AA & religion

[Ray Smith]

Being an atheist, the religious aspects of AA always seemed glaringly obvious, "spiritual not religious" is a joke when you follow it up with talk about God. At best, a case could be made that AA is nondenominational, but not religious? Only if one ignores the dictionary and reality.

I was not warned about the religious nature of AA or that all I would be getting in rehab was intense AA. I left early.

People kept telling me that I had gotten it all wrong, AA wasn't religious, I must have gotten a group or two. Atheists get help in AA, I was told, so I'd try again. I'd ask in a meeting, "How can I work this program as an atheist?" I hoped someone would pull me aside after the meeting if they were too embarrassed to admit to being an atheist inside the meeting, but the only people who I attracted were the religious zealots of the group. I had scared off the rest, now the only ones who who even talk to me were those who believed they could convert me. They became quite nasty when they discovered it was not the case. I'm not talking once or twice or even ten times. How many times am I supposed to do something, expecting different results?

Mel B.writes in New Wine: The Spiritual Roots of the Twelve Step Miracle : “AA members have always issued disclaimers when discussing God: typical is, ‘Our program is spiritual, not religious.’ If pressed for what the program’s actual definition of ‘spiritual’ is, however, it is doubtful that many AA members could explain.”

They could not explain because there is no clear cut boundary between religious and spiritual; AA exploits this.

AA is a splinter group of the religious sect the Oxford Group, also known as the "First Century Christian Fellowship". AA retained many of the core beliefs of this group and at the same time was trying to distance itself from the fellowship in order to avoid the Oxford Group/Catholic Church conflict.

Bill Wilson was not particularly astute when it came to religion. He claimed the Lord's Prayer was too widely accepted for it to be a Christian prayer. It allowed him to write things such as this:

"Therefore, Step Two is the rallying point for all of us. Whether
agnostic, atheist, or former believer, we can stand together on this
Step. True humility and an open mind can lead us to faith, and every AA
meeting is an assurance that God will restore us to sanity if we
rightly relate ourselves to Him." (Twelve and Twelve, Step Two, pg. 33)

Wilson describes himself as a former atheist at times and also claims that he never lost his faith in God. So which is it? Was Wilson ignorant of the meaning of the word and using "atheist" to describe someone who had quit going to church or was he a snake oil salesman who said whatever was needed at that moment to sell what he was selling?

Wilson calls atheists and agnostics "bewildered", "savage", "belligerent"; Dr. Bob was even less kind and wrote them off entirely.

When you start talking about God, it has gone beyond spiritual, into religious. When you start describing and defining God as AA does, you have moved from religious into religion.

Some people in the rooms seem able to ignore parts of the program, the same way that church goers ignore some of the basic tenets of their religions, birth control for example, but still operate under the idea that they members in good standing. "Take what you want and leave the rest", right? Churches, and AA frown on this. AA calls it cafeteria-style or watered down AA, many will say it is the cause of relapses. The danger here is that if a relapse does occur, people come back less willing to leave anything, they embrace the program in a more fundamentalist way and push this on anyone who will listen.

AA is designed for lapsed Christians, the ones who still carry around the guilt of letting their religion slide. The idea that God cannot cure alcoholism, only grant a daily reprieve is Christian heresy. The idea that a person is powerless over addiction, that only God can do something is a rejection of Free Will, and once you reject Free Will, the program is in conflict with most religions.

The following courts have ruled that AA is at least "religious in nature" and that court mandated AA violates the Establishment Clause:
The New York Court of Appeals.
The Second Federal District Court. (NY, VT, CT)
The Seventh Federal District Court. (WI, IN, IL)
The Ninth Federal District Court. (MT, ID, WA, OR, NV, CA, AZ, HI, AK)
The Tennessee Supreme Court

Every time the question has come before a higher court, the final outcome has been that AA is religious. The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear appeals of these cases.

(There is at this time, an appeals court in PA that has ruled AA to not be religious, this case is in the process of appeal.)

So why is it so important that AA be seen as nonreligious? Sure, it sounds better, maybe doesn't scare off as many people, but why is it such a touchy subject? Funding. AA's major source of income is the sale of literature. Who's the biggest buyer of AA literature? Rehabs. Rehabs spout AA philosophy, push 12step and yet they have always wanted to maintain the illusion that they are totally separate. If the states are paying for what comes down to as religious instruction, that would be a major violation of the Establishment Clause.

[John Rutledge]

deleted....

[Claire Saenz]

As Ray has accurately pointed out, the question of the religious nature of AA has been considered extensively by courts in a variety of jurisdictions in the US. The cases involving the question have primarily involved situations where an individual was being coerced by the criminal justice system to go to AA or NA meetings. In such situations, courts have uniformly held that AA is at least religious in nature and that coerced attendance is an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state). The Supreme Court has denied certiorari on the issue, which basically means that in the US, the law of the land is that it is illegal for governmental bodies to force people to go to AA. Yet it happens all the time.

For a thorough, though dry, discussion of all the case law, one can do no better than to read this article in the Duke Law Review:

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+785

Some relevant quotes from the article follow:


To determine whether AA is a religion under the Establishment Clause, courts cannot defer to AA's definition of itself. Instead, courts must examine the nature of the organization in practice. Participation in the AA system entails participation in activity that under Supreme Court precedent must be characterized as religious. Further, an examination of AA literature reveals that its dominant theme reflects elements common to most theistic religions. Thus, despite AA's assertions of secular allegiances and its disavowal of any intent to impose a particular concept of God on participants, courts should conclude that AA is a religion.


As theologian Richard Neuhaus has written, "[r]eligion is incorrigibly interventionist;" this is especially true of the Judeo-Christian brand, with its claim to universal truths. Despite its formal disclaimers and protestations, AA, in its history, theory, and practice, closely tracks, and sometimes appropriates, elements of Judeo-Christian monotheism. While AA disavows any claim to metaphysical and eschatological insight, the very fact that the program is based on the belief that supplication to a higher power is necessary to cure the disease of alcoholism ascribes meaning to the divine. Participation in the Fellowship and adherence to the Twelve Steps then becomes a form of worship or homage.


The Supreme Court has long viewed religious freedom as an essential attribute of an individual's identity; to encourage the alienability of religious liberty demeans and cheapens the Religion Clauses and, consequently, injures personal identity. Benefits of family visitation, reduced sentences, and more favorable probation terms should not accrue only to those who are willing to subscribe to the state's choice in religiously-oriented substance abuse treatment providers. The targeting of benefits in this fashion obliterates government neutrality and the principle of equality under the law as surely as the indiscriminate imposition of harm. To allow the state to advance religion under the guise of rehabilitation in conjunction with the "purchase" of religious rights in the closed market of the prison or the monopolistic market of probation denigrates the concept of religious liberty in America.

[Ray Smith]

One of the things that has always bothered me is how members believe AA is entitled to the "hands off" status that religions enjoy, that it should be granted legitimacy based solely on faith, that questioning it is heresy, all while denying it's religious nature.

AA claims to be "spiritual, not religious", but what does that really mean? You cannot describe one without including the other,

"The difference between religion and spirituality is in form only, for the true essence of all spiritual and religious practices is God." -Ragupathy S.P

The Twelve Steps are not instructions on how to stop drinking, but instructions on what you need to do to improve your relationship with God, which, by definition, is religious instruction.

How can a program that claims to be based on rigorous honesty play so loosely with the truth?

"Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God and the people about us." (BB, pg 77)

[ASchwartz]

Hi Ray and Everyone,

"Religion is service to God."

"AA believes in religion."

"AA believes in service to God."

This is called a syllogism. It is an example of Deductive reasoning and it gets us in trouble whenever it is used. For example, Religion or Religions are "service to God." I believe that is correct. AA does believe in religion. I think we can all agree on that. However, the conclusion is not correct. AA does not believe in service to God but it does believe in service to other alcoholics who are not as far along in recovery. I see the service to others as an attempt to help alcoholics fill the emptiness they feel inside.

However, is AA the only way towards recovery? I think we all agree that it is NOT the only way to recovery.

Allan

[John Rutledge]

deleted ....

[catsirish]

Tis the Ego is the problem.

[JaneE]

I always saw AA as trying to help people replace one crutch with another. You start out being addicted to alcohol, and they try to help you replace it with addiction to religion, which is probably seen as a more socially acceptable crutch. I guess it works for many?

But it would be nice to see addiction recovery programs that address a person's sense of responsibility to themselves and to those around them. No flopping about helplessly in the glass or the pew.

After all, as a fellow atheist I believe we only have each other.
Jane

[Ray Smith]

Tis the Ego is the problem.

Many people drink to mask anxiety or depression. They are the last people that need ego reduction.

This is one of the problems with AA, not all alcoholics are alike, nor should they all be treated the way that Bill Wilson thought alcoholics should be treated.

[Ray Smith]

But it would be nice to see addiction recovery programs that address a person's sense of responsibility to themselves and to those around them.
Jane

SOS:
http://www.sossobriety.org/
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/sossaveourselves/

SMART:
http://www.smartrecovery.org/
http://smartrecovery.org/SMARTBoard/

LifeRing:
http://www.unhooked.com/index.htm
http://forums.delphiforums.com/lifering/start

WFS:
http://www.womenforsobriety.org/

Moderation Management
http://www.moderation.org/

HAMS: Harm Reduction for Alcohol and Other Substances
http://www.hamshrn.org/index.html
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/hamshrn/

RR:
http://www.rational.org/



And with all those options, the majority of people, 80%, quit on their
own.

Personally, I feel that all those groups are great for those who have
been through AA and have had it pounded into their heads that they NEED
a group in order to quit. That's BS, but AA has been very successful in
getting people to believe that piece of mis-information.

Being around others for support can be a good thing, but ultimately, it
is up to the individual to use or not.

[Ray Smith]

Hi Ray and Everyone,

"Religion is service to God."

"AA believes in religion."

"AA believes in service to God."

This is called a syllogism. It is an example of Deductive reasoning and it gets us in trouble whenever it is used.

Allan

It is a valuable logic tool: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. It is only faulty if you use faulty input or semantic skulduggery.

When Bill Wilson, talking about AA, states, "Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God and the people about us", I take that at face value. If this quote means other than what is states, then perhaps Wilson is too subtle or cryptic for my reading skills, something I doubt; Wilson was never known for his subtlety or his writing prowess.

