Special Pleading for Alchoholics Anonymous

[orange31]

It's obvious that there are two groups of posters in this thread: those recovered from substance abuse, and those who have never been addicted.

Regarding AA possibly being a 'logical fallacy' - life's full of logical fallacies every day, and one man's LF is another man's core belief system .

Re: courts making someone attend AA - coercision? yes. Too bad. Courts usually mean DWI which usually means someone dead or could be dead in the future if the defendant keeps drinking.
Want to coerce them with a different system? fine!

 

[cgallaga]

It's obvious that there are two groups of posters in this thread: those recovered from substance abuse, and those who have never been addicted.

No, there are at least three, 12 step people are only "in recovery" never recovered.

Re: courts making someone attend AA - coercision? yes. Too bad. Courts usually mean DWI which usually means someone dead or could be dead in the future if the defendant keeps drinking.
Want to coerce them with a different system? fine![/QUOTE]

I was court ordered without any DUI, and without any sobriety test at all, mere possession, there was never even a test to see if I was actually using what I was in possession of.

The courts are by matter of fact forcing people into a treatment that has not proven any efficacy, and is at least quasi-religious by its very nature (as evidence 12 steps and 12 traditions). This is certainly an issue, perhaps even a separation issue. Imagine if the courts ordered prayer or ordered mandatory sunday mass.

Problem is no one cares when it comes to addicts/alcoholics. The public just assume the court is takin' out the trash and so don't bother to think anymore about it.

 

[Dancing David]

No, there are at least three, 12 step people are only "in recovery" never recovered.

Re: courts making someone attend AA - coercision? yes. Too bad. Courts usually mean DWI which usually means someone dead or could be dead in the future if the defendant keeps drinking.
Want to coerce them with a different system? fine!

I was court ordered without any DUI, and without any sobriety test at all, mere possession, there was never even a test to see if I was actually using what I was in possession of.

The courts are by matter of fact forcing people into a treatment that has not proven any efficacy, and is at least quasi-religious by its very nature (as evidence 12 steps and 12 traditions). This is certainly an issue, perhaps even a separation issue. Imagine if the courts ordered prayer or ordered mandatory sunday mass.

Problem is no one cares when it comes to addicts/alcoholics. The public just assume the court is takin' out the trash and so don't bother to think anymore about it.[/QUOTE]

Somehow I doubt that court orders and legislation are researcg based.

I certainly think drug court is about the most effective. But if you didn't have dependance than the judge messed up, there is usually an evaluation of some sort.

And the problem is that money talks, if you have money you have political clout.

 

[Starthinker]

It's obvious that there are two groups of posters in this thread: those recovered from substance abuse, and those who have never been addicted.

I haven't posted in this thread so you may want to add another group. I feel very strongly, in fact wholly believe, that my wife's attending AA was directly responsible for our divorce. I did go to a few meetings with her and with me sitting right there, a loving devoted husband who would storm the gates of hell for my wife, they told her that spouses who refused to go to the seperate spouse meetings were equivilent to abusers and she should leave me because I was contributing to the problem. They told her if I wasn't physically abusing her then I would some day. They basically said there was no such thing as a loving, devoted husband, and everybody, EVERYBODY at the meeting was there because the spouse drove them to drinking. Yes, she bought into it, but she went there seeking help and all they did was brainwash her. I will never, ever have anything nice to say about AA. It's a cult, it does more harm than good. I even got her into seperate counselling and when they tried to explain to her how AA was affecting her she rejected the counselling as well. I think they convinced her that anything not AA was bad, plain and simple. And to top it all off, I don't even think she had much of a problem, but they convinced her that a few drinks on the weekend would kill her if she didn't stop.

The seperate spouse meetings consisted of group reading from bible verses and I tried to explain to my wife that it had no bearing on anything. How could it possibly help?

No, I am not addicted to anything that matters, but I've dealt with AA for almost two years and I think it's one of the worst organizations in the U.S. today. My blood boils just thinking about them.

