RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com

RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 9:06:29 PM)
quote: Very low success rates are across the board in the field of recovery. Which was the saddening conclusion I came to in my research. I looked under every rock I could to try to find answers.

tweakabelle -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 9:08:54 PM)
Yes. Just that one fact alone ought to convince people of the merits of multiple approaches I would have thought. I can't think of any other field where a failure rate of 95% would be considered acceptable. Economic forecasts perhaps??[:D]

juliaoceania -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 9:13:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Yes. Just that one fact alone ought to convince people of the merits of multiple approaches I would have thought. I can't think of any other field where a failure rate of 95% would be considered acceptable. Economic forecasts perhaps??[:D] This goes back to my original statement, which was that I think that AA is great for those it helps, but that it should not be sold as treatment for a disease because it is not treatment. It is at the very least a spiritual philosophy for coping with a disease. And mind you, there are some really groovy things I think it puts forward. I dig on the Serenity Prayer... live one day at a time, change the things you can, etc etc etc.....just not in prayer form for me personally.

LinnaeaBorealis -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 9:22:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark For as large an organization as AA is, I never new it had a base in religion. I knew that the meetings were sometimes held in church's classrooms and all but, had no idea aside from that. So, to be friend of Bob's you need to be a friend of Jesus? Absolutely not!!! I am going to assume that you posted this without actually reading the other posts.

LinnaeaBorealis -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 9:42:27 PM)
I have been in total agreement with the statistics of successful recovery. In my knowledge, it has only ever been 5% of alcoholics who get sober & die sober. Since before AA & since AA. Since every model of treatment that has come along since. 5%. That's it. No matter what is tried. This is why I have never told anyone there is one twue way to sobriety. I offer someone who wants help every model that I am aware of & numbers to people who may know of others. Because there is no one twue way!! My son tried them all, including the one that told him he could drink responsibly. He wasn't one of the ones who could. Do you know what's finally changed his life? A Methadone program. He got so badly strung out on oxycontin that he was in grave danger. So he & his wife sought help & found the Methadone program. Because they both really do have intractable severe chronic pain. If I was a one-twue-wayer, I would tell him he's still not sober. But his life has changed for the better & he & his family are happy finally. Who would argue with that, except an idiot??? As for your assertion that AA is for Christians, julia: it was built on the ideas of the Oxford Society, which was Christian based. Nowhere in the literature is Christ mentioned. For most of the world, God does not equal Christ. And it has been made clear here over & over & over that one doesn't even need to believe in God to be a member & to get sober & maintain sobriety. There are fucking idiots in all areas of life; doesn't mean you have to follow them over the cliff!!! The real problem with this whole idea of people telling others about one twue ways & their falling for it is that people are not taught to think for themselves. Let's work on that problem before we toss AA under the bus because of some idiots who belong!

tweakabelle -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 10:55:36 PM)
I don't believe that any one is suggesting that AA/NA gets thrown under a bus. I do find it strange that an approach that offers such a limited success rate is viewed and promoted by some as the sole means to recovery. And I do find it odd that an organisation that must be aware of its own success rate is, apparently, unable to modify its methods. As far I can tell there hasn't been that much change in 12 Step approaches since their foundational era. Perhaps it is time for a review of its methods? Or an acknowledgement that the AA way isn't the only way? Abandon the one size fits all approach? With results like this after a almost a century of operation one would have though some reflection on these points would be warranted. These questions do have real impacts. Here in Australia, most Govt Health Depts have adopted harm minimisation philosophies. The older AA model is losing its former monopoly status. But there are still huge catfights for funding $ between institutions that operate on the various models. These questions also impact on the debate about legalising/continuing to prohibit drugs.

