner to Confess his/her Sins so that God can bless the Sinner with "His" Grace, and then to Proselytize to others having achieved this State of Grace.

GB

Belz said "And abdicating any form of responsibility to a higher power..." (emphasis mine)

it was only to that point I was responding.




As I said previously, when it comes to AA being religious, I agree with you. More so than I at first thought, for I never read much of Bill's thoughts and history that he wrote in later years.

Also, anecdotally, I chair an AA Grapevine meeting once a week, and every week I am hard-pressed to find stories which do not have some sort of emphasis on God and all the rest of that crap. It's not bad, per se. It just gets tiresome to me.

I think it's time for me to find a new group to go to.

 

[AlBell]

What does this have to do with anything ? You seem to have a nice predilection for irrelevancy.

Shared by several posters in this thread.

You asked a question. I answered. I'm interested in the subject because things interest me. And no, I'm not a professor in psychology at Yale who's written ten volumes on AA. So what ?

Satisfying my curiousity, although I quite frankly have no idea why AA would interest you.

Have an UNpleasant life, will you ? Oh, you've already started.

Much more pleaseant since allowing AA groups to help me with a problem.

Obviously AA won't be able to help you with yours.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Dymanic, your penchant for decontextualizing my points by posting truncated snippets is becoming more and more pervasive. I have at least done you the courtesy of quoting your arguments in their entirety, and arguing against what I see as the context of your arguments.

If the only way you can debate, is by creating Straw Men out of snippets, then your arguments have little merit. But you do deserve some credit for actually engaging, unlike AAAlfie who would rather stick his fingers in his ears and go "lalalalala".

You claim I am just misunderstanding you and AA, and maybe that is the case.

But until you and others acknowledge that AA's religious language, tenets, and propaganda invite such "misunderstandings", I will continue to suspect that this is just because you and AA change the rules of debate at your convenience.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Belz said "And abdicating any form of responsibility to a higher power..." (emphasis mine)

it was only to that point I was responding.




As I said previously, when it comes to AA being religious, I agree with you. More so than I at first thought, for I never read much of Bill's thoughts and history that he wrote in later years.

Also, anecdotally, I chair an AA Grapevine meeting once a week, and every week I am hard-pressed to find stories which do not have some sort of emphasis on God and all the rest of that crap. It's not bad, per se. It just gets tiresome to me.

I think it's time for me to find a new group to go to.

Fair Enough Norseman. You might want to try the group Rational Recovery. Though I do have some problems with their philosophies too.

GB

 

[Belz...]

Satisfying my curiousity, although I quite frankly have no idea why AA would interest you.

Why would that be relevant ? The question is, am I right, or not ?

Much more pleaseant since allowing AA groups to help me with a problem.

Yes, indeed. HELP you. Hopefully you realise that, in the end, and with their help, YOU were the one to solve your problem, not some fuzzy higher power.

Obviously AA won't be able to help you with yours.

Obviously, since I don't drink.

 

[The Norseman]

Fair Enough Norseman. You might want to try the group Rational Recovery. Though I do have some problems with their philosophies too.

GB

I've been to other websites like SOS but I fear that membership is sorely lacking in my area. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

And, not to derail, but what issues do you have with RR?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I've been to other websites like SOS but I fear that membership is sorely lacking in my area. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

And, not to derail, but what issues do you have with RR?

I don't like any "one size fits all" approach. And I don't like "zero tolerance" policies. The best thing about RR is that there's no "God-Stuff".

Part of my problem with a lot of Recovery Organizations, is that I think the whole environment has been "corrupted" by the puritan influence of religious temperance movements and their off-shoots like AA.

Society has become so paranoid about "addiction" that it shapes the whole debate and fuels the Drug War. So I don't just question AA because it's religious; I question the whole Anti-Addiction "Industry" because I think it is based on a lot of varying questionable assumptions that all seem rooted in the questionable assumption that "habitual" use of "drugs" is always wrong, even when ostensibly medically necessary.

This has made doctors increasingly paranoid about being prosecuted, and thus they often don't treat chronic pain patients with enough pain-killers to be effective. This has been enumerated by a Chronic pain Specialist I heard on NPR (and anecdotally, by my own doctor when she explained why she couldn't prescribe me enough to control my own chronic pain problems. And my protestations about the situation fell on deaf airs in NA meetings when family members pushed me to try to "kick the habit").

The whole Addiction Ideology also affects the arbitrary drug schedule classifications of rather innocuous, and potentially beneficial, "drugs" like marijuana.

The Commercial imperative of Big Pharma is also a major contributor to the current addiction ideology, as they make a fortune getting people legally hooked on THEIR drugs. So AA and Puritanism isn't the only "bad guy" in this propaganda picture.

But Puritanism seems to be the primary motivator behind Addiction Ideology, and I think a great case can be made that this is due to the internalization of Protestant ideas in society at large, to the point where they don't even seem religious at all.

So whether Recovery Groups posit a Sin/Disease Model as does AA, or a Behavioural Disorder Model of Addiction as does RR, they still subscribe to the notion that all habitual use of "drugs" is always wrong, and that negative outcomes are always the fault of the user rather than occasionally the negative attitudes, and laws of society.

[/Rant]

Do some people need help with really serious abuse problems? Of course they do. But as Dr Nora Volkow--director of NIDA--points out, recovery groups like AA might be helpful for some people, however they are by no means effective for all people.

GB

 

[nvidiot]

What is the definition of "self-esteem" that AA proponents are using? Seems to me that self-esteem means having confidence in yourself and your abilities. Surrendering your decision making process to a "higher power" seems somewhat incongruent with this idea...

Having been to a few NA meetings in my time, I can only speak for that organisation in Australia. (very different from the apparent scientology run version in the 'States) But sitting around and speaking about how powerless you are to resist using alcohol or drugs never seemed like something that would encourage self esteem.

 

[Dymanic]

Dymanic, your penchant for decontextualizing my points by posting truncated snippets is becoming more and more pervasive. I have at least done you the courtesy of quoting your arguments in their entirety, and arguing against what I see as the context of your arguments.

There's no doubt that every one of your posts is so fascinating and insightful as to be completely deserving of a full line-by-line response -- but the thing is, I just don't always have time for that. I take what stands out for me and I respond to that. This forum's quote feature includes a button that makes it trivially easy for anyone interested to reference the original post, and a practice I personally find discourteous is clogging up the page with multiple quotes of the same lengthy post just to make a brief comment. If I've ignored something you feel is important, or if you feel that I've "decontextualized" one of your points, you are always free to specify where and how. Slinging general accusations is a pretty cheap substitute for making that effort.