 

[tyr_13]

This doesn't seem to be getting through to you, but I'm willing to give it about one more try. Maybe bold text will help. Alcoholics Anonymous does not take any position whatsoever on such things. No individual has the authority to speak for AA, and neither does any AA group. That groups are autonomous means that if they take a vote and decide to do ring-around-the-rosy instead of the serentiy prayer, nobody cares. But if they decide to take out a full-page ad endorsing a candidate for mayor, that's different, because it "affects other groups or AA as a whole". I don't know what it was that gave you the impression that AA has "actively campaigned" either for or against the use of other treatments or anything else, but if the pages you linked were your 'evidence', it looks like you may be rather prone to misinterpreting what you read. One was basically just the ramblings of some guy, and the other was part of a (rather large) collection of news articles apparently deemed of possible interest to people in recovery. You apparently inferred that providing access to that information constituted endorsement of the positions taken by the articles themselves, and that's a mistake only a person unfamiliar with AA would make.

Well that is very handy for AA, that the groups can't be held to what other groups say, but that doesn't change the fact that yes, they did say it. Did they all say it? No. What is your point? How is that related to the effectiveness of the treatment? You seem to keep changing the focus back to the structure of AA, which yes, I made early mistakes on, and away from the actual topic. My being not intimate with the structure has absolutely no bearing on my criticism of it, or of a large number of the individual groups (let's call them AA cells).

No particular expertise is required here. You are blatantly misrepresenting a position taken by an entity you clearly know very little about, and the only course of study required to recognize that is the few minutes it would take to give the 12 traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous a careful read. If you were genuinely interested in what AA does and doesn't do, you'd have done that already.

My statements are not blatantly misrepresenting a position taken by an 'entity' (which I guess AA is not, as it is only cells) because they are still accurate in a more limited scope. AA groups have actively campaigned against other treatments. They misrepresent the dangers of drugs. They say other counseling groups are ineffective. AA cells do these things. Ok, fine, not some overarching central control or governing body (which you should note I never claimed AA had), but AA groups do these things.

I already know what the 12 rituals (that's what they are) are, and that forms the basis for my original criticism that you keep ignoring in favor of talking about a lack of a profit motive (as if profit makes something bad) or central governing body (as if that makes something more pure). Your obvious emotional investment in this matter may be biasing your perception, hence your eagerness to write me off as someone who doesn't know enough to talk about the issue. I'll repeat, my problem with AA is it is a non-evidence based, religious system that may be ineffective and gets more credit than it deserves. Should I use the bold feature too? AA is a non-evidence based, religious system that may be ineffective and gets more credit than it deserves.

How about them? You are the one making the claim that AA is on the low side of this study. So how do they do? Are they on the high side or the low side? Are they significantly on the low side, or are all the methods roughly comperable?

I did not claim that AA was on the low side of this study. It was a question. That is what the question mark was for. I also used the word 'if' which I'm sure you're acquainted with. That same study I linked to pointed out that with the drugs, counseling saw more than half of the participants abstinent after seven years. So there is a good benchmark.

As for the two alcoholics I know, one recovered through the support of his wife and family, and though counseling, and his writing. The other had the support of his loving family, his wonderful girlfriend (now ex), and was attending AA meetings (sometimes twice a day). He still hasn't stopped drinking for more than a couple of months. He believes that AA is the only way to fix it, and that he is powerless to stop his actions. The sad thing is that he will probably drink himself to death because he believes he can't control it.

I've recently been pointed in the direction of a Penn and Teller BS episode. I'd recommend it.

 

[Dymanic]

You seem to keep changing the focus back to the structure of AA, which yes, I made early mistakes on, and away from the actual topic.

I've already indicated that I don't claim any particular insight into AA's effectiveness. I'm in agreement with something once said by Bill Wilson, one of AA's founding members:

"It would be a product of false pride to claim that A.A. is a cure-all, even for alcoholism."