AA literature is full of references that refer to 'getting right with God' as being the core of AA; stopping drinking is seen as a byproduct of this new relationship with one's "Higher Power".

[Ray Smith]

Someone on the VH1 boards told me that Alcoholics Anonymous was compatible with Catholicism, I beg to differ:

"Wow ray I really can't believe your take on the god thing. You have it all wrong. We in AAA don't believe in a different god. I was brought catholic so it was not abig thing for me. I don't believe the god they speak about is different from the one that was beat into me 45 years ago"



The Catholic God healed the sick, made the lame walk, raised the dead, right? The god of AA can't cure alcoholism, only grant a daily reprieve. Pretty wimpy by comparison.

When Bill Wilson said that you can choose whatever concept of a Higher Power you like, that's saying they are all equal and that is, as any good Catholic should know, is the sin of indifferentism.

"Indifferentism is a mortal sin; a condemned heresy. That's the Catholic view of the matter."
from "It's Catholicism, or Indifferentism":
http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/indifferentism.html

Wilson allows the blending of different beliefs, the sin of syncretism.

Syncretism is the fusion of different forms of practice or belief.
from Devotions for Growing Christians:
http://www.growingchristians.org/dfgc/edevo/syncretism.html

The Seventh Step: "Humbly asked him to remove our shortcomings", humbly or not is a demand for a miracle, something the God of the Catholic Church frowns on.

There is no evidence that Wilson embraced Jesus Christ, the only way to the Father in any Christian church, but he did embrace supernaturalism, holding séances, using Ouija boards, channeling spirits, all heresies. Do you think his "spook sessions" are compatible with Christianity?

As one letter writer to Christianity Today wrote, "AA teaches belief in a generic god while prohibiting discussion of Jesus Christ. This is not a bridge to Christ but a bridge to Babylon. . . . Thank God I was shown a way out from AA’s teachings. Many remain lost."
Chris Deile. "In His 12 Steps." Christianity Today, February 5, 2001, pp. 9-10.
http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/bobs11_1.html

Wilson claims that all atheist and agnostics need to do is come up with their own version of God, however if they do this they are no longer atheists or agnostics. I'm relatively certain Wilson didn't have a firm grasp on what those terms meant; he called himself an atheist in his younger days, but also claimed he never lost faith in the Creator.

"Stress the spiritual feature freely. If the man be agnostic or atheist, make it emphatic that he does not have to agree with your conception of God. He can choose any conception he likes, provided it makes sense to him. The main thing is that he be willing to believe in a Power greater than himself and that he live by spiritual principles."
The Big Book, William G. Wilson, Chapter 7, Working With Others, page 93.

He also claimed one could use the AA group as their Higher Power:

"You can, if you wish, make A.A. itself your 'higher power.' Here's a very large group who have solved their alcohol problem. In this respect they are certainly a power greater than you, who have not even come close to a solution. Surely you can have faith in them. Even this minimum of faith will be enough. You will find many members who have crossed the threshold just this way. All of them will tell you that, once across, their faith broadened and deepened. Relieved of the alcohol obsession, their lives unaccountably transformed, they came to believe in a Higher Power, and most of them began to talk of God."
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William G. Wilson, pages 27-28.


Then here comes the bait & switch:

"To certain newcomers and to those one-time agnostics who still cling
to the AA group as their higher power, claims for the power of prayer
may, despite all the logic and experience in proof of it, still be
unconvincing or quite objectionable. Those of us who once felt this way
can certainly understand and sympathize. We well remember how something
deep inside us kept rebelling against the idea of bowing before any
God. Many of us had strong logic, too, which 'proved' there was no God
whatever. " (Twelve and Twelve, Step Eleven,
pg. 96)

(Note the use of past tense.)

"So, practicing these Steps, we had a spiritual awakening about which
finally there was no question. Looking at those who were only beginning
and still doubted themselves, the rest of us were able to see the
change setting in. From great numbers of such experiences, we could
predict that the doubter who still claimed that he hadn't got
the 'spiritual angle,' and who still considered his well-loved AA group
the higher power, would presently love God and call Him by name."
(Twelve and Twelve, Step Twelve, pg. 109)

This is not taking Wilson's words out of context, it is bringing them and his deeds out in the open. Do you not read the literature or not notice the inconsistencies? People who believe AA is compatible with Christianity must not have examined either carefully.

[progree]

Ray,

In every A.A. meeting I've ever been to, it is stressed that you can have your own concept of "god", be it a light bulb, a tree, or G.O.D. = Group Of Drunks. So how is this religious?

For me, the fellowship of our Group Of Drunks is my Higher Power, who I choose to call G.O.D.

They also stress working the steps. I like Step 3 for its clarity --

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

Becomes for me: 3. Made a decision to turn our will and lives over the care of Group of Drunks as we understand Him.

So if Group Of Drunks tells me to quit taking medication, quit seeing my therapist, and cut myself off from my family ("we're your family now"), then hey, no problem. Think of the money I'd save!!

Step 11 is my favorite step. It may seem "religious" at first (but of course its not of course) --

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

Praying and meditating to improve one's conscious contact with some entity, and praying for that entity's will for us and the power to carry it out -- that's not religious at all, not when the entity is, something secular like "Group Of Drunks" --

Step 11 - "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Group Of Drunks (G.O.D.) as we understand G.O.D., praying only for knowledge of G.O.D.'s will for us and the power to carry that out."

Ray, I think your problem is that you never had a decent sponsor to explain to you how you can choose your own "god", or "G.O.D." and how you could go to any meeting and pray to the "Group Of Drunks" for knowledge of their will for you and the power to carry it out. Its a very spiritual experience that will transform your life, believe me.

I will close with this sage warning from Our Cofounder Bill W. --

"Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant" - Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William G. Wilson, page 174.

So get thee to a meeting and pray to the Group Of Drunks! :)

I hope this helps! :)

-Progree
Day 22 off my anti-psychotic medication (on advise from G.O.D.) and my mind has never been clearer!!

[Claire Saenz]

"Day 22 off my anti-psychotic medication (on advise from G.O.D.) and my mind has never been clearer!! "

Progree,

Please...tell us this was a joke. Otherwise, I must say that I am frightened for you.

Claire

[John Rutledge]

deleted.....

[ASchwartz]

Hello Progree,

I do not care what you are being told in AA. You should not stop your psychotherapy and you should not stop your medication. Whoever is telling you these things is WRONG and you should NOT listen to them. Also, AA is NOT you God or religion or your Higher Power. That is nonsense.

Allan

[John Rutledge]

deleted.....

[ASchwartz]

Hi John,

Yes, I know and agree with you. That is why I am joining you and Claire in telling Progree to not listen to those idiots.

Allan

[Ray Smith]

The idea that prescription meds (or indeed, any meds at all) compromise one's Sobriety has a very long history in AA. It goes back to the earliest days, when some members seem to have had difficulties with the idea of taking an aspirin for a headache on the basis that this might annihilate their Sobriety. To be fair, I think that this is a minority view...

A minority opinion, but a vocal one:
"Only 17% believed an individual should not take it and only 12% would tell another member to stop taking it. Members attending relatively more meetings in the past 3 months had less favorable attitudes toward the medication. Almost a third (29%) reported personally experiencing some pressure to stop a medication (of any type)."
Alcoholics Anonymous and the Use of Medications to Prevent Relapse: An Anonymous Survey of Member Attitudes; Rychtarik, Connors, Dermen, Stasiewicz; (J. Stud. Alcohol 61: 134-138, 2000)

Interesting that the more meetings, the more likely to have this attitude.

I believe progree was sarcastically repeating what he has heard in the rooms. I heard something similar last night at a NAMI meeting from a former AA member who believes if he found the right prayer, he wouldn't need his psych meds.

[progree]

The following courts have ruled that AA is at least "religious in nature" and that court mandated AA violates the Establishment Clause:
The New York Court of Appeals.
The Second Federal District Court. (NY, VT, CT)
The Seventh Federal District Court. (WI, IN, IL)
The Ninth Federal District Court. (MT, ID, WA, OR, NV, CA, AZ, HI, AK)
The Tennessee Supreme Court

Every time the question has come before a higher court, the final outcome has been that AA is religious. The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear appeals of these cases.

(There is at this time, an appeals court in PA that has ruled AA to not be religious, this case is in the process of appeal.)



It is worth mentioning that the New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in the state of New York. "Except in cases involving a Federal question, where the Supreme Court of the United States has the last word, the Court of Appeals makes the final statement of decisional law in New York State." (So the New York Court of Appeals is the functional equivalent of what is called a state supreme court in most states).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Court_of_Appeals
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/outline.htm

I point this out in order to make the following statement -- all of the state supreme courts (notice lower case supreme) that have ruled on the issue of religion in A.A. or N.A., namely New York and Tennessee, have found them to be religious.

The appeals court in Pennsylvania that recently (March 2009) ruled AA to be not religious is the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania -- it is one of two Pennsylvania intermediate appellate courts. ... Appeals from Commonwealth Court decisions go the the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The below links show the hierarchy of the Pennsylvania state courts:
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/Links/Public/AboutTheCourts.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Court_of_Pennsylvania

As for The Second, The Seventh, and Ninth "Federal District Courts", these are actually The United States Courts Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, The Seventh Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit respectively. These federal courts of appeals are the highest courts in the U.S. federal court system with the one and only exception of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Federal district courts are below the federal courts of appeals).

Court rulings other than the 9th Circuit's and Pennsylvania's re: religion in A.A. / N.A.
http://www.angelfire.com/journal/forcedaa/courtopinions.html

9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruling (Inouye v. Kemna)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/08/BA99S1AKQ.DTL

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania's ruling on A.A. being not religious:
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/886CD08_3-17-09.pdf

Thus the statement remains true that "all of the highest courts in the U.S. that have heard cases involving A.A./N.A. and religion have ruled that these organizations are at least religious in nature" (since all such courts that have so ruled are subordinate only to the U.S. Supreme Court. And has been pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of these cases, thus letting these rulings stand).

I haven't heard that the Pennsylvania decision is being appealed.

Hopefully that clarifies the court situation (comments and corrections welcome!)