juliaoceania -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 11:28:04 PM)
quote: As for your assertion that AA is for Christians, julia: it was built on the ideas of the Oxford Society, which was Christian based. Nowhere in the literature is Christ mentioned. For most of the world, God does not equal Christ. And it has been made clear here over & over & over that one doesn't even need to believe in God to be a member & to get sober & maintain sobriety. I never said that everyone that goes to AA is a Christian, what I mean by being Christian in its approach is as follows... A Christian believes that Jesus died for their sins (not a hit in the AA philosophy) In order to be a Christian you must submit your will to god (hit) The only way to do that is to accept Jesus as your savior and repent your sins (hit for half of this, because AA advocates atonement) We are supposed to realize that we are nothing without Jesus (we have no power to do anything good without accepting Jesus into our lives because we are flawed, in other words we cannot manage our lives without god... sound familiar?) I was raised with some of these ideas... not both of my parents, but one kinda thought this way. I studied this religion pretty thoroughly. I hear my brother still spout these ideas, and they rub me the wrong way on a personal level. It is a philosophy of needing a higher power (god, Jesus, Allah, whatever) to live life. Now, I know not everyone who belongs to AA buys that philosophy, some are atheists, yadda yadda yadda.... but the 12 steps are based on the entire "Give my life, my will over to Jesus and repent of my sins because I am a lowly scumbag in a meatsuit" view of the world. Now, I will argue with my last breath for people to have that world view if they like it, it is no skin off my nose. I am a First Amendment sorta gal... Yay for freedom of religion and all... And I even think people should believe this helps them to stay sober, hell it might work for them... In fact I have read many people on this thread it has worked for... Yay for them! I am really sincere about that. I am not saying it shouldn't work for ya....But the fact remains that it is still a world view that is built from a certain perspective based on biblical principles... if those principles worked for me, I guess I would be a Christian.... not that there is anything wrong with being one. It makes sense that this world view would be popular in many countries with large Christian populations, because it is familiar to most of us... taking moral inventory, making up for our mistakes, etc etc etc, pretty mainstream ideas. I will even say that I agree with one day at a time, and releasing resistance with meditation, etc....I totally believe that people should accept the things they cannot change, change the things they can, and try to figure out what the difference is... that is an incredibly important life tool! I suppose what I should say at the end of this post, is at the end of the day, if it is working for ya, well it really doesn't matter where the ideas came from, does it?

Arpig -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 11:33:35 PM)
quote: Look, if you're powerless over your addiction, then treatment is pointless, and recovery impossible. If you're not powerless over alcohol, they why would you need treatment? There's no problem. Don't these two statements pretty much refute the need for any recovery programs altogether? 1. You are powerless...treatment won't work...no need for it. 2. You are not powerless...no need for it.

LinnaeaBorealis -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/9/2011 11:52:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Look, if you're powerless over your addiction, then treatment is pointless, and recovery impossible. If you're not powerless over alcohol, they why would you need treatment? There's no problem. Don't these two statements pretty much refute the need for any recovery programs altogether? 1. You are powerless...treatment won't work...no need for it. 2. You are not powerless...no need for it. You, like at least one other poster on this thread is equating the terms "alcohol" & "addiction". They are not the same thing. If they were the same thing, everyone who took one drink of alcohol would be termed addicted. What's so hard about separating the terms in your mind? They are not the same thing. Alcohol is a substance, addiction is a response to some substances in some people. Nowhere in the literature of AA does it say that one needs to admit to being powerless over an addiction. It says that they are powerless over the substance. Sort of like equating the word "God" with the man Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the AA literature is the name of Jesus Christ written. The men who began the program understood that there were non-Christians who needed the benefit of a program like AA. The did base it on the principals of The Oxford Society which was a Christian organization, but they didn't call their organization a Christian organization. It works for alcoholics in every country in the world for people from every religion & spiritual belief, including for atheists. They called it "God as I understand him" & they used the masculine pronoun because back then there were only 2 gender pronouns & the masculine was used to denote human or god when being non-gender specific. And I hear you. tweakabelle, about the low success rate; but you're not hearing me when I tell you that every single program in existence has the same success rate with addiction, and it's the same success rate for not going to any program at all. So why single AA out as having a low success rate when it's no lower than any other program. If you can show me statistics that prove otherwise, I'd love to be able to admit that my information is faulty or at the least outdated.

