Special Pleading for Alchoholics Anonymous

[cgallaga]

Well to be honest in my normal affairs it never enters into it. But the OP interested me because I was one of the "suggesters" implicated.

I continue to contend that given the assumed value of group support, it is probably better than doing nothing, at least temporarily. Also as a jaded skeptic I doubt the people going there from advice here, would be prone to getting all religious on it...then again who cares if they do. What's one more convert more or less?

All that aside one of the reasons I left the "program" was because of its very religious aspects. I am glad I got out of the dogmatic trap that 12 steps becomes. I believe I have continued my happy and healthy full recovery from drug addiction without that crutch. It may be a workable temporary treatment, but I don't think it is a cure. And I do think addictions can be cured...I think I mine been.

I feel sad for those people with thirty or whatever years who still have to white knuckled resist that regular urge to drink and "know" that one drink will turn them into a rampant drunk again.

I feel sad for those people who believe the best they can ever expect is to be in recovery, rather than free of the thing.

And I feel sad for those who ascribe their own remarkable continuing recovery to myth and spiritualism rather than hard work at deep and enduring personal changes.

But anyway while I try to be interested in all of life (something that came of my own complete recovery) as I said, I'm not really usually all that interested in AA. But the OP implicated me, and I have enjoyed the entertainment of this thread as I do with many others.

 

[cgallaga]

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.

Right you're just gonna completely ignore the ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself and waltz right over to group think. Fine, enjoy yourself.

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

Yes. I'll highlight the salient points.

proselytize |ˈpräsələˌtīz|
verb [ trans. ]
convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another : the program did have a tremendous evangelical effect, proselytizing many | [ intrans. ] proselytizing for converts | [as n. ] ( proselytizing) no amount of proselytizing was going to change their minds.
• advocate or promote (a belief or course of action) : Davis wanted to share his concept and proselytize his ideas.

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.

Nice try to bend and twist but sorry we are not talking about the 12 traditions we are talking about AA as hokum and religion. Anyway as I said I don't care if you choose to speak on behalf of all AA and in so doing ignore your tradition, but the hypocrisy is funny to me.

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.

If wishing only made it so...looks like your step 10 may be a bit wobbly.

 

[Dymanic]

Right you're just gonna completely ignore the ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself and waltz right over to group think.

Perhaps at this point you'd like to just go ahead and concede that "group conscience" does in fact refer simply to a majority vote.

proselytize
advocate or promote (a belief or course of action)

"Tradition Eleven: Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion".

Nice try to bend and twist but sorry we are not talking about the 12 traditions we are talking about AA as hokum and religion.

I'd say we're talking about both, especially since your quest for entertainment prompted you to introduce this line of discussion:

"I had noted the traditions not the steps, because the steps are kind of personal prayer while the traditions are the religious doctrine."

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

That last notion is one I've encountered before, and I've always found it to be rather comical. This overinterpretation is born of the same sort of rigidity in thinking I made reference to above. Members are not constrained from speaking about AA in public. I mean, think about it. If they were, what need would there be for this precaution: "We need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films"? Wouldn't that be rather moot if we weren't supposed to be speaking in public in the first place? Neither is it expected that upon becoming members of AA, individuals should cease to hold or to express opinions on matters other than AA. Quite the contrary; whereas the life of an active alcoholic tends to shrink as it becomes wrapped more tightly around the bottle, recovery is about rejoining human society and becoming an active participant in that experiment (a point on which we appear to agree).

In the "12 x 12", it is expressed this way:

"Nor does it mean that the members of Alcoholics Anonymous, now restored as citizens of the world, are going to back away from their individual responsibilities to act as they see the right upon issues of our time. But when it comes to AA as a whole, that's quite a different matter. In this respect, we do not enter into public controversy, because we know that our Society will perish if it does".

The key is that in expressing whatever opinions we hold as individuals, it should not be done "in such a way as to implicate AA". See how that works?

Anyway as I said I don't care if you choose to speak on behalf of all AA and in so doing ignore your tradition, but the hypocrisy is funny to me.

I have made it quite clear that I don't claim to speak for all of AA. The 12 traditions, however, do speak for all of AA.

