I always find that a discordant note but I've never seen anyone fight about it. Maybe they took it to the parking lot ;)

I have strong feelings against the promotion of theistic nonsense. Especially when the secular government violates the separation of church and state and orders it. Or an employer orders it. Individuals may embrace whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. I may be wrong, but I do believe that some 12 step programs are often government and church supported. There is a reason that some churches support it. It's an investment. Part of the long con. The cure being their mythical god. So in the future, you find yourself tithing.

By baked-in tradition AA groups are never government or church sponsored. They're not affiliated with any sects or denominations and are fully funded from member contributions. No one gives you the stink-eye if you don't put a dollar in the basket.

That hasn't stopped churches from adopting their own versions, but that's not AA. And the treatment industry tends to lean heavily on the 12-step model, but that's not AA, either. AA will NEVER adopt any form of tithing. The encouragement to find a higher power does not specify what that power should be although many members do call that power God as does the literature. Some will call GOD an acronym for "good, orderly direction." It's entirely up to the individual.

Don't mean to preach but many people simply have an inaccurate understanding about what 12-step programs are and what they do. They're not based on the Bible and they asks nothing of their members except voluntary and quite modest contributions. The higher power can be the process itself as theprestige suggested. You could call it your own better self, the part that wants to heal, survive and thrive. Just probably not the part of your brain you use to rationalize your addiction.

I disagree. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" makes disbelief in those gods sacrosanct. It's explicit in the text.


Makes perfect sense. Or, at least as much sense as any other aspect of religious doctrine.


Well, yes.

Most people with court ordered rehab are going through the motions to stay out of jail or keep their jobs.

They don't want to be fixed, they like the bad habits. They will dilute the best efforts of any program.

Anyone who wants to break an addiction has s far better chance at making a success of any program. Especially if he is capable if breaking with old friends and making a new start.

And you don't even need a rehab center or AA if the willpower exists to stay on track.

But if it helps the person should seek the flavor of rehab center he will respond to best. Even if it is a church run program.

This is real life experience from living in areas like thus. They were my neighbors and friends. Were....

Not really. The ancient Hebrews were monolatrous, not monotheist. They believed multiple gods existed, but only worshipped one of them. The "no other gods before me" only makes sense if there are other gods to be jealous of.

True monotheism was a much later idea.

I think that's part of why 12 step programs don't work.

Also much more boring.

Also, when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, he says, "I am the god of your father, Abraham." As opposed to the god of the tribe down the street, etc. Again, an implicit acknowledgement of the existence of other gods.

Well, an implicit acknowledgement of the existence of belief in other gods, at least.

---

Fast zombies are real. Worry about fast zombies, not slow zombies.

Ha! You just acknowledged that slow zombies are real!

Arguments by analogy always fail.

There's a great deal more than two quotations on which to base the interpretation that the ancient Hebrews were monolatrous. I think it would be a derail to pursue it further here. But it's not something I just made up, it's a pretty standard belief in religious studies. Academics with credentials, etc.

Entropy. In fact, it is the supreme power.

According to Wikipedia, though, 'It is frequently stipulated that as long as a higher power is "greater" than the individual, then the only condition is that it should also be loving and caring.' I think that kind of rules out entropy.

Dave

"And Chaos so loved Her creation Matter that she sent her only begotten daughter Entropia to spread it all out in a thin uniform goo across the whole of Heaven and Earth that none might say 'behold, for my palace is sturdier than thy hut', and all would enjoy Matter equally [or rather would have, had they themselves not been spread into a uniform goo as well] ...".

Wonder if that would fly in a 12 step?

Well there's that pesky problem that AA doesn't work regardless of whether or not you believe in a higher power that should really be the topic here

I've always thought that the "make amends" step is a bad idea more often than not. Especially for narcotics addicts. If you're deep enough into hard dope that you're coming to meetings (especially involuntarily), then you need to just break ties with almost everyone you know. Also, most of the time, seeking people out and digging up old wrongs only makes those wronged people uncomfortable all over again. Has anyone here ever been "step 9'd" by somebody you know who's working a program? It's sooooo awkward. It just feels like empty theatre, when I would have preferred to just never talk about the time you stole $20 off my night stand ever again.