Beyond noting certain inherent difficulties in even attempting to quantify "effectiveness" in this context, I don't really have much else to say about it, and I would have dropped out of the thread already had you not insisted on continuing to make statements regarding AA which I DO know to be false.

Your obvious emotional investment in this matter may be biasing your perception

Already stipulated to:

I certainly can't disagree with that, and nor can I present myself as an unbiased observer. My biased observation is that AA works for some people and not for others, and that the latter probably represent a much larger group than the former.

As for your bolded statement:

"AA is a non-evidence based, religious system that may be ineffective and gets more credit than it deserves."

I can agree in part. AA certainly doesn't meet the test as far as being "evidence-based", as I define that. I don't know how much credit it gets for being effective, nor do I know how much it deserves, so I can't speak to that. But it also does not qualify as a "religious system", as I define that. But knowing a whole two alcoholics, maybe you'd know more about all this than I would.

 

[tyr_13]

The number of alcoholics I know has absolutely nothing to do with this, so come off it. How would that have anything to do with the religious basis for AA? Non-sequiter?

 

[Dymanic]

The number of alcoholics I know has absolutely nothing to do with this, so come off it. How would that have anything to do with the religious basis for AA? Non-sequiter?

My view is that AA is not inherently religious, but I suppose that depends a lot on how one defines that. I base my view on actual participation in the program for nearly twenty years, during which time I have attended thousands of AA meetings, studied the literature in detail, and discussed the principles of the program at length with a wide variety of people. I see AA as a rather unique social phenomenon, one which defies crisp definition. Whatever the heck it is, it's certainly not a religion.

You assert that AA is religious, and have yet to even attempt to support this claim. I agree that whatever your conclusion rests upon, your having known a couple of alcoholics can't provide much of a foundation. So what IS the basis for this assertion? Is it that you happened to spot the word "God" in the twelve steps? And would you also regard the Declaration of Independence a "religious" document because it contains this language: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?"

Or is it something else?

 

[tyr_13]

Of course the 12 traditions speak volumes about purpose and god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Traditions

http://www.aa-louisiana.org/tradlong.htm

You assert that AA is religious, and have yet to even attempt to support this claim.

I didn't because it had already been done. How can you sit there and say on one hand that no one speaks for AA as a whole, and then say you know something based on interaction with one or a handful of cells?

I'm not saying that it is religious because it says 'God' but because it says 'God' over and over, and what it says this god will do. "As you know him," is a pretty lame way to be inclusive. Of course I thought you knew the AA program, but let's go over some of the religious aspects for you....

1.We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

Like most cults (I'm not calling AA a cult, but pointing out similarities to it), it has to break people down so that they are more malleable, and break down people who are already in distress.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Right, that doesn't sound like a religious way of thinking at all.... Believe that some 'power' will 'restore' (apparently magically) sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

Now we are told to turn our lives (decisions?) over to whatever god we want. I'm guessing that Bacchus would be a bad choice here.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

Nothing too glaringly religious here, expect that imprecise word 'moral'.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

Unless the God you choose was Bacchus, or a rock, because neither one is going to care that you don't stop drinking. At least finally we have another freaking human in there somewhere. I wonder what human most people tell?

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

Yes, god has to do this because you are powerless. If God doesn't do this, you didn't give yourself up to God now did you? God will heal your wounds children! Again, unless it is Bacchus, because he's going to keep you drunk unless you would like to try transferring your addiction to sex. I'm sure Bacchus would be down with that.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

Oh, right, I got ahead of myself. Silly me thinking that God magically curing you of your addiction would take only two of the twelve steps, remember, the first step says you cannot do this.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Look! People again! That makes humans two, God/Power five.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

In church, they call this 'atonement', but I'm sure that's just coincident.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

I've only given myself up to God at this point, so shouldn't he be taking the blame yet? Right, success, that's AA and God, failure is your own.