My sponsor says that except for the Pennsylvania court, they are all wrong, given that A.A. allows us to choose any concept of God that we wish, even allowing us to seek through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with a Group Of Drunks (or doorknob or whatever), praying only for knowledge of the Group of Drunk's (or doorknob's or whatever's) will for us and the power to carry it out. And so this is not religious, given that we can choose secular concepts of G.O.D., right? Right.

As for what I think, I've learned to get out of the driver's seat, and turn it over to G.O.D. (in my case the Group Of Drunks and my sponsor). As the Second Step says, I've found that I can't manage my own life. As the first three steps teach us, "I Can't, He Can, I think I'll let Him". I have found that thinking for myself is letting my self-will run riot.

Alan Schwartz writes:
}} Also, AA is NOT your God or religion or your Higher Power. That is nonsense. {{

This is nonsense? No, but this is standard A.A. -- it is virtually universal that the agnostic / atheist or otherwise "god-challenged" newcomer to A.A. is told (initially) that they may choose the group or A.A. (or doorknob, lightbulb, tree, etc.) as their higher power. If you think this is nonsense, then I am surprised to hear that you recommend A.A. Likewise I'm surprised that nobody has seen fit to revise this site's "Alcohol & Substance Abuse, Addiction" home page at
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/center_index.php?id=14&cn=14
which list only 12-step groups. (See the "Self-Help Groups" section at the very bottom of the page).

Still praying for knowledge of my Group Of Drunk's will for me.

Progree

[xenophon]

Your sponor is free to say that the courts are wrong. he has that right. But, not as a matter of law.
I abide by the law. "When you cut a great road through the law to get at the devil, what will you do when the devil turns round on you? The law being knocked flat?"

Other people suffer from the behavior of scoff laws. I will take the judge.

G.O.D = good orderly direction. That means you have abdicated your right to choose to another. That means that you bear the consequences of bad decisions made by others. You can do that if you want. But that means that you are a child. An adult in name only.

[Claire Saenz]

I believe that Progree's messages are tongue-in-cheek. He is--quite effectively, I think--presenting AA as a caricature to make a point.

One point he has made is that there really is a rather stunning contradiction going on when a person views a fundamental aspect of AA as "nonsense" but continues to recommend that program uncritically, without even mentioning alternatives. In Progree's words:

"Alan Schwartz writes:
}} Also, AA is NOT your God or religion or your Higher Power. That is nonsense. {{

This is nonsense? No, but this is standard A.A. -- it is virtually universal that the agnostic / atheist or otherwise "god-challenged" newcomer to A.A. is told (initially) that they may choose the group or A.A. (or doorknob, lightbulb, tree, etc.) as their higher power. If you think this is nonsense, then I am surprised to hear that you recommend A.A. Likewise I'm surprised that nobody has seen fit to revise this site's "Alcohol & Substance Abuse, Addiction" home page at
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/center...hp?id=14&cn=14
which list only 12-step groups. (See the "Self-Help Groups" section at the very bottom of the page)."

Claire

[John Rutledge]

deleted.....

[progree]

Ray Smith writes in #1 (8/10/09):
} Bill Wilson was not particularly astute when it came to religion. He claimed the Lord's Prayer was too widely accepted for it to be a Christian prayer. {

Widely accepted by who besides Christians? Did he ever say?

This is an explicitly Christian prayer with explicitly Christian themes -- "thy kingdom come" (not a theme in any major religion other than Christianity), "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (I sure as hell hope not Yahweh, you genocidal monster. Stay up in heaven and leave us alone). "Give us this day our daily bread" (wow, sure beats earning a living, just order God to feed us). Its in the Bible too -- Matthew 6:9, and Luke 11:1-4.

As you say, Bill Wilson couldn't even figure out that The Lord's Prayer was Christian (despite it being in Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:1-4)!:

A Letter From Bill W. Regarding The Lord's Prayer In A.A., April 14, 1959
================================================== ==
( http://www.barefootsworld.net/aabwlordprayer.html )

[Excerpt From Bill W. letter] : "it is sometimes complained that the Lord's Prayer is a Christian document. Nevertheless this Prayer is of such widespread use and recognition that the arguments of its Christian origin seems to be a little farfetched. It is also true that most A.A.s believe in some kind of God and that communication and strength is obtainable through His grace. Since this is the general consensus it seems only right that at least the Serenity Prayer and the Lord's Prayer be used in connection with our meetings. It does not seem necessary to defer to the feelings of our agnostic and atheist newcomers to the extent of completely hiding our light under a bushel. However, around here, the leader of the meeting usually asks those to join him in the Lord's Prayer who feel that they would care to do so. The worst that happens to the objectors is that they have to listen to it. This is doubtless a salutary exercise in tolerance at their stage of progress." [End Excerpt]

Hmm, what about Bill W's progress --
-- Dropping acid (a supervised medical experiment repeated a few times, but come on, he was and is a defacto role model of sobriety);
-- Couldn't overcome his addiction to smoking and died from emphysema 36 years after achieving alcohol sobriety and cofounding A.A.;
-- He was unable to use his program to deal with his crippling 11-year depression after his supposed belladonna-induced "spiritual experience";
-- His womanizing (1.5% of the Big Book's revenue went to his favorite mistress, Helen Wynn, between his and her deaths. That 1.5% was carved out of what was previously slated for his long-suffering wife, Lois; not to mention his legendary 13th-stepping vulnerable young women at meetings;
-- Wrote the very demeaning "To Wives" chapter of the Big Book in a style that made it sound like a group of wives wrote it, e.g. "As wives of Alcoholics Anonymous, we would like you to feel that we understand as perhaps few can. We want to analyze mistakes we have made" (BB p. 104).

(Except for the womanizing, the above all comes from the AA Conference Approved book, "Pass It On". More on the women, the will, and the sources for all of that is at:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-BillRoyalty.html
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-BillWill.html
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-otherwomen.html

By the way, I wonder how AA-ers in these parts would consider it a salutary exercies in tolerance if most meetings were closed with Muhammed's Prayer, and were told that its the same as the Lord's Prayer except it begins, "Allah, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name".

Or if meetings were closed with an explicitly Islamic prayer that came out of the Koran, and having explicitly Islamic themes.

[Claire Saenz]

Progree,

Bill W's statements that the Lord's prayer is not of Christian origin and therefore shouldn't be objectionable to atheists or members of other faiths is an example of the intellectual dishonesty that pervades the program.

The reality, of course, is that AA is fundamentally incompatible with atheism. Atheists cannot work the program and remain atheists....but that is of course the entire point. Many people mistakenly think that alcoholics anonymous exists to help people quit drinking, but page 77 of the Big Book makes crystal clear that the "real purpose" of the program "is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God...."

Claire

[Claire Saenz]

Claire,

....this nonsense, as we would see it, is actually propagated by some in AA, and accepted by some. This is one of the problems with AA that is difficult to get around, simply by saying that for those who can accept it, it is fine. It is not "fine" where it places people in danger.

I don't know. As far as the people who recommend AA, while agreeing that the G.O.D. business in all its forms is nonsense, are concerned, this tends actually to support the idea that only those of us who have "been there" really understand. Definitely one of those assertions that cuts both ways.


JR,

You are correct...We really cannot say that it is "fine" for those who accept it...because sometimes, those who accept it are the very ones being placed in danger by their acceptance.

Perhaps what those of us who have "been there" are attempting to explain is indeed something that cannot be appreciated by people, even clinicians, who haven't personally experienced life inside the rooms. I don't know either, because to me, it seems so very simple. Is it not obvious that when one views a fundamental precept of 12 step philosophy as "nonsense", one should not then recommend 12 step programs without reservation?

It really makes no sense to me...nor does the fact that mentioning such logical inconsistencies seems to draw ire rather than enlightenment.

Claire

[progree]

Claire writes in #26 (10/4/09):
} Is it not obvious that when one views a fundamental precept of 12 step philosophy as "nonsense", one should not then recommend 12 step programs without reservation? {

I guess its not obvious to some, must be some sort of syllogism involved or something like that {g}. I might add not only does this site recommend 12 step programs without reservation, but that's all they recommend, other than deep inside some old thread that few are likely to see. In particular, the "Alcohol & Substance Abuse, Addiction" home page at
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/center_index.php?id=14&cn=14
list only 12-step groups. (See the "Self-Help Groups" section at the very bottom of the page).


Ray Smith writes in #1 (8/10/09):
} Wilson calls atheists and agnostics "bewildered", "savage", "belligerent"; Dr. Bob was even less kind and wrote them off entirely. {

And a few more, by no means an exhaustive list. All of the Big Book (BB) ones below are from Chapter 4, "We Agnostics"
"Cynically Dissecting Spiritual Beliefs" (BB p. 48)
"Handicapped By Obstinancy" (BB p. 48)
"prejudiced" and "unreasoning prejudice" (p. 48)
"Rather Vain" (BB p. 49)
"No Reasonable Conception Whatever" (BB p. 49)
"Biased And Unreasonable" (BB p. 51)
"Prey To Misery And Depression" (BB p. 52)
"Couldn't Make A Living", (BB p. 52)
"Full of Fear" (BB p. 52)
"Our Ideas Did Not Work" (BB p. 52)
"We Couldn't Quite Step Ashore" (BB p. 53)
"Leaning Too Heavily On Reason" (BB p. 53)
"Abjectly Faithful To The God Of Reason" (BB p. 54)
"Whirling On To A Destiny Of Nothingness" (BB p. 54)
"Fooling Ourselves" (BB p. 55)
-------- And from the 12 X 12 ------------
"belligerent" - Step 2, 12X12 p. 26
"savage" - Step 2, 12X12 p. 26
"the bewildered one" - Step 2, 12X12 p. 28
"prideful balloons" - Step 2, 12X12 p. 29
"far too smart for our own good" - Step 2, 12X12 p. 29

(Considering Bill Wilson's dropping acid, smoking himself to death for 36 years after co-founding A.A., obsessive womanizing, deceptions, and more, one might wonder if he "couldn't quite step ashore" and whether his "ideas did not work").