Apologize to your family and close friends if you got 'em, but for the most part, the world moves on. Also, apologize to the people you need to just because you want to apologize. Don't be like "I'm at the step where I make amends." Call up your mom, and say, "Mom, I'm sorry I've hurt you. I'm ready to get better. I'm even in a program." See the difference? **** Step 9. I am anti step 9.

Again, these are my opinions. They are pulled from my (slightly educated) butthole.

The out for step 9 is there is a caveat: ... unless doing so would cause additional harm (or something to that effect, I'm not inclined to look it up).

Right, but my argument is that it almost always causes harm. The caveat isn't referring to the subtleties of harm that I'm trying to get across. (It's a bit abstract, so I may not be doing a good job of wording things.)

I've been kind of being deliberately vague in this thread, but full disclosure - I have been on all sides of this thing. I have been on the counselor's side, the (er) client side, and the loved one of client side. So my opinions are sort of a half-formed mishmash based on all that. It's interesting to discuss, but I do not want anyone to think that I'm certain about anything I'm saying.

This is similar to Trimpey's Big Choice

Your words were "non belief" as in "lack of belief". (Telling an atheist here that they DIS-believe in gods is like waving a red flag in front of a bull).

Only a "belief" can be sacrosanct. Not having a belief can't be regarded as a sacrosanct position otherwise atheism would be a religion.

Here is a link to "The Orange Papers," a detailed explanation of the history and shortcomings of AA. I doubt anyone who has drunk the flavor aide already will have any epiphany but it should provide insight for those who are unfamiliar with the organization.

The most meaningful amends IMO are the ones made by a daily and hopefully lasting change in behavior. The point is to blast through the shame many addicts feel about the past. It's useless or worse to try to rush through the process on some kind of apology tour. Bill cribbed the 9th step from an Anglo-Catholic movement that was big on auricular confession but it's a sensitive issue and at the least it requires (IMO) time for reflection about the harm caused, if any, and how to remedy it.

Did anyone just give you your $20 back? IMO that would be meaningful, even if done covertly. Apologizing without restitution is pointless. IMO.

What makes you think that the highlighted is not a meaningful expression of the 9th step? It's a valid thing to say if it helps repair some of the harm, but actually following up with changed behavior is probably more important.

There are people who think Bill conveniently decided on the 9th step wording in order to avoid confessing infidelities to his wife (because it would only hurt her worse, you see). I don't know if that's true, but it's a heck of a workaround. Believing he had covered his spiritual bases probably helped him not drink. He had other problems though.

My understanding of 12 step programs is all second hand. As I said before, I may have my own demons, but drugs or alcohol has never been one of them.

I know people who swear by these programs and others who found them useless. I know atheists who said that religious overtones was just too much for them. But I can't say what it is like.

Admittedly, I have a bone to pick with all the charlatans, bigotry and religious influence in our lives. I see pastors as con artists. It's insidious and makes me sick. It's an issue in prisons, our military and it is an issue with mental health. Mythology is not an answer.

As I read more about his situation this stood out (from the link in the OP):

No they don't.

ETA: Had to add this:
There is no such requirement. You can go to meetings toasted if you want. No one kicks you out of AA if you drink or use. If you're unduly disruptive, someone might have a word with you.

I'm not sure that every 12 step program is run the same way. Attitudes regarding religion vary a great deal. So while 12 step programs in SF definitely may be more secular, it could be very different in Missouri or South Carolina.

I used to live near a locale where a step 5 group met and they were the most foul mouthed lot. The guy in charge found it worked to keep his group comfortable. Now after work I pass another. It used to be a bar but now a quite christian group (all neighbors to my work ) meet and I have heard prayers there.

And not one foul word.

The local hq of AA rents an office directly over the biggest liquor store in town. I find that funny.

I’d be lying if I said that AA didn’t save my life, but it also – towards the end – left me in a state of overwhelming cognitive dissonance.

As far as I can tell, this is a fairly typical statement among people who benefited from AA but who ultimately decided on another path.