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

Ohh, that's why, I still haven't given God enough attention, so I need more of his power, not my own. Remember, the first step says I have no power.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

So now that God has saved me, I have to go out and recruit! err, I mean spread the word! err, Do missionary work! Emmmm, how do you phrase this so that it doesn't sound like evangelizing?

It's a religiously based program, and you still haven't addressed it being more effective than no treatment or not.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence has religious undertones and some basis in that. Good thing we're governed by the Constitution and not the Declaration. Of course even the Declaration, a document a heck of a lot longer, doesn't say 'God' as much as the twelve rituals...er I mean steps.

 

[Dymanic]

I didn't because it had already been done.

Had it? Where? It's been asserted several times, but I don't recall seeing it actually supported. Maybe I've missed something. As I suspected, your basis seems to rest entirely on a cursory reading of the steps, with which I am indeed quite familiar. I'll continue to maintain that actually working the steps (rather than merely reading them) is no more (or less) inherently "religious" than the individual chooses to make them. That is, that will continue to be my stance, though I don't see myself spending all week going back and forth with you over it. You aren't the first one to attempt to disabuse me of that notion, and if you're going to be the first one to be succesful at it, you're going to have to make a much better effort than you have so far. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen some lame think he could rip through the steps in five minutes and come away with some uniquely penetrating insights.

AA didn't have to break me down. Drugs and alcohol did quite a thorough job of that before I ever got to the program. As the phraseology is carefully chosen to imply, "God" and "a power greater than ourselves" can be taken interchangeably. I'm not the greatest power in the universe, and I don't need to believe in supernatural forces to acknowledge that. I believe that ordinary nature (a power much greater than myself despite its ordinariness) equipped me with everything I require in order to live a full life.

My problem was that I didn't trust that. I thought I needed an edge, and I thought I had found that in drugs and alcohol. As a result, I ended up crazy. Suicidal, in fact. "Coming to believe that a power greater than myself could restore me to sanity" doesn't have to be anything fancier for me than just learning to relax and trust the equipment. Most of the things I know, I know without knowing how I know them, and most of the things I can do, I do without knowing exactly how I do them. And, very often, I do them without knowing why I do them. For me, reflection and introspection are about getting better in touch with that; with whatever "power" is running my little show -- because the one thing my experiences have taught me is that *I* am not fully in charge. My "character defects" derive largely from entertaining that sort of delusion. I am, however, responsible for my actions, and "atonement" is nothing more than acknowledging that. Nothing supernatural about it. You are right about one thing. "Rituals" is exactly what they are. Did you suppose that all rituals were religious rituals?

you still haven't addressed it being more effective than no treatment or not.

I have, actually; numerous times now. Here it is again: I don't know anything about that. I even quoted from one of my own posts: "my biased observation AA works for some people and not for others". If you want more precision than that, feel free to do the footwork yourself.

 

[cgallaga]

Of course I thought you knew the AA program, but let's go over some of the religious aspects for you....

I had noted the traditions not the steps, because the steps are kind of personal prayer while the traditions are the religious doctrine. A few of note are:


1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.

Right off the bad, the addicts own welfare, their own recovery is second to the welfare and strength of AA as a group entity. Seems pretty religious to me.

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

Again the group is governed by a loving god expressed through collective conscience. Looking religious and cult-like.

3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.

You are not required to actually stop, just a desire, to keep coming back.

5. Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.

The purpose is not recovery it is gaining members.

And by even debating here the AA adherents are breaking their own eleventh tradition.

11. A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.

 

[tyr_13]

Had it? Where? It's been asserted several times, but I don't recall seeing it actually supported. Maybe I've missed something. As I suspected, your basis seems to rest entirely on a cursory reading of the steps, with which I am indeed quite familiar. I'll continue to maintain that actually working the steps (rather than merely reading them) is no more (or less) inherently "religious" than the individual chooses to make them. That is, that will continue to be my stance, though I don't see myself spending all week going back and forth with you over it. You aren't the first one to attempt to disabuse me of that notion, and if you're going to be the first one to be succesful at it, you're going to have to make a much better effort than you have so far. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen some lame think he could rip through the steps in five minutes and come away with some uniquely penetrating insights.