As for Dr. Bob, I particularly enjoy the closing of his story in the Big Book, "Dr. Bob's Nightmare" (p. 181)

"If you think you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you. ... But if you really and truly want to quit drinking liquor for good and all, and sincerely feel that you must have some help, we know that we have an answer for you. It never fails, if you go about it with one half the zeal you have been in the habit of showing when you were getting another drink. Your Heavenly Father will never let you down."

[progree]

Claire Saenz writes in #25 (10/4/09):
} Many people mistakenly think that alcoholics anonymous exists to help people quit drinking, but page 77 of the Big Book makes crystal clear that the "real purpose" of the program "is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God...." {

How about this (Big Book p. 45) - "Lack of power, that was our dilemma. We had to find a power by which we could live, and it had to be a Power greater than ourselves. Obviously. But where and how were we to find this Power? Well, that's exactly what this book is about. Its main object is to enable you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem."

And if you don't find this cosmic loving Santa Claus that will restore you to sanity, manage your life, care for you, love you, remove your shortcomings, listen to your prayers, give you power, and guide your groups and who you are supposed to pray to and meditate for *HIS* will for you and the power to carry it out (this list is drawn from the 12 steps and Tradition 2), then you sign your own death warrant --

"Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant." (12 X 12 p. 174)

But oh, of course its not a religious program (g), merely a spiritual one. A deadly spiritual one, death warrants and all.

[ASchwartz]

From Progree,

(Considering Bill Wilson's dropping acid, smoking himself to death for 36 years after co-founding A.A., obsessive womanizing, deceptions, and more, one might wonder if he "couldn't quite step ashore" and whether his "ideas did not work").


Well, no one's perfect. :D

Allan

[GingerSnap]

My husband began SAA meetings online. By seeing the stories of others, it has benefited him as he relates to a problem that he didn't think he had. I have looked at the 12 step program and also see that they "push" hard for the partners to be involved in the 12 step program because they feel that the partner must have enabled the behavior of the addict. Well, the 12 step program doesn't really sit well with me after exhaustive review. With God, higher power, whatever you might want to call it, you don't get it in steps if you want it and I have not enabled the behavior and I was also led in my readings to believe that if I couldn't admit that I was morally devoid that it would make it harder for my husband to get "better" since that would put the burden where, I believe, it belongs. I didn't see the logic in the 12 steps and after reading the manual and tons of stuff online, I just don't get it and it would take you years to sincerely work the program if workable. Now, the group support - the ability to relate to others, the ability to ask questions are good. My husband doesn't have a sponsor at this time and I read the sponsor's purpose and, well, you basically draw a name out of a hat and that person as your sponsor holds a lot of power in your life in making decisions - I can't buy into that either. I am totally devoted God so, of course, I believe that if God had been in my husband's life that he wouldn't be where he is now but I don't believe the 12 steps would lead him to God either as it just isn't that easy. Just my thoughts

[Tony J]

Ray, :
Someone on the VH1 boards told me that Alcoholics Anonymous was compatible with Catholicism, I beg to differ:

I see someone is a fan of Agent Orange.

But Orange, when he makes his argument that the Oxford Group was an heretical Christian Sect, quotes a few Protestant clergymen. As you may know one Protestant can not speak for all Protestants.

The Catholic Church, however, has an organized central authority. That authority not only recognizes AA as a good organization, but sponsors a 12 step movement of it's own. (The Matt Talbot Movement) which is run much like AA but with the blessings of the Catholic clergy who normally run the retreats.

So, you have set yourself up to make an erroneous claim that is very easily disproven.

Sorry. Better luck next time.

[xenophon]

Tony -- make it so.
Better luck next time indeed.

[John Rutledge]

deleted......

[progree]

Ray Smith writes in #1 (8/10/09):
> When you start talking about God, it has gone beyond spiritual, into religious. When you start describing and defining God as AA does, you have moved from religious into religion. <

And quite a religion that is -- a cosmic loving Santa Claus that does favors for (relatively) wealthy American alcoholics -- while letting millions in the third world starve and die of agonizing horrible diseases. (Anyone who owns a car, for example, is very wealthy by world standards).

A.A. doctrine implies a favor-dispensing deity that acts like a shoe-shine boy for wealthy American alcoholics that restores them to sanity, manages their lives, cares for them, etc. etc. (see previous post for the long list of favors that the 12 steps and Tradition 2 says God dispenses).

Every time somebody tells some soppy story about some "God Shot" about how God helped him miraculously get into the left turn lane in time, so as to get to the meeting in time to hear something he needed to hear, and how there are no coincidences in A.A., I keep thinking of rhythmically pounding on the table at 1.6 second intervals -- thunk, thunk, thunk (like the sound of people jumping out of the World Trade Center towers during 9/11 and hitting the ground below) --

and explaining that every 1.6 seconds someone starves to death. And then ask is it a coincidence that during this hour-long meeting, over 2200 people starved to death while God was busy helping some wealthy American alcoholic get into the left-turn lane?. Or giving oomph to some wealthy American's car's battery?

(20 million starvation deaths per year. 20 million / 8760 hours per year = 2283 per hour. 2283/3600 seconds per hour = 0.634/second = 1 every 1.58 seconds )

Considering that at least 10% of the American population (higher in Europe) doesn't even begin to believe in a prayer-answering favor-dispensing deity ... why again does the "Alcohol & Substance Abuse, Addiction" home page at
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/center_index.php?id=14&cn=14
list only 12-step groups? (See the "Self-Help Groups" section at the very bottom of the page).

Shouldn't there be alternatives listed for those who can't believe in A.A.'s religious doctrines and in fact finds them morally obtuse, even horrifying?

###############################################

A.A In Six Words
================
Keep the plug in the jug
I can't, He can, Let Him.
You have to be kidding me.
Spiritual but not religious, my ass.
(any others?)

(Inspired by SMITH Magazine's Six-Word Memoir Project ( www.sixwordmemoirs.com. See also Your Love: In Six Words, Washington Post, 2/10/09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021002187.html
).

[Tony J]

John R,

....Certainly, the fact that the Matt Talbot Movement and Matt Talbot Retreat organisation takes a benign view of the Fellowship (as indeed it appears to do, while avoiding direct endorsement and disavowing any affiliation) cannot be taken to imply general Church approval for AA, or acceptance by the Church as a whole that 12 Stepping is consistent with Catholic belief. .....

Why not ? Many retreat houses are under the authority of one Bishop or another. The Bishop certianly is responsible for what goes on at his retreat houses. Other retreat houses are run by a particular order. Again, they would be concerned and responsible for what groups they let use their facility. I think the fact that so many Matt Talbot groups meet at so many different Catholic retreat houses does nothing but imply general Church approval.


I am not clear that the Matt Talbot movement is actually "run much like AA" - perhaps you could enlighten us further ? This movement is an overtly Catholic, spiritual movement (though it is open to non-Catholics) which centres its efforts on organising "retreats" which are (for those who don't know) a traditional Catholic practice promoting spiritual renewal, that is open to "recovering alcoholics". I did my share of "retreats" in my younger days and, even at this "operational" level it does not sound much like AA.

Have you ever been to a Matt Talbot retreat ? I've been to over 20 and served as an officer in one. The movement is run exactly like any AA group in that each group is self supporting and runs by it's own group conscience. The retreat masters are normally recovering priests and although Mass will be offered at the retreat the seminars are always about AA and involve the priests own involvment in one form or another. They are much more 'AA' than 'Catholic' in substance. The grounds are Catholic and the Mass is. In one retreat I've been to there's even perpetual adoration, but the Catholic nature of the retreat serves as a background for the spiritual message (which is the 12 steps).

A big problem, in considering the relationship between Catholicism and AA, is precisely that while there have been quite strong statements from Catholic authorities against the Oxford Groups/Moral Rearmament movement, it has never looked the reality of AA straight in the face in the light of orthodox Catholic belief. As with the population in general, AA is regarded as a general "good thing" by members of the institutional Church at all levels. Catholic church halls are made available to AA as readily as Protestant ones. But again, this cannot be viewed as an institutional endorsement. It is not that I have not tried (as you may guess), but I have not been able to find any indication that the Church has faced up to the conundrum that, if the religious practices of the Oxford Groups/Moral Rearmament movement are so unsafe as to have rendered participation by Catholics unacceptable, the very similar "spiritual" practices of AA should also be seen as acceptable and unsafe. Bit of a difficulty, there, I think.

Well, the big problem with your assertion (an Orange assertion) is that AA and the Oxford Group are not the same organization. Bill and Bob were members of the OG when they got sober. But the 12 steps are what AA's go by. There were no 12 steps in the Oxford Group and although there are similarities between the two organizations, there are also differences. One big difference is that the Catholic Church would not allow it's members to join the OG but they do allow and even engourage members to join AA.

Why don't you take another tack and tell me which of the 12 steps you think a Catholic ought to find heretical ?

[Abbadun]

Hi Tony

Well where the Oxford Group has out performed AA is in avoiding Cult-like qualities. The Oxford Group has not created a culture where the founders of the organization are worshiped as quasi-prophets.

Like any healthy organization the Oxford Group has been able to grow, adapt and respond to society, while AA is stagnate and stuck with the same old, old dogma.

The new Oxford Group
http://www.iofc.org/history

http://www.iofc.org/home

William


John R,

....Certainly, the fact that the Matt Talbot Movement and Matt Talbot Retreat organisation takes a benign view of the Fellowship (as indeed it appears to do, while avoiding direct endorsement and disavowing any affiliation) cannot be taken to imply general Church approval for AA, or acceptance by the Church as a whole that 12 Stepping is consistent with Catholic belief. .....

Why not ? Many retreat houses are under the authority of one Bishop or another. The Bishop certianly is responsible for what goes on at his retreat houses. Other retreat houses are run by a particular order. Again, they would be concerned and responsible for what groups they let use their facility. I think the fact that so many Matt Talbot groups meet at so many different Catholic retreat houses does nothing but imply general Church approval.


I am not clear that the Matt Talbot movement is actually "run much like AA" - perhaps you could enlighten us further ? This movement is an overtly Catholic, spiritual movement (though it is open to non-Catholics) which centres its efforts on organising "retreats" which are (for those who don't know) a traditional Catholic practice promoting spiritual renewal, that is open to "recovering alcoholics". I did my share of "retreats" in my younger days and, even at this "operational" level it does not sound much like AA.

