AA & religion

[Nightwatch]

deleted......

Edited December 13, 2011 by Nightwatch

[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.

[Guest 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.

Allan

[Guest 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.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Tony J

[xenophon]

Tony -- make it so.

Better luck next time indeed.

[John Rutledge]

deleted......

Edited October 27, 2009 by John Rutledge
Typo

[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

).

Edited October 9, 2009 by progree

[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......

Edited October 27, 2009 by John Rutledge

[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 ?

[Guest 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....

Edited February 5, 2010 by JulianP

[John Rutledge]

deleted.....

Edited October 27, 2009 by John Rutledge
Editorial.

[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 ?

[Nightwatch]

deleted.....

Edited December 13, 2011 by Nightwatch

[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.

[Nightwatch]

deleted......

Edited December 13, 2011 by Nightwatch

[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.

[Nightwatch]

deleted.............

Edited December 13, 2011 by Nightwatch

[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.