And that's fine.

At a meeting I noticed tables were equipped with bottles of hand sanitizer - i.e., ethanol.

I find that funny!

And you are wrong. The steps explicitly state that it is NOT anything to do with yourself.

Step 1:We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.

Step one explicitly states that the individual has bugger all control.

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

Step two explicitly hands over power to an external agent. It is a fundamental abdication of personal responsibility.

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

Yay. Blatant theism.

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

No issue there

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

Oh here we go. No God there, no sir.

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

And now it is God's problem, not the individuals. If only they had faith enough.

Step 7: Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

And now we have to worship him/her/it/housecat and bend the knee.

Step 8: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Step 9: Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Valid.

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

Well, duh.

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

Wow. Talk about grovelling.

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

Invitation to proselytize

Now brothers and sisters let us conclude with the lords prayer (Yes, they do that at every meeting).

It is simply another example of the religious preying on the most vulnerable. Pretending it is anything else is just stupid.

So what about their success rate? It has been measured. It is the single worst method for recovery. It is worse than spontaneous recovery.

If you want to stop drinking it's worth a shot, IMO. If your goal is moderation, there are other options. I would suggest checking out a few different meetings because you may relate better to some people than others.

Caricatures of AA are often inaccurate.

If you're a Christian/theist or someone who can simply don't care about the obvious religious themes, I can see how these programs could work. Although, my guess, it is the support group of others going through the same issues that offers the greatest benefits.

I personally would have a hell of a time trying to recover with it. People don't choose their beliefs. You either believe something or not.

You can tell me all day that there are invisible fairies that are in charge of our lives and if I think it's a crock, no amount of coercion is likely to change my mind. I may "go along" because I have to but I'm not likely to be vested in my recovery.

And that is the crux of the problem. Isn't it hard enough to get those with substance abuse problems to be committed in the first place?

Yep, there is a ready-made network that's free and accessible to anyone.

In the 1930s, positing a "God of your understanding" was actually quite a liberal concept. That's changed over time, obviously, and it now reeks of excessive religiosity.

That coercion is not coming from AA.

I tried to research if meetings in different parts of the country are more religious than others. But I think it would be somewhat self-correcting. An individual might get preachy - "You gotta believe or you're going to die!" - but in my experience they'll be asked to wrap it up after a couple of minutes. Then someone else might say, "For me, the important thing was finding something I could believe in."

If you can do it on willpower alone, that's fine too. But apparently it wasn't OK with the BC board of nursing.

There is IMO a misconception of what AA is for. It's not about saving someone else's skin, it's about saving your own. If you can help someone else in the process, terrific.

Internally there are controversies - nonsmoking meetings once had vehement detractors - but it's worked out within an AA framework of governance. I've noticed many groups no longer close with the Lord's Prayer. But they're not going to rewrite the steps just to avoid triggering atheists. At least, not yet.

The guy in the OP has suffered psychosis, nearly died of a heroin overdose in another incident and has lost not just his job but his registration to be a professional nurse. Reading between the lines, I think he might be looking for a way to use more safely. And there may be one. He has tried naltrexone, which actually requires you to drink again to reach "extinction." It's fine as part of a recovery plan, but by itself, it's not a plan.

This guy had a doctor-supplied plan that I'm certain had components other than just going to AA - probably including professional counseling, maybe including naltrexone. As for meetings, sometimes it is useful to go through the motions. That might sound absurd, but it demonstrates a commitment to recovery. And he might make a friend, or help someone else.

One workaround is to have new hires read and sign an employee handbook disclosing typical terms of a medical treatment plan.

I've heard AA is more secular in Australia than it is in the U.S. I suspect the same is true in Canada. Although Agnostic AA was taken off the Toronto meeting list, it still uses "AA" on its own website. These are accommodations that have evolved over time. Many AA members are sensitive to reducing perceived barriers to the program's usefulness.

I got carried away with my sermon but I'm just trying to illustrate that the situation is much more nuanced than "AA forces atheists to pray" - which is not true to begin with.

You should read the AA Twelve Traditions.

