Re: AA & Catholicism & religion in general (was Going to church)

[Guest guest]

AA is religious becuase it spouts a specfic belief, that god if you

pray god will awnsers your prayers and remove your defects. that

god has a will and plan for you to follow. that god was a universal

creator.

wilson though this was a universal truth all religions shared and

none would be conflicted with. he was a moron.

> > > Yeah, I'm Catholic but I haven't been practicing as well as I

would

> > > like lately.

> > > [...]

> > > You're right, Catholic theology has nothing in common with

AA,

> >other

> > > than a popular prayer.

> >

> >I'm certainly no theologian, but I can't think of *any*

conventional

> >religion, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, that would seem to

dovetail

> >with steppism.

> >

> >AA has often been criticized as " religious " , but I think one

could

> >equally well call it " anti-religious " , in the same sense that it's

> >anti-family, anti-marriage, etc. Anyone joining AA will at some

> >point be expected to put their " sobriety " (and along with it, AA,

BB,

> >HP, and the group) ahead of their religion, family, marriage,

etc.

> >It's been said before, but AA is first and foremost about AA,

not

> >keeping people alcohol-free or anything else.

>

> Seems to me that AA is religious in the same sense that

Christianity

> is religious -- i.e., it is a religion. Naturally it would be difficult to

> practice two religions at the same time, so most people who

> convert to AA end up giving up their previous faiths.

>

> This is no more remarkable than, e.g., giving up Christianity

upon

> conversion to Islam.

>

>

[Guest guest]

AA is religious becuase it spouts a specfic belief, that god if you

pray god will awnsers your prayers and remove your defects. that

god has a will and plan for you to follow. that god was a universal

creator.

wilson though this was a universal truth all religions shared and

none would be conflicted with. he was a moron.

> > > Yeah, I'm Catholic but I haven't been practicing as well as I