 

[Modesty78]

I'd like to tell you of my personal, and undoubtedly anecdotal experiences and opinions with and of mainly NA, but to some very limited extent also AA.

In Denmark the treatment of drugaddicts is paid for through taxes - this is fair, considering the amount of taxes we pay (personally I pay 39 %, which is at least 1 % percent less than most Danes, as I don't pay church-taxes - but most people pay more).

A significant part of the treatment-centers in Denmark are based on the 12 steps/the Minnesota Model, they are almost all private businesses or run by foundations. We have a government funded research-center, which registers drugabuse, treatment and the facilities that does the treatment. Through this research center, anyone can search for the information the center has gathered. Now the information is entered solely by employees at the treatment centres, and as a reliable source of information, its statistics is a joke.

Apart from the treatment centres that base their treatment on the 12-steps, there are a few which base their treatment on psychoanalysis, and a few that are openly christian. Also I think there is one or two which base their treatment on different philosophies, but I am not sure.

Most treatment centres in Denmark either recommends or demands attendance at XA-meetings, during the course of the treatment. Those that only recommend attendance, are of course not basing the treatment on the 12 steps.

Denmarks is split up into what you might call counties - they are not very big by any standards, as we are a mere 5,6 million people here. Every county decides which form of treatment they offer to the citizens, and according to the law governing this area, any client can choose freely between different treatment centres, as long as they are comparable to the treatment facility the facilitating authority has chosen.

What this last paragraph means in real life is, any client can choose freely between different treatment centres, as long as they are the ones the facilitating authority has chosen. Not much of a difference, but if one is opposed to the twelve steps, one doesn't often get much of the by law granted choice.

Personally I've been sober/clean/abstinent/dry for almost four years. Sometimes I go to meetings, sometimes I don't. I had the aforementioned choice, and went to a treatment center, which is based on psycho-analysis. I have attended meetings with XA-fellowships on/off for approximately 10 years. And I do not as such oppose the fellowships.

What I do oppose is the mention of God. This is not due to me being neither agnostic nor atheist, I am catholic (which by comparison is a small religious movement in Denmark), but I am a sceptical catholic, meaning I believe in science, and view the catholic scriptures as ways of explaining things, which at the time could not be explained properly.

I know the "scriptures" of the XA-fellowships say "a God as we understand him" and such nonsense - but for reasons suspisciously like those stated by Mona in an old thread (a few participants in this thread may remember?), I do think the concept of believing in a rock (among many of the suggestions I've heard) as being a "higher power" than oneself is ridiculous.

The problem in Denmark arises when hundreds - maybe thousands of drugaddicts apply for treatment, and the only offer is the government-backed 12 step-centres(I assume since the counties mainly "plug" the 12 step centres, they are government- - or perhaps state- - backed).

In Denmark our laws give every citizen the right to chose their own religion (although this is kinda' ironic since we have a church-tax), but if an addict wants to become clean, they often get pushed into a treatment, which is in my opinion religious.

Now - most of the employees at these treatment centres have themselves undergone treatment through a 12 step treatment center, they attend XA-meetings, and obviously they also "plug" the fellowships. And as I mentioned earlier, attendance at the meetings are often demanded.

Now another problem arises when the drug-addict is "released" from treatment. One has been told that unless one does everything the program says, one will enivitably relapse. Now I beg to differ. If one does not do drugs, one will not relapse - that is my personal philosophy, it might not work for everyone, but it works for me.

When "released", after maybe six (I know - it's insane) months of treatment, one has to start learning to live. One goes to meetings, maybe one gets the - trust me here - mistaken idea that one differs dramatically from "normal" people. One isolates oneself from "normal" society, because one hears often, how addicts are so very different from "normal" people. This is simply another - possibly less dangeous - subculture.

I know dozens of people who never feel at ease at the meetings, but they keep going, because they are afraid not to.

We don't really have the opportunity to shop around, as there aren't that many of us. In my city, which is the second largest in Denmark, there is eight meetings every week.

I still go to meetings, although they certainly are far apart, but what I mainly do is not do drugs, and not drink. That's my main focus.

Hope I didn't bore you to much, and I apologize for any bad English (not my first language) - and my poor punctuation.