It had been supported by cgallaga's links that I quoted. You believe you know not only me, but how long I've had a problem with AA. If you were going to write off everything I say because of 'inexperience' you should have said so from the beginning. If me not being a drinker means I can't tell what is a religious system, why have you bothered so far? Want more reason to not listen to what I say? I'm twenty five. There, now you can say I'm too young to know what is religious or criticize AA. But you can keep your initiate's insight, because that means you're too heavily invested in it to believe anything else (just like a member of a secret religion!).

Church is no more or less religious than an individual chooses to make it either. You maintain that it is not religious, but you've only supported that by saying it isn't, because you say it isn't. What effort would it take? Obviously you aren't going to change your thinking if the twelve traditions just rolls off your back.

I have, actually; numerous times now. Here it is again: I don't know anything about that. I even quoted from one of my own posts: "my biased observation AA works for some people and not for others". If you want more precision than that, feel free to do the footwork yourself.

You're right, you have. I would still like someone to come up with something more. So let me sum up your stance so I can see if I have it right. You don't know that it works better than nothing? You say it isn't religious because you participate in it and say it isn't? Nothing can be said about any of these things because AA isn't out to get money and has no hierarchy? That seems to be the argument here.

 

[Dymanic]

Right off the bad, the addicts own welfare, their own recovery is second to the welfare and strength of AA as a group entity.

The individual is certainly free to place his own recovery first.

Again the group is governed by a loving god expressed through collective conscience.

The "group conscience" simply means a vote among members. No one is in charge in AA.

The purpose is not recovery it is gaining members.

The purpose of the group is not to recover. The group is not an alcoholic.

And by even debating here the AA adherents are breaking their own eleventh tradition.

11. A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

Have a look at the long version of tradition TEN:
"No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion."

Which of those do you feel is violated by participation in this discussion, and how do you see me doing so in such a way as to implicate AA? Has anything I've said given you the impression that I claimed authority to speak for AA? Do you understand what is meant by "outside issues"?

Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.

And now the long version of tradition ELEVEN:

"Our relations with the general public should be characterized by personal anonymity. We think A.A. ought to avoid sensational advertising. Our names and pictures as A.A. members ought not be broadcast, filmed, or publicly printed. Our public relations should be guided by the principle of attraction rather than promotion. There is never need to praise ourselves. We feel it better to let our friends recommend us."

I'm not anonymous enough for you? Hell, I don't even have an avatar. Did you think I was promoting AA? I'm not. I'm merely pointing out errors of fact. That is our primary purpose here at the JREF forum.

 

[Dymanic]

Church is no more or less religious than an individual chooses to make it either.

Fair enough. I'm not sure when it was that it first dawned on me that a lot of self-proclaimed religious people aren't really as religious as they'd like everyone to think they are. I mean, the things you really believe, you don't need to constantly reinforce. The things that require that are the ones you'd like to believe but aren't quite sure about on some level. So when I see proclamations of faith, what I infer is doubt. That applies to atheism as well.

My experience in AA forced me to confront my beliefs. Once I realized that "what I believe" isn't something I can just reach in and change; that it is the result of processes to which I don't have free accesss, it started to be less about "coming to believe" and more about just accepting what I already believed, deep down inside. Which, in my case, is nothing; at least, nothing supernatural. I went through a period there where I felt compelled to reinforce that a lot, by arguing with creationists and whatnot, and in doing that, I was the perfect complement to the proselytizing Christian or whatever. During that time, simply being in the presence of staunch "believers" made me uncomfortable, and as one does tend to encounter many of these in AA, I tended either to avoid going at all or to be rather confrontational about it when I did. I saw myself as a bit of a crusader, my mission being to take a stance against seeing any AA meeting turned into a tent revival while I was in attendance.