Have you ever been to a Matt Talbot retreat ? I've been to over 20 and served as an officer in one. The movement is run exactly like any AA group in that each group is self supporting and runs by it's own group conscience. The retreat masters are normally recovering priests and although Mass will be offered at the retreat the seminars are always about AA and involve the priests own involvment in one form or another. They are much more 'AA' than 'Catholic' in substance. The grounds are Catholic and the Mass is. In one retreat I've been to there's even perpetual adoration, but the Catholic nature of the retreat serves as a background for the spiritual message (which is the 12 steps).

A big problem, in considering the relationship between Catholicism and AA, is precisely that while there have been quite strong statements from Catholic authorities against the Oxford Groups/Moral Rearmament movement, it has never looked the reality of AA straight in the face in the light of orthodox Catholic belief. As with the population in general, AA is regarded as a general "good thing" by members of the institutional Church at all levels. Catholic church halls are made available to AA as readily as Protestant ones. But again, this cannot be viewed as an institutional endorsement. It is not that I have not tried (as you may guess), but I have not been able to find any indication that the Church has faced up to the conundrum that, if the religious practices of the Oxford Groups/Moral Rearmament movement are so unsafe as to have rendered participation by Catholics unacceptable, the very similar "spiritual" practices of AA should also be seen as acceptable and unsafe. Bit of a difficulty, there, I think.

Well, the big problem with your assertion (an Orange assertion) is that AA and the Oxford Group are not the same organization. Bill and Bob were members of the OG when they got sober. But the 12 steps are what AA's go by. There were no 12 steps in the Oxford Group and although there are similarities between the two organizations, there are also differences. One big difference is that the Catholic Church would not allow it's members to join the OG but they do allow and even engourage members to join AA.

Why don't you take another tack and tell me which of the 12 steps you think a Catholic ought to find heretical ?

[John Rutledge]

deleted......

[Tony J]

Hi Tony

Well where the Oxford Group has out performed AA is in avoiding Cult-like qualities. The Oxford Group has not created a culture where the founders of the organization are worshiped as quasi-prophets.

Like any healthy organization the Oxford Group has been able to grow, adapt and respond to society, while AA is stagnate and stuck with the same old, old dogma.

The new Oxford Group
http://www.iofc.org/history

http://www.iofc.org/home

William

I think the Oxford Group was actually cult like in may respects, including the charismatic leader Frank Buchman. AA has managed to avoid this at least in part, because of Bill's experience in the OG. He took what worked and left the rest, like he did with many areas that influenced early AA.

Of course internet reality in the 'AA-Cult' debate isn't necessarily tied to historical facts. The premise is (AA = bad, not AA = good).

As far as Bill being a prophet, I think if he were he would have done alot more alot sooner. He learned everything the hard way in the begining. I've never heard anyone call him a prophet. A man under some sort of divine guidance, yes. A prophet, no.

I will ask though, what do you feel needs to change in the AA program ?

[ASchwartz]

Don't any of you grow tired of the endless anti AA talk? Are there not other and more pressing problems with regard to the addictions?

Allan:confused:

[JulianP]

deleted....

[John Rutledge]

deleted.....

[Tony J]

Hi,

I am trying to figure out how it is that the "endless talk" refers only to those who talk "anti-aa", but not to those who spend equal, if not greater time defending AA.

Any thoughts?

JP


I think Alan is asking the anti-AA's why they spend so much time worrying about AA at all. The AA will defend AA just as the Catholic will defend The Catholic Church or the Scientist will defend science. Because they believe in it.

The question that I'm seeing being asked here is 'why are anti-AA's being drawn together by their hatred of AA in such a strong way ?'.

It's the common thread that binds a small but vocal minority of problem drinkers together, the hatred of AA. Why might that be so ?

[Claire Saenz]

I think Alan is asking the anti-AA's why they spend so much time worrying about AA at all. The AA will defend AA just as the Catholic will defend The Catholic Church or the Scientist will defend science. Because they believe in it.

The question that I'm seeing being asked here is 'why are anti-AA's being drawn together by their hatred of AA in such a strong way ?'.

It's the common thread that binds a small but vocal minority of problem drinkers together, the hatred of AA. Why might that be so ?

Speaking only for myself, I do not "hate" AA. I do, however, want to see its shortcomings acknowledged, and its monopoly on the treatment industry ended. I want science-based treatment approaches to be made at least as widely available as AA. And I want people who have been harmed in the rooms to be able to speak of their experiences, be heard, and have their concerns addressed, instead of being ignored and told to "go to a better meeting."

These things seem like little more than basic fairness and common sense to me, and I'll work to make them happen for as long as it takes.

Claire

[xenophon]

It is not impossible that this 'hatred' of AA is elicited by problematic behavior within AA. I am aware that the intense anger exhibited by some may impede realizing this. That anger does not mean that the assertions are false.

[Claire Saenz]

That anger does not mean that the assertions are false.

Exactly, Xenophon.

Indeed, the notion that anger automatically disqualifies anything someone might say is yet another example of the distorted logic set forth in AA literature.

Anger may not be pretty, but it does serve an important function. It lets us know that our rights or our boundaries have been violated. While toxic or violent displays of anger aren't healthy, the emotion itself is normal and constant suppression of it is counterproductive. But AA members are told, in no uncertain terms, that:

"If we were to live, we had to be free of anger. The grouch and the brainstorm were not for us. They may be the dubious luxury of normal men, but for alcoholics these things are poison." Big Book, p. 66

"It is a spiritual axiom that every time we are disturbed, no matter what the cause, there is something wrong with us." Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, p.90

More--shall I say it?--nonsense.

Claire

[Tony J]

Exactly, Xenophon.

Indeed, the notion that anger automatically disqualifies anything someone might say is yet another example of the distorted logic set forth in AA literature.

Anger may not be pretty, but it does serve an important function. It lets us know that our rights or our boundaries have been violated. While toxic or violent displays of anger aren't healthy, the emotion itself is normal and constant suppression of it is counterproductive. But AA members are told, in no uncertain terms, that:

"If we were to live, we had to be free of anger. The grouch and the brainstorm were not for us. They may be the dubious luxury of normal men, but for alcoholics these things are poison." Big Book, p. 66

"It is a spiritual axiom that every time we are disturbed, no matter what the cause, there is something wrong with us." Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, p.90

More--shall I say it?--nonsense.

Claire

Claire, you are quoting out of context. The premise in the BB and 12/12 is that 'resentment' is dangerous to an alcoholic because it can cause an emotional state in which drinking seems a good option. The way to avoid resentment is, naturally to avoid anger as much as possible. The BB never suggests that it should be suppressed. In fact it suggests how it should be dealt with (ie. understand your own part in it, understand the other parties part and exercise spiritual principals). This is not, to my mind 'suppression'.
It is a healthy way to deal with a negative emotion. The resentment is written down, looked at, talked about etc. etc. Not too much different from what a therapist would have you do with it.

And you are correct, anger in and of itself is not negative. It is the resentment that alcoholics are prone to that is negative and that's what is being addressed.

This is Allen's point. You know the BB well enough to throw quotes around but you don't bother to read it and understand what it says. Is that a productive use of your time ?

What is it about the way the BB tells you to deal with anger don't you like ?
How is it wrong, in your mind ?
Do you not agree that alcoholics are prone to dangerous and self destructive moods because of resentments ?

To me, that statement was so obvious when I was new, I never even thought to question it. I had nothing but resentments. And I'm not an abnormal case. Perhaps you don't identify with resentments, but that doesn't excuse your disdain for a part of the book that is true for many.

BTW, it pretty much is a 'spiritual axiom' that anger is not a good thing. Bill didn't make that up, he just observed it. Most spiritual disciplines say as much. Anger is natural but it's one of those emotions that can easily get the better or us and cause us to do things we regret later. It's better to treat it with caution at all times.

[Claire Saenz]

Tony,

Out of context, my foot. The Big Book and 12 & 12 speak for themselves--every confused, contradictory, word of them.

Claire

[xenophon]

Feelings are facts. And, anger is real and a fact of life. The issue is not 'good' or 'bad'. It is what occurs when one is angry that matters. Does it result in harmful words or deeds -- harmful to oneself or others?
The issue then is: what does one say or do when angry?

The source of that anger is a different matter. Achieving clarity or insight as to source of that anger is important. Clarification, in and of itself, may lead to healing.
It may be necessary to take steps to remove the cause of the anger; a prosecutor doing justice is a case in point.

Anger, in and of itself, has no moral content. It is.
What matters is the context; and, what is said and done .

[Tony J]

Tony,

Out of context, my foot. The Big Book and 12 & 12 speak for themselves--every confused, contradictory, word of them.

Claire

Your foot or not, you quoted them out of context. Any reasonable person can see that those quotes about anger are in the context of resentment and it's harmful effect on the alcoholic.

So, are you saying that I'm wrong about the context or are you saying that the BB and 12/12 are wrong in saying an alcoholic needs to be wary of resentment ?

[xenophon]

The catalog of human mental suffering encompasses a great deal more than resentment.

[JulianP]

deleted....

[Tony J]

The catalog of human mental suffering encompasses a great deal more than resentment.

Yes. But we are talking about resentment in regard to recovery from alcoholism. Are you disagreeing with the BB when it says resentment is a dangerous emotion to a newly sober (or even long term sober) alcoholic ?

[xenophon]

Disagreement is clear.
People drink for a lot of reasons. What is called resentment is one of those reasons.

It is a commonplace for turbulent emotions to be dangerous.

[John Rutledge]

deleted.....

[xenophon]

Understood

[Claire Saenz]

Are you saying that I'm wrong about the context or are you saying that the BB and 12/12 are wrong in saying an alcoholic needs to be wary of resentment ?

Both.

If you prefer, I'll put the entire BB quote about resentment and anger. If anything, the full quote makes the nonsensical character of the ideas promoted even more clear:

"It is plain that a life which includes deep resentment leads only to futility and unhappiness. To the precise extent that we permit these, do we squander the hours that might have been worth while. But with the alcoholic, whose hope is the maintenance and growth of a spiritual experience, this business of resentment is infinitely grave. We found that it is fatal. For when harboring such feelings we shut ourselves off from the sunlight of the Spirit. The insanity of alcohol returns and we drink again. And with us, to drink is to die. If we were to live, we had to be free of anger. The grouch and the brainstorm were not for us. They may be the dubious luxury of normal men, but for alcoholics these things are poison." BB page 66.