tweakabelle -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/10/2011 1:22:13 AM)
quote: And I hear you. tweakabelle, about the low success rate; but you're not hearing me when I tell you that every single program in existence has the same success rate with addiction, and it's the same success rate for not going to any program at all. So why single AA out as having a low success rate when it's no lower than any other program. If you can show me statistics that prove otherwise, I'd love to be able to admit that my information is faulty or at the least outdated. Here's one reason. Mjr Brian Watters of the Salvation Army is a leading figure in D & A policy here and a member of the International Narcotic Control Board. He insists the the AA model is the "only way" to recovery. He has blocked countless sensible initiatives (eg blocking spreading the very successful heroin using facility experiment in Sydney to other cities in Australia or having it adopted Federally). I can recall him making statements like "500 deaths per year from drugs is acceptable"). His background is in the Salvation Army D & A Services. Their rehab facility in Sydney, the William Booth Institute, demands that rehab patients attend religious services twice a week and pray every day. Patients who fail to meet the religious requirements of the Salvation Army are ejected from the facility. Watters opposes drug law relaxation tooth and nail. He insists a singular philosophy with a limited success rate as the only way to deal with the issue. He opposes any initiative that falls outside his narrow philosophy. He does his best to ensure funding is channelled to institutions that adhere to his philosophy, and away from any institution that fails to adhere to his philosophy. Personally I feel this dinosaur's actions are (at least indirectly) responsible for innumerable unnecessary deaths (accidental overdoses, blood-borne diseases etc) here in Australia. I suppose it could be said that it's a little unfair to hold AA responsible for the activities of adherents such as Watters. My feeling is that if AA accepted its low success rate, it could no longer maintain its insistence on being the only way, and people like Watters would have to move aside. AA philosophy provides the underpinning, the foundation and the models that guide his actions. It is the intellectual argument he uses to justify his misguided actions. Take that away and he has nothing to offer. It's also the case that I am personalising (in Watters) Salvation Army policy that he is largely responsible for adopting and maintaining. But I do hope you can see beyond the example of Watters to my real point here - while this philosophy has been helpful to some people, aspects of it are inadvertently doing real harm to others.

Arpig -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/10/2011 2:31:35 AM)
Holy crap you're right! I didn't even notice that one line said addiction and the other alcohol. Since it was MM's post I had a feeling I had missed something, and it seems I did. I completely and utterly withdraw my question. Thanks Linn.

tweakabelle -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/10/2011 3:14:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Holy crap you're right! I didn't even notice that one line said addiction and the other alcohol. Since it was MM's post I had a feeling I had missed something, and it seems I did. I completely and utterly withdraw my question. Thanks Linn. That might work with alcohol or even drugs. But it gets a bit ticklish when you apply it to behavioural addictions - like say gambling. Or so it seems to me. For me behaviours always involve choices. Calling all these things habits solves the problem - but at a cost for certain perspectives.

Arpig -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/10/2011 3:32:06 AM)
I'm not going to get into it. I was just skimming the thread and spotted what I thought was a nonsensical post from MM and decided to ask for clarification, because while I don't always agree with him, he rarely posts something in a way that makes no sense. In this case the differentiation between the addiction itself and the substance to which one is addicted makes his statements make sense.

tweakabelle -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/10/2011 3:42:09 AM)
LOLl such a wise choice [:D] It can get rather complex from here!

Musicmystery -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/10/2011 7:18:58 AM)
quote: I do find it strange that an approach that offers such a limited success rate is viewed and promoted by some as the sole means to recovery. There is a historical reason. At the time of AA's roots in the 30s, there was no effective treatment-for/approach-to alcohol addiction. People continued to return to it until they died. AA got a lot of attention and credit because, even if in low numbers, it offered some success, and for those successfully in recovery, the number is sufficient. And a support system is always helpful. Granted, there are other approaches since then. But the prominence of AA isn't arbitrary, just a carry over.