I no longer attend meetings very regularly, though not for that reason. When I do go, I still feel some responsibility to hold that line, but I no longer am quite so heavily invested in it. The more comfortable I become with my own beliefs (or the lack therof), the less concerned I am about what others do or don't believe. Besides that, I am far from being the only member who is committed to maintaining AA as a safe place for any alcoholic, regardless of his or her beliefs, or lack therof.

You don't know that it works better than nothing?

I know that as well as I know many other things I'd be hard pressed to prove. What I don't know is how it would do in a statistical analysis compared with other approaches (including "nothing") or how such a thing could even be measured in a useful way.

 

[Dancing David]

I haven't posted in this thread so you may want to add another group. I feel very strongly, in fact wholly believe, that my wife's attending AA was directly responsible for our divorce. I did go to a few meetings with her and with me sitting right there, a loving devoted husband who would storm the gates of hell for my wife, they told her that spouses who refused to go to the seperate spouse meetings were equivilent to abusers and she should leave me because I was contributing to the problem. They told her if I wasn't physically abusing her then I would some day. They basically said there was no such thing as a loving, devoted husband, and everybody, EVERYBODY at the meeting was there because the spouse drove them to drinking.

Wow that is addicted thinking right there! What a Freded up group. The lack of professional supervision is one of the isseus I have with AA, they are a member run group and quite capable of insanity.

Yes, she bought into it, but she went there seeking help and all they did was brainwash her. I will never, ever have anything nice to say about AA. It's a cult, it does more harm than good. I even got her into seperate counselling and when they tried to explain to her how AA was affecting her she rejected the counselling as well. I think they convinced her that anything not AA was bad, plain and simple. And to top it all off, I don't even think she had much of a problem, but they convinced her that a few drinks on the weekend would kill her if she didn't stop.

The seperate spouse meetings consisted of group reading from bible verses and I tried to explain to my wife that it had no bearing on anything. How could it possibly help?

No, I am not addicted to anything that matters, but I've dealt with AA for almost two years and I think it's one of the worst organizations in the U.S. today. My blood boils just thinking about them.

You certainly have a tale to tell, i am very sorry.

 

[cgallaga]

The individual is certainly free to place his own recovery first.

Haha there is the clear and unambiguous text and then the dogmatic revelatory translation of the group member. <sniff> <sniff> <sniff> smells like religion.

The "group conscience" simply means a vote among members. No one is in charge in AA.

Sez you I guess...more revelation?

The purpose of the group is not to recover. The group is not an alcoholic.

Straw man. I said recovery...are you saying the purpose of AA is NOT recovery? Then the traditions agree with you.

Have a look at the long version of tradition TEN:
"No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion."

Which of those do you feel is violated by participation in this discussion, and how do you see me doing so in such a way as to implicate AA? Has anything I've said given you the impression that I claimed authority to speak for AA? Do you understand what is meant by "outside issues"?

Oh you got me there, clearly I don't even know the difference between 10 and 11.

But the point stands. This is an outside controversial regarding alcohol reform directly regarding AA which so far has also touched on politics and religion. You have been drawn in. Better go have a chat with your sponsor and do some step work little feller.

Mind I don't say you shouldn't participate, but your own traditions do. Demonstrating another religious quality of the 12 step system.

Cheerz.

 

[Dymanic]

Sez you I guess...more revelation?

It's not complicated. Say it has been proposed that a portion of the "seventh tradition" (AA-speak for the money placed into the collection basket) be allocated to the purchase of a new coffepot, but someone else feels that the old one is still adequately serviceable. The secretary asks for a "group conscience" on the matter, which is AA-speak for "let's put it to a vote". Your sniffer is working overtime; suggest you research "pareidolia".

Straw man. I said recovery...are you saying the purpose of AA is NOT recovery?