Is that enough context for you? How about I reproduce the 12&12's entire "spiritual axiom" quote too:

"It is a spiritual axiom that every time we are disturbed, no matter what the cause, there is something wrong with us. If somebody hurts us and we are sore, we are in the wrong also. But are there no exceptions to this rule? What about "justifiable" anger? If somebody cheats us, aren't we entitled to be mad? Can't we be properly angry with self-righteous folk? For us of A.A. these are dangerous exceptions. We have found that justified anger ought to be left to those better qualified to handle it."

Yep...pretty clear. Anger is forbidden. Even anger that is justified. Under this logic, if someone, for example, raped my 16 year old daughter, and I was angry about that, something would be wrong with me. How does this make sense?

In addition, I totally disagree with the notion that different emotional rules apply to alcoholics than to other people. In fact, I think that the idea that alcoholics are fundamentally different from other people is one of the most dangerous ideas promoted by AA. This concept is what lies underneath the truly sad tendency of alcoholics to hide themselves in AA meetings for years under the misconception that Only An Alcoholic Can Understand an Alcoholic.

However, and this is important...I have no problem if YOU want to believe this stuff. The problem I have, and it is a big one, is that people are SENT to AA by the medical community and by courts, given no choice in the matter, and then told that their lives (or their jobs, or their freedom) depend upon their acceptance of these notions. Not only is this wrong, it actually flies in the face of AA's own 11th tradition ("Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion...").

Claire

[Claire Saenz]

I take 100% responsibility for everything before, during and after my AA and 12 step experiences – everything. In the long run, my 12 step and AA experiences taught me how entirely self-destructive and self-abusive it is to abandon my own God given principles and, out of fear, self-doubt, confusion, and desperation, attempt to embrace principles that in every way defy who I am as person – a good person, if I do say so myself. I am glad that I lived those experiences within AA – intentionally or otherwise – because it truly inspired me to remain true to myself at all costs and it taught me that when I honor myself, sobriety and other good choices come quite naturally and are followed by too many other benefits to describe here.

That's an excellent way of looking at it, JP. Thanks for the insight.

Claire

[Tony J]

Now THIS is interesting :

Usually in most film or literature adaptions, Grendel attacks the hall after having been disturbed by the noise the drunken revelers have made.

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

[xenophon]

meaning what exactly?

[JulianP]

deleted....

[Tony J]

So, Claire, you are saying that the ideas expressed in the BB and 12/12 are nonesense ?

You think a life which includes deep resentment is healthy and we do not squander time that would otherwise have been worth while if we indulge in this resentment ?

I see. No wonder you don't like AA. You must enjoy being angry all the time. I wish I was angry less, myself. All in all it doesn't accomplish too much. It may motivate me for a few minutes but there are other ways to become motivated that aren't as dangerous.

BTW, if someone raped your daughter (God forbid) how would your anger at the rapist help your daughter ? She would need your love and care. The anger may be helpful if you were there and it motivated you to protect her, but after the fact it would be pretty useless, don't you think ? The police would have the job of carrying out justice. Your anger would have very little effect on anyone but yourself.

AS far as people being sent by the court or the medical community, I tend to agree with you that it goes against the traditions, but Ebby T was court ordered in the pre-AA days. So, there is some history of it.

But, if a person is 100% responsible for their actions as I've read on this thread (and also happen to believe) then if they drink themselves into a position where it's AA meetings or loss of job then they are the one responsible for getting themselves into that position. You can't have it both ways. People aren't all powerful until they enter AA and get a dose of kryptonite or something and all of a sudden become victims.
Your position isn't consistent.


Both.

If you prefer, I'll put the entire BB quote about resentment and anger. If anything, the full quote makes the nonsensical character of the ideas promoted even more clear:

"It is plain that a life which includes deep resentment leads only to futility and unhappiness. To the precise extent that we permit these, do we squander the hours that might have been worth while. But with the alcoholic, whose hope is the maintenance and growth of a spiritual experience, this business of resentment is infinitely grave. We found that it is fatal. For when harboring such feelings we shut ourselves off from the sunlight of the Spirit. The insanity of alcohol returns and we drink again. And with us, to drink is to die. If we were to live, we had to be free of anger. The grouch and the brainstorm were not for us. They may be the dubious luxury of normal men, but for alcoholics these things are poison." BB page 66.

Is that enough context for you? How about I reproduce the 12&12's entire "spiritual axiom" quote too:

"It is a spiritual axiom that every time we are disturbed, no matter what the cause, there is something wrong with us. If somebody hurts us and we are sore, we are in the wrong also. But are there no exceptions to this rule? What about "justifiable" anger? If somebody cheats us, aren't we entitled to be mad? Can't we be properly angry with self-righteous folk? For us of A.A. these are dangerous exceptions. We have found that justified anger ought to be left to those better qualified to handle it."

Yep...pretty clear. Anger is forbidden. Even anger that is justified. Under this logic, if someone, for example, raped my 16 year old daughter, and I was angry about that, something would be wrong with me. How does this make sense?

In addition, I totally disagree with the notion that different emotional rules apply to alcoholics than to other people. In fact, I think that the idea that alcoholics are fundamentally different from other people is one of the most dangerous ideas promoted by AA. This concept is what lies underneath the truly sad tendency of alcoholics to hide themselves in AA meetings for years under the misconception that Only An Alcoholic Can Understand an Alcoholic.

However, and this is important...I have no problem if YOU want to believe this stuff. The problem I have, and it is a big one, is that people are SENT to AA by the medical community and by courts, given no choice in the matter, and then told that their lives (or their jobs, or their freedom) depend upon their acceptance of these notions. Not only is this wrong, it actually flies in the face of AA's own 11th tradition ("Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion...").

Claire

[John Rutledge]

deleted.....

[Tony J]

Not too bad John. Not too bad. :cool:


Whatever about the movies, and Wikipedia, the original text does not really support this suggestion. Other than pure malevolence, the motive most clearly suggested for the monster is rage and envy at the thought that the warriors in Hrothgar's mead-hall were having such a good time at their tipsy feasts, while he was stuck out in the fens, bogs, marshes, Steps and so on. Whatever - having Grendel in one's mead-hall is not a pleasant notion.

Beowulf - you know, I actually read the bloody thing in the original - four times - when I was an undergraduate. I must have been mad. Indeed, I probaly needed to be Restored to Sanity. Hmm - maybe literary medievalists need a Twelve Step fellowship - ASA (Anglo-Saxon Anonymous) perhaps ?

The Twelve Steps of ASA -

1. We admitted we were powerless over Migration Period literature - that our lives had become unreadable.

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

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

4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of our grammar and syntax.

5. Admitted to Wotan, to ourselves, and to another human being (or troll, or elf, or sea monster, or professor, or whatever else was handy) the exact nature of our errors.

6. Were entirely ready to have the One-Eyed Wanderer, or whoever, remove all these defects of linguistics.

7. Humbly asked the All-Wielder to remove our shortcomings.

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

9. Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when they were going for the same lecturer position, in which case - in true Anglo-Saxon style - we prosecuted a blood feud against them to the death.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were inaccurate promptly corrected it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with the Professor of Old and Middle English as we understood him (which did not happen often) praying only for knowledge of His will for us, and then applied for that lecturing job.

12. Having had an academic awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry the message to poor benighted fellow students, and to practice translating the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Dream of the Rood, the Wanderer, the Seafarer, the Elder Edda and the Icelandic sagas in all our affairs.

Um ... no. Don't think this would work ...

Yours from the Mead Hall, the only thegn drinking Perrier,

[xenophon]

Is there a point to that remark?

If so, get to it.

[Claire Saenz]

"So, Claire, you are saying that the ideas expressed in the BB and 12/12 are nonesense ?"

Yes. You understand me perfectly, although you have chosen to mischaracterize my dislike of AA principles as being suggestive that one should be angry all the time. Of course, that is not what I said at all. However, what you've done is a perfect example of the other thing I don't like about AA, which is the tendency of some in the program to simply refuse to understand that there are other ways of looking at the world besides what Bill W wrote in those books.

Claire

[Tony J]

Claire, what you said is the principle that resentment is dangerous and futile is nonsense.

So, you must be saying that resentment is okay. I don't know how you can say a principle is nonsense without disagreeing on the premise on which that principle is based.

I don't think I'm refusing to understand you. I think I am trying to understand you. Why would you disagree with something you don't actually disagree with ? You aren't consistent. Which, is consistent with the anti-AA movement.


"So, Claire, you are saying that the ideas expressed in the BB and 12/12 are nonesense ?"

Yes. You understand me perfectly, although you have chosen to mischaracterize my dislike of AA principles as being suggestive that one should be angry all the time. Of course, that is not what I said at all. However, what you've done is a perfect example of the other thing I don't like about AA, which is the tendency of some in the program to simply refuse to understand that there are other ways of looking at the world besides what Bill W wrote in those books.

Claire

[Tony J]

Is there a point to that remark?

If so, get to it.

Understood.

[John Rutledge]

deleted......

[xenophon]

Nothing further, your honor. I am done with this witness.

[Claire Saenz]

I really think that we should be trying to help each other In Here. I am not interested in participating in controversy for its own sake.

Nothing further occurs at this time.

JR, I'm with you and Xenophon on this one. I'm not playing this game.

Claire

[Tony J]

JR, I'm with you and Xenophon on this one. I'm not playing this game.

Claire


Too bad, I was hoping you could share something useful.
I thought maybe you would compare the AA method of dealing with anger to your SMART method. But you aren't here to spread recovery, you're here to attack AA and that seems an awful lot like a resentment to me.

Oh well. Best to pick up your marbles and go home.

[John Rutledge]

deleted......

[David O]

Jr, thanks for catching my post... it came out completely wrong. This is what what it was intended to say:

Hi Ray,

I have always enjoyed and admired your intellect, writing and reasoning
abilities. In your initial post and subsequent posts by other members (including
many of the disagreements), the discussion was eye-opening, informed,
intelligent and thought provoking.