MusicalBoredom -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/10/2011 7:41:20 AM)
As to the original thread, I'm not sure why a couple of groups are really being omitted from a list. It doesn't seem right to me but I'm sure I haven't heard the whole story either. City's intergroups -- those entities that do things like have a central office, publish meeting lists and answer phone -- are not part of the AA service structure. That is they aren't part of AA, they are run by a people who to go to meetings are groups around the area and some of the AA meetings donate money to the intergroup to pay for things like phones and such. As to the court ordered stuff, the people that I know that had court ordered meetings had them so ordered as a way to reduce their sentence or as an alternative to jail time. That is, a judge found them guilty and gave them a sentence then gave them an alternative to the sentence as a condition. The terms of the condition are usually along the lines of staying clean (randomly tested) and participation is some outpatient program. That person could have easily chosen the jail time. My personal opinion is that simply requiring random drug tests and staying out of trouble might be enough and for the courts to supply various resources that might be helpful but not required. As to AA, I've been sober for 21 years and I got sober in AA. I have a host of friends that were here when I got here and are still here. Maybe I could have done it another way, maybe I could drink moderately, maybe I could get high. I don't know the answers to those questions but I do know what has worked for me and I'm not willing to screw up my life again to see what those answers are. In other words why would I fix what wasn't broken. The AA I got sober with told me that if I had any medical issues then I should see a doctor as AA didn't have any medical expertise (even if some egocentric members think they know everything about everything). I was also told that AA didn't have a monopoly on sobriety or spirituality. I was specifically told that many people have been able to do the right thing without but that if I were like them and had tried the other methods without success then perhaps I could get the same results that got if I did the same things they did. I never did any of it perfectly and nobody every made be feel less that for my lack of perfection. That's just my experience though. Edited to add that this response was to nobody in particular but in response to the whole thread.

atursvcMaam -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/10/2011 8:42:15 PM)
My apologies, perhaps diatribe was not the correct word. I was simply questioning the source of this number, and appreciate your answers. My narrow statistical universe gives AA a much better success ratio. I am aware of quite a few potential candidates who may have only made one meeting, and never attended a second, and others who read the brochures, but hever went beyond that. From there I could believe a 5% or less success rate.

angelikaJ -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/11/2011 7:45:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: As for your assertion that AA is for Christians, julia: it was built on the ideas of the Oxford Society, which was Christian based. Nowhere in the literature is Christ mentioned. For most of the world, God does not equal Christ. And it has been made clear here over & over & over that one doesn't even need to believe in God to be a member & to get sober & maintain sobriety. The only way to do that is to accept Jesus as your savior and repent your sins (hit for half of this, because AA advocates atonement) Taking honest stock of one's life includes doing away with the delusion that one is the worst person in the world. Facing up to the wrongs one did and making amends except when to do so would do harm others is a way of freeing one's self from the terrible guilt that alcoholics have to deal with. That guilt is a poison. The Program teaches people not only that it is possible to not drink (and really ask anybody with an addiction issue and the notion of giving that thing up forever is daunting... but to do it for one day? That is probably do-able.) ...but it also teaches people that it is possible to live without alcohol in their lives; that they can get their lives back on tract and be happy without it. So despite the bad taste it evidently leaves in your mouth, that it works well for some people and that despite a lot of slips a lot of people do go back until they find sobriety. The people who slip and then return, very often will find sobriety in the rooms eventually. And I don't think they are failures. There is a lot of cognitive stuff within AA. Change your thinking, the behavior will change. Today a lot of research is backing up the cognitive therapuetic approache for many types of including depression. In addition you have the support of the group and the support of a sponsor. My understanding and experience of AA and Al-Anon and other similar groups is that they are spiritual programs but not religious. If you choose not to say a prayer, no one asks you to leave. The only requirement for membership in AA is a desire to stop drinking. You don't have to be sober to walk in to a first meeting... or a second, or a 10th. Some people might not ever move past the desire to stop drinking. They can still be AA members. When AA was founded we did not have the term Dual-diagnosis in any medical books. One of the reasons why addictions are so difficult to treat is that very few people are only addicted. Usually they are addicted and have some form of mental illness. For sobriety to stick you have to treat both.