Well, actually, you said: "The purpose is not recovery it is gaining members" -- but, whatever. The purpose of the AA group is to carry the message: that recovery is possible and a method available.

This is an outside controversial regarding alcohol reform directly regarding AA which so far has also touched on politics and religion.

I'm going to take that as a "no" answer to my question: Do you understand what is meant by "outside issues"? Next question: do you understand what is meant by "alcohol reform"?

Mind I don't say you shouldn't participate, but your own traditions do.

No, they don't. I'm not sure why you'd be interested enough to devote more time to studying what they do say, but if coming to understand that is important to you, that's what it's going to take, because you aren't there yet.

 

[cgallaga]

It's not complicated. Say it has been proposed that a portion of the "seventh tradition" (AA-speak for the money placed into the collection basket) be allocated to the purchase of a new coffepot, but someone else feels that the old one is still adequately serviceable. The secretary asks for a "group conscience" on the matter, which is AA-speak for "let's put it to a vote". Your sniffer is working overtime; suggest you research "pareidolia".

Sorry Charlie, it seems you need to study the traditions more. It specifically says: 2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

To fit your example the first tradition should simply read: We make all group decisions on a pure majority vote. No need to invoke a loving god or group conscience.

My sniffer is not on overtime, and there is nothing covert or hidden in the text. I'm just reading and noting the crystal clear religious language and discussion of a loving god (male mind you) that is obvious and inherent within the AA doctrine.

You in a bit off double speak are trying to reinterpret a clear text based on your own personal revelation that it does not really mean god when it clearly says it does.

Well, actually, you said: "The purpose is not recovery it is gaining members" -- but, whatever. The purpose of the AA group is to carry the message: that recovery is possible and a method available.

So again you say the purpose of the group is not recovery from alcoholism, but rather to proselytize the group dogma.

I'm going to take that as a "no" answer to my question: Do you understand what is meant by "outside issues"? Next question: do you understand what is meant by "alcohol reform"?

Take it as you please my answer was a clear yes, and the evidence is clear that you are ignoring the tradition and deferring to your own will and conscience over that of the group. All too common, but any-who, have at it.

I'm not sure why you'd be interested enough to devote more time to studying what they do say, but if coming to understand that is important to you, that's what it's going to take, because you aren't there yet.

I'm merely interested in this discussion as a form of idle entertainment. As is noted before I once was a strong adherent to the program conducting step work, having a sponsor, having sponsees, chairing groups, and even acting as a GSR and sitting on the regional committee. I know the thing well enough to understand it already, have known it for some 20 years. I have even known it in two distinct countries and had a hand in trying to translate all the key material into Chinese. (though the god issue cause constant failure at our task). So don't try to teach me how to suck eggs. And don't get all holier than thou in your certainty that you alone understand the program and that the rest of us are just unwashed seekers. You will be wrong, and appear arrogantly religious in the process.

 

[Dymanic]

To fit your example the first tradition should simply read: We make all group decisions on a pure majority vote. No need to invoke a loving god or group conscience.

Since you seem to feel that the phrase "group conscience" means something other that a majority vote, maybe you 'd like to explain what you think it does mean.

So again you say the purpose of the group is not recovery from alcoholism, but rather to proselytize the group dogma.

Right. Do you understand what is meant by the term "proselytize"?

Take it as you please my answer was a clear yes, and the evidence is clear that you are ignoring the tradition and deferring to your own will and conscience over that of the group.

Maybe you could explain why you consider the twelve traditions of AA to be "controversial outside issues", or how they have anything to do with politics, alcohol reform, sectarian religion, or anything of the sort.

And don't get all holier than thou in your certainty that you alone understand the program and that the rest of us are just unwashed seekers.

I'm not saying that I'm the only one who understands the program. I'm just saying that it's quite obvious that you don't.

 

[godofpie]

cgallaga & ty_13

I would like to know why the topic of AA interests you.