Ray, please continue... there are many of us who have derived a lot from this
thread.

David

[roamer2]

spiritual principles are service to others thus serving ourselves and honoring the natural balance of life in general. no i dont speak for AA but do have a bit of an understanding of the principles and methods. it states that a higher power is what we need to find. weather a group, tree, door knob or God. it has 2 requirements. 1 to be greater than we are as individuals. 2 that it be loving and caring. I am a spiritual person and not religious. i follow no particular faith or denomination. i have faith in many things and faith in something is the key they mention. so in this way i can relate to the process. it is designed to get a person out of themselves and do selfless acts and not just to alcoholics but anyone that may need help and not expect anything from that person or people in return. AA is not religious or connected to any religion. the books state very clearly that members are free to make a decision on religion for themselves but to keep religion separate. some members try to bridge that gap and that is against the principles. it states also that be you religious or atheist or undesired the principles are designed to work for that individual because they are intended to work for anyone willing to follow them.
it also states that AA does not hold the monopoly on recovery because we are not all the same and is delighted for anyone that finds recovery in any form.

it does and has worked for millions atheist included. it only takes a higher power, others with a common problem, open mindedness, willingness, and a brutal honesty of oneself.

[hermia]

I'm not sure this is the appropriate thread for this, but after reading alot of the posts on AA's merit or demerit, i felt compelled to share my limited experience with it.

I am not a religeous person. I consider myself spiritual in the sense i believe there has to be some higher power running this whole show. Could be the wizard of oz or a little green man sitting at a vast control panel on another planet for all i know, but i figure there is something bigger and better than us mere humans.

i may as well start by saying i am a drinker. I enjoy my beer and may the higher power help anyone who tries to take it away from me..lol Am i an alchoholic? Probably. You are entitled to call it like you see it, but please make note of the fact that i don't consider it a great problem. I don't drink and drive, i've never found myself in any trouble with regard to drinking. I indulge at home and always with consideration of what responsibiliities i have that a beer or 2 may interfere with. None the less i have been tagged as an alchoholic by several individuals in the AA crowd. Ok, fine. As i said they are entititled to their opinion but i have always found myself a tad irked to be viewed as a sicky by the reformed.

Moving along...my father was an alchoholic. The falling down drunk kind that lost jobs and wreaked havok on normal family life. With my sister's urging i attended ACOA meetings occassionally in my late teens and early twenties. I learned alot and give them credit for setting me on a path of self awareness. I married and later divorced my son's father who is bipolar and was a substance abuser.

It is that recent experience with him and the AA crowd that is probably most pertinent to this thread.

I'll assume alot of you have read my posts regarding my son. At any rate, when my son was 15, my son's father was on a mission to get him involved in AA. I allowed him to attend meetings with his dad whenever we could get him to go with the hope that any means of addressing his drug problems was better than nothing. Several people in the group took an interest in my son and befriended him. One was couple who remain involved with him and another was a woman my age.

At the time i didn't understand this woman's involvement but having the turmoil in daily life that we did, i chose to take it at face value. She claimed to feel like a mother to him and was simply taking him under wing so to speak. At the time i knew he had a bit of a crush on her and chalked that up to adolescence. I let the relationship go on because she seemed to be keeping him out of trouble somewhat. There seemed to be a focus on the meetings (AA)...abstinence from drugs...and when he was with her i knew he wasn't at the park up the street with the wannabe thugs getting in trouble. At that time, no one told me anything otherwise. Not my ex, nor the other couple that were friends with all of them.

4 years later i've learned otherwise. The woman had relocated and i hadn't given that episode much more thought until a couple months ago. During a fight with my son, his current gf saw fit to inform me that she was concerned this woman was back in town and wanted to make me aware that the relationship my son had with her was not at all what i thought. It was in fact, sexual. I confronted my son eventually and though he refused to discuss it, he didn't deny it. Where this tidbit fits into his current troubles, i don't know. But after reading a post by claire suggesting unchecked sexual predators in AA groups, i was compelled to relay the story.

I have more to say with regard to my ex, his attitude, and AA, but it seems my post is getting to it's character limit.

So there's my 1 and a half cents on AA. I'll add the other half cent eventually.

hermia

[hermia]

With regard to religion...

My ex could never have been considered a religious person prior to his involvement with AA. He's always been a control freak and remains one to this day. He'll acknowlege your opinions only enough to keep you listening to his, but the bottom line always has been and still is, it's his way or no way.

At any rate, his stance of late with regard to our son is that it's in god's hands. He refuses to deal with the situation at all and essentially has washed his hands of it saying whatever god deems appropriate will be. He's gone as far as to tell me that even if my son dies in the process of his problems, it has nothing to do with us...it's god's will. Responsibility for dealing with his child is no longer his.

So as i told tony in a post regarding my son's trouble's...i have a bit of a bad taste for AA. Of course i cannot blame AA and like groups, individuals belong to these groups and of course are the only ones truly to be held accountable for their behaviors. But on the other hand i cannot dismiss the actions and behaviors i see in people involved in them...it obviously has an influence on their attitudes. What i see is alot of comradery until a situation gets bad, at that point they seem to want to not deal with it and leave it in the hands of the higher power. I suppose sinking into the muck with someone else leaves them exposed to relapse. That's not a good thing...i understand that. They need to place their own well being first or they're no good to anyone. But geeez....where is the responsibility for taking care of your own? Be it family, a friend, an acquaintance, a person youve sponsered, or just people you are connected to? Helping others is kind of key to living life as a human.

To conclude...i haven't fully arrived at an opinion on the AA front, i'm trying to be fair. I do see it as an alternative crutch to substance use. I guess thats ok...drugs and alchohol can kill...so almost any alternative is better than that. But by the same token i don't see many members truly concerned with the well being of others. They like to leave everyone else in god's hands and not bother getting their own dirty. Yes, that's neccessary to a certain point for anyone dealing with troubling issues, but there comes a point when you consider yourself recovered and stable and you look to begin helping others...it's at that point why i don't really understand why it's all still left in god's hands and there is a general refusal to take some responsibility for others.

Bah. I'm rambling. Hope some of this made sense and was pertinent to the AA discussion.

hermia

[JulianP]

deleted....

[Claire Saenz]

deleted by poster

[Tony J]

Hermia :


"i may as well start by saying i am a drinker. I enjoy my beer and may the higher power help anyone who tries to take it away from me..lol Am i an alchoholic? Probably. You are entitled to call it like you see it, but please make note of the fact that i don't consider it a great problem. I don't drink and drive, i've never found myself in any trouble with regard to drinking. I indulge at home and always with consideration of what responsibiliities i have that a beer or 2 may interfere with. "

Rather than use your pain and confusion to validate my own philosophy, let me share a little on this comment of yours.

This is in line with my suggestion that you put yourself first. Ignore it if it doesn't apply, of course.

You say you're 'probably' an alcoholic and then you describe (justify??) your drinking as moderate. You then said that the AA crowd has classified you as alcoholic.

I find it odd that you seem ambivilant towards your relationship with 'beer' (if you'll excuse the figure of speech).

Since you are in the middle of a family crisis and since (imho) you need to be at the top of your game, maybe you should look into your drinking and decide if you have a problem or not. And even if you don't, should maybe stop or moderate for a while until the crisis passes.


Maybe you could pm one of the moderators and give them some honest info on your drinking and see if you have anything to worry about. You may not. You may just be traumatized from your husband and his friends. AA's should not typicaly tell other people that they are alcoholic. You may drink more than you realize or they may be so fanatical that you've been brow beaten and feel guilty over nothing. Why not get an objective opinion ?

Whatever you do don't stop drinking on my account. I'd still do it if I could get away with it. It just doesn't work for my anymore. ;)

[JustTrying]

Gee! I thought we quit beating this dead horse long ago..... then BAM!

Welcome Tony!

First I am neither pro AA or Anti AA.... I am whatever works for you works..... I have done research into SMART and Rational Recovery... Celebrate Recovery... and Moderation Management. AND More...

I actually like Rational Recovery's method the best. It puts the power in you. I tend to not beleive I am powerless.

That said..... I have been a member of AA for over 15 years and it is very much religeous.... It even mentions GOD in the steps. Not that I have anything against God... because without God i would surely be dead by now.....

As far as was stated in another thread about sponsors telling people to not take meds etc.... and the desperate person who wants so much to belong following that stupid advice.... I have seen that myself.

I myself am Bipolar, and Paranoid Schizophernic, Have PTSD and I think I may have some other things.... buth that is just being paranoid. Pitty the person that tells me not to take my meds. Because If I hurt myself, they will be next.

Thank Goodness that I have a great therapist who actually understands addiction and mental illness...... DUAL DIAGNOSED. I go to AA meetings but I don't really do what they do.... I like being around sober people... but the voices in my head tell me what to do enough.... I don't need a sponsor. LOL!:) OHHHH Come on! That was funny!

I choose God to be my help... I find that prayer and meditation, taking my meds... reading the Bible and I actuall Like the Basic text Of NA --- prefer it over the Big Book.... the Big Book seems so out dated.

In the Big Book they don't seem to understand that there are many factors in becoming an alcoholic/addict...... Enviroment, Genes, life experiances, how we learn to deal with issues ... all that plays a role...

Will I ever quit drinking????? Don't know. All I know is God has a plan for me annd He and I are trying to find it.... but take it from someone who looked into everything you could find on the net and bought every book.... $100.00s of dollars worth.... Not all programs work for all people... but they do work for some and for that I am glad they all exsist.....

JT

[hermia]

Hi Tony,
Actually, i stated i was a drinker because i thought it only fair that people knew where i was coming from if i was going to post comments about AA. As to alchoholism..it's all in the definition and whose interpretation of that definition we're talking about. I have found that when it's a recovering or reformed alcholic speaking, generally the definition will not include "causing problems in one's life". It's only a matter of whether you do it or do not. How little or how much doesn't come into play.

Am i justifying my use of alchohol? Well ya. When you are dealing with people who who look at you like you're consuming a gift from satan himself because you have a beer or 2 before bed...then hell ya i'm justifying it. Wouldn't you?