AA unity comes first. Failure to conform means probable death.

Sounds like a creepy-ass cult to me.

That would be because it is a creepy ass cult.

If one has a working method for recovery from anything, why is it's measured success rate actually worse than nothing at all?

The traditions are talking about traditions of the organization. In practice unity means that the organization as a whole does not get involved in public controversies. Meanwhile accommodations like the one in Toronto speak to what happens in practice: Toronto governance elected not to put Agnostic AA in its meeting list, but Agnostic AA still calls itself "Agnostic AA."

There's a long, long thread from a few years back that examines in detail how various entities arrived at those success rates. Some measure success as reduced or moderated drinking. If that works for someone, great. It's not how AA measures success, largely because AA doesn't measure success. It's a collection of anecdotes.

Medical boards don't seem to have much patience with their practitioners experimenting with moderation once they've been diagnosed with a disorder. I can't blame them.

Earlier you said:
No they don't. The errors of fact people make bug me, which they probably shouldn't. My best attitude for recovery is that your attitude is none of my business.

AA by long tradition will not step up to defend itself from people jeering at it. Many people can find reasons to reject it. For example, one poster is against the 9th step, while you find it perfectly valid. Here's a fable about a man and his son trying to cross a river with a donkey. Trying to please everyone, they manage to drown the donkey.

Yes. They do. Eye/ear witness right here.

No, they don't say the Lord's Prayer at every meeting. Groups adopt formats, formats can change over time.

Have you ever actually heard anyone at an AA meeting say, "Brothers and sisters"? It's possible, but I've never encountered that.

Yes. It is commonplace in the AA movement. I have seen it and heard it. Now what?

I've never seen "brothers and sisters," but I have seen many, many many AA meetings at the VA where I used to volunteer - At the end of the meeting someone says "Who's father" and they all respond "Our father...." and go on to finish the prayer. Some of the other ones do the serenity prayer instead, or the member running the meeting gets to choose between the two.

Now nothing, I guess. I have never heard anything like that in hundreds of meetings.

I like the DFD groups
:D

The real trick to recovery is getting whatever help you need before the state or your employer is involved, before the car crash is best. It's really hard to explain dead bodies while blitzed drunk.

A few friends of mine figured it out and didn't get the states scarlet letter, went on to improved lives. Most had superman syndrome so badly they didn't need to change, a few fell out of the parts of society that demanded sobriety.

Those that got caught suffered the whizdumb of state run programs, those that fought it and 'won' got worse. States need revenue to keep offices staffed and the guys in the system give a lot of money.
Social worker and parole officers know how to justify their positions.

https://aabeyondbelief.org/

"This group of A.A. attempts to maintain a tradition of free expression, and conduct a meeting where alcoholics may feel free to express any doubts or disbeliefs they may have, and to share their own personal form of spiritual experience, their search for it, or their rejection of it. We do not endorse or oppose any form of religion or atheism. Our only wish is to assure suffering alcoholics that they can find sobriety in A.A. without having to accept anyone else’s beliefs or having to deny their own."

Agnostic AA Preamble

Having watched alcohol/drugs take people that I love, I don't care what thought process someone uses to get clean

That's a very kind thing to say. Thank you.

I don't either. I thought the subject of the thread was courts forcing people to participate in programs with plainly religious overtones. I object to that. Like I said, I worked at a rehab center that used the 12-step method, told people it wouldn't be religious, then made them use religious language and weird submissive mentalities. Anything required by courts should be completely (not just ostensibly) secular, in my opinion, period.

I was never talking about meetings people go to of their own accord. Why would I care what AA does with people who freely choose it? I listed some of my personal reasons for not liking its methodology, but I also don't like superhero movies. I'm not advocating for their removal from society.

Re: the highlighted: Who "made them use religious language?" How were they forced to use "weird submissive mentalities?

As far as I know, AA doesn't require attendees to use religious language or weird submissive mentalities.

A quibble, he is making the claim against his employer. I'd be curious if there was an employees' handbook that spelled out what would happen if staffers were diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder.

Got it. I was pretty sure you weren't talking about data-flow diagrams.