juliaoceania -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/11/2011 8:40:03 AM)
Way to take my quote out of context there... I said ONE thing on this thread that I was mistaken about, AA does not teach one they are powerless over their addictions. I invited people to tell me what other mistakes I may have made... you haven't told me where I am mistaken in the above post, because I am not mistaken. This is what I have said about the program, IN CONTEXT, I have said it was founded on biblical principles. The 12 steps are straight from a Christian world view, especially in regard to the concept of POWERLESSNESS, which is the main theme of AA that I have trouble with from a personal level... it is the first step, for crying out loud. I never said that people shouldn't get value out of it. I never said people should quit going to meetings. I never advocated for the destruction of AA. I never said it never helped anyone ever. If it suits people to be powerless, and give their will over to god, GO THEM. If it suits Atheists to find a way through those steps without actually doing them, GO THEM.... as I have said several times, I do not think MY PERSONAL OPINION SHOULD MATTER TO SUCH PEOPLE. At the same time, I cannot believe so many people are so very defensive about a treatment for a disease. If this were any other disease, with another treatment regime, I cannot imagine people getting bent out of shape over my saying, "treatment is only 5% effective after 5 years, which is the same as the placebo effect" and then saying we need new treatments! Experts in the field of addiction are stumped with how to help, but that does not mean there are not multiple moralities for people. The 95% of those who fail with AA should perhaps be encouraged to seek help elsewhere...but AA delists such groups from their site, never mentions them in the literature. When I went for counseling and was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder my therapist gave me a list of treatment options and then recommended one to me. I didn't want to take the drugs, so I did other things. I didn't want to risk being spaced out, like I had seen my sister on the same meds, so I chose a more natural way of controlling anxiety. My sister didn't get pissed off at me for not taking meds, even though she swears they worked for her. What I see on this thread is unneeded defensiveness towards people who have similar goals, just different ideas about how to get there. And that is very bizarre to me

angelikaJ -> RE: Does religion belong at AA? Fight over God splits Toronto AA groups - thestar.com (6/11/2011 8:53:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Way to take my quote out of context there... I said ONE thing on this thread that I was mistaken about, AA does not teach one they are powerless over their addictions. I invited people to tell me what other mistakes I may have made... you haven't told me where I am mistaken in the above post, because I am not mistaken. This is what I have said about the program, IN CONTEXT, I have said it was founded on biblical principles. The 12 steps are straight from a Christian world view, especially in regard to the concept of POWERLESSNESS, which is the main theme of AA that I have trouble with from a personal level... it is the first step, for crying out loud. I never said that people shouldn't get value out of it. I never said people should quit going to meetings. I never advocated for the destruction of AA. I never said it never helped anyone ever. If it suits people to be powerless, and give their will over to god, GO THEM. If it suits Atheists to find a way through those steps without actually doing them, GO THEM.... as I have said several times, I do not think MY PERSONAL OPINION SHOULD MATTER TO SUCH PEOPLE. At the same time, I cannot believe so many people are so very defensive about a treatment for a disease. If this were any other disease, with another treatment regime, I cannot imagine people getting bent out of shape over my saying, "treatment is only 5% effective after 5 years, which is the same as the placebo effect" and then saying we need new treatments! Experts in the field of addiction are stumped with how to help, but that does not mean there are not multiple moralities for people. The 95% of those who fail with AA should perhaps be encouraged to seek help elsewhere...but AA delists such groups from their site, never mentions them in the literature. When I went for counseling and was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder my therapist gave me a list of treatment options and then recommended one to me. I didn't want to take the drugs, so I did other things. I didn't want to risk being spaced out, like I had seen my sister on the same meds, so I chose a more natural way of controlling anxiety. My sister didn't get pissed off at me for not taking meds, even though she swears they worked for her. What I see on this thread is unneeded defensiveness towards people who have similar goals, just different ideas about how to get there. And that is very bizarre to me I was not defensive and did not attack your post. I did not suggest you were mistaken, julia. I merely explained that the reasoning behind Fourth and Fifth steps *might* have less to do with Christianity than you think. I offered a different view. I also offered insight as to why treating addictions is so difficult.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375