I'm not ambivilent about my relationship with beer. I like it. I'm not a teenager. It poses no problems whatsoever in my life other than the fact that alot of the people in my life are in recovery from addiction and tend to want to project their experiences with alchohol on me as well. If i find it causing problems for me...other than how those in recovery tend to view me...then i'll address it and make attempts to solve the problems as i do in any other aspect of my life.

"AA's shouldn't typically tell people they are alchohlics"...Tony, i'm finding alot of people are doing things they shouldn't be. That was really the point of my post with regard to AA.

Thanks for your concern, but i assure you, i'm fine:)

hermia

[David O]

Good morning Hermia,

I'm not ambivilent about my relationship with beer. I like it. I'm not a teenager. It poses no problems whatsoever in my life other than the fact that alot of the people in my life are in recovery from addiction and tend to want to project their experiences with alchohol on me as well. If i find it causing problems for me...other than how those in recovery tend to view me...then i'll address it and make attempts to solve the problems as i do in any other aspect of my life.I know you've been having great trouble with your son and his addictive behaviors with DMX and (I'm not sure) alcohol. These issues have been so hurtful to your relationship with him and to you alone as you're very deeply saddened with what has become of his life. Even a simple request that he give you his cell phone number just in case of an emergency resulted in a defiant no with some choice words.

I remember visiting a doctor once who knew I had been smoking weed (this was 30+ years ago) at which point he lectured me for 2-3 minutes about the evils of weed, beer and cigarettes. The fascinating part to me was that in his office was an ashtray with a lit cigarette... one he had been smoking just prior to my being seen. His words rang hollow, like the beating of an empty drum, and his advice meant nothing to me as he lost all credibility in this department. While he was right, of course, at my young age I couldn't hear what he said b/c of what I had witnessed.

Is it possible that your nightly drinking may be having a similar effect on him? At his age, what does he see in his mother's words and wisdom? What does he see in her approach to him that could be counter-productive to his own well-being?

Please understand that my intent is not to bring you guilt or shame, it's to point out an inconsistency that may inadvertently be making your message and efforts less effective with him.

David

[Tony J]

Hi Hermia,

I can't imagine a person who has a beer or two in the evening (every evening) being addicted to alcohol. One of the definitions of addiction is that it's progressive.

If your husband and his crew were fanatic about temperance (I do know a few AA's who fit that bill) then he was probably reacting more to the fact that he can't accept it. Maybe he can't accept you drinking socially and him not being able too, or maybe having it around in the house made him squirrley.

Who knows ? I'm one AA who won't brand you (or anyone) who enjoys a few drinks an alcoholic. I need to see signs of abuse and even then I'm not very quick to lable a person. That's just the way I was brought up in AA and my own philosophy.

But I identify with Dave too. An addict will always look for hypocrisy to justify his behavior. Even the appearence of hypocrisy.

That would be the issue to think on. And there is no definite answer. You do have every right to enjoy your beer. Trust me, I'm not judging. I do plenty of things I would rather my kids not do. I'm just putting the basic principal out there since you are in crisis mode. Sometimes extreme rules need to apply.....at least for a while. But you're the boss of your own house. You need to make the decision that will work for you and your family. :)

Also, I know you need a release. I'm equating your beer drinking with my having my moring coffee. I'd be pissed if I had to give it up. Even if it were to help a family member. Like I said, I'm identifying here, not judging !!






Hi Tony,
Actually, i stated i was a drinker because i thought it only fair that people knew where i was coming from if i was going to post comments about AA. As to alchoholism..it's all in the definition and whose interpretation of that definition we're talking about. I have found that when it's a recovering or reformed alcholic speaking, generally the definition will not include "causing problems in one's life". It's only a matter of whether you do it or do not. How little or how much doesn't come into play.

Am i justifying my use of alchohol? Well ya. When you are dealing with people who who look at you like you're consuming a gift from satan himself because you have a beer or 2 before bed...then hell ya i'm justifying it. Wouldn't you?

I'm not ambivilent about my relationship with beer. I like it. I'm not a teenager. It poses no problems whatsoever in my life other than the fact that alot of the people in my life are in recovery from addiction and tend to want to project their experiences with alchohol on me as well. If i find it causing problems for me...other than how those in recovery tend to view me...then i'll address it and make attempts to solve the problems as i do in any other aspect of my life.

"AA's shouldn't typically tell people they are alchohlics"...Tony, i'm finding alot of people are doing things they shouldn't be. That was really the point of my post with regard to AA.

Thanks for your concern, but i assure you, i'm fine:)

hermia

[hermia]

Hi David... yes of course it's possible that my drinking has an effect on my advice being accepted as valid by my son. I wrestled with that thought for many years. Any parent worth his weight in salt surely has to consider this type of thing. I'm not june cleaver.. i have plenty of little habits that are not so good and i wouldn't recommend others doing. When my son came along i sort of had to form some opinions in my own mind of what examples i felt were important to a child...what do kids have to see in their parents?...and i set about trying to create an atmosphere at home that fostered certain values. You know, all the regular stuff..be kind to others, don't lie, don't cheat and on and on. In all honesty, the example i set was a decent one. I did not come to that conclusion on a whim. I have brutally picked apart my own contribution to my son's behaviors over the years.

Just as an aside...the drinking with my son is a new thing. Not to say he didn't try it early on, but as far as i know it's recent. Initially he started with huffing around age 12/13. For years household items like hairspray, air freshener, and WD/40 were kept in a padlocked cupboard in my home. This moved on to marijuana and then most recently to this DXM stuff.

I suppose this is not the appropriate thread to use to talk about the problem with my son. Sorry about that Ray:)

hermia

[catsirish]

AA showed me my God, and then wanted to become it, I believe in the message but not the messengers not all of them anyway, so i study alone like a hermit. its too stressful out there. AA saved my life and gave me a blueprint for living, but i feel some meetings have moved away from the guidelines, and encourage guilt and co-dependence on the fellowship. so i had to leave, i felt tooo guilty because i was seen as a ''pigeon'' im a grown woman. oh im rantin, sorry

[ASchwartz]

Hi Catsirish,

I don't think you are "ranting" at all. What you describe makes perfect sense.

What do others think about Catsirish posting.

Allan:)

[xenophon]

The post by catsirish is fine. It was certainly not a rant.

I would just make the general point that a person and an organization are not compatible forever. If it is time to go on, one does just that.

[John Rutledge]

Not at all, Catsirish - even I believe I have an idea of what you are getting at; and this is certainly not "ranting". We have had our fair share of ranting around this topic In Here (some of it, to my shame, from me), and I am afraid that you will have to do a lot ... worse than that to qualify as a ranter in this league ... you know I'm just kidding !

Wishing you all the best,

[ASchwartz]

Hi Everyone,

So, what are some of the latest rants these days?

Allan :)

[JustTrying]

LOL!!!! are you bored Allen????

My latest rant is ..... that people KNOW I do not need to and am trying not to drink..... but they pull up in my yard with beer and ask if I want one..... DUH!!!!! Of course ..... but they can have one.... I can't,,,,,,

JT

I NEED to take my meds right... which I don't when I drink and I NEED to start taking care of myself.... how do you tell a friend of 10 yrs ..... that they are not helping you .... just hurting.... I will be cleaning the house... working on my website and the the Beer Fairy shows up and I am screwed for 2 or 3 days......Don't take my meds... don't do much of anything but drink.... don't tell me to goto rehab.... NOT happening.... unless someone comes to take care of my dogs.

[ASchwartz]

Hi Justtrying,

You have hit upon a major problem for those who no longer drink: How do you deal with people, especially family and friends, when they offer you a drink? This can be difficult because so many of us want to feel accepted and we do not wish to "offend others." I will be writing about this.

Well, first of all, people are not so easily offended as we fear they are.
Second, there is no need to behave offensively when we do not want a drink.

For example, if someone is a good friend, drives up to your house with a bunch of beer and offers it to you, just as you describe, you can tell them, "Sorry, but I no longer drink."

Some people will continue to insist on your having a drink and you have to be presistant. You need to repeat that "I do not drink anymore because it was a problem." If the still continue and tell you that "one will not hurt," you can tell them that "your problem is that one does hurt because you cannot stop."

How do I know?

I will not answer that unless you ask me. :)

Allan

[Symora]

I agree with Alan, people don't really care that much. I stopped drinking a number of years ago, never had a problem but just was not into it anymore. Most of the time people don't care at all. It is a concern of ours, but they have their own problems ;) I find the problem is mostly that it gets harder and harder to say no everytime they push a little more (my issue has been puffies). At first the conviction is there, but with every further nudge my resolve goes down and I think what the heck, can't really hurt, and then off I go...

I find that just saying no thanks, or yes I'd love a ginger ale, or juice or whatever, steers people in the right direction and off they go... the problem is with me, not with them. Are most of your friends drinkers? I always seem to be able to connect with the pot head in any group ... just feels more comfortable to me but not what I need ...

Salut Symora

[ASchwartz]

Hi Symora and Justtrying,

I would say, in response to what you posted, Symora, is that the problem is both with each of us and with our friends. Friends have a hard time hearing the word "NO." They want us to conform to the way we used to be. For example, a few years ago, when I lost weight that I needed to use due to blood pressure issues, one friend insisted I eat more even though he knew what the problem was. People become threatened when we change.

Still, its important to not cave in to pressure. That is for two reasons: 1. Each of us knows what is good for our health. Examples, weight loss as with me and not drinking as with many of us. 2. It is important that we be true to ourselves and be the individuals we are without caving in to pressure. I believe we feel worse when we cave because all we are doing is trying to win approval of others rather than sticking to our own individual principles.

Allan :)

[catsirish]

Thank you all for validating how I feel, especially when I feel up against the ''giants''.....what I know is that I dont know, thats what I know. Anyway, I do sometimes feel like a drink and a smoke, but Jan 17th I will have a year and a half, and I will go and get a chip. No matter how well I get, there is still always a void. a ''whats the meaning of life'' void.

[xenophon]

Well, first of all, there really are no 'giants'. There may be some who think that they may be giants. Self respect and self confidence are quite important though. Having both does not indicate that you think that you are a giant.

Wanting to have a drink and a smoke and actually having one are quite distinct. catsirish, you are not unusual iin that regard.

Finding the meaning of life is not always easy. We all find our own path to that. In the USA, most people just go with the standard versaion of Christianity. It is OK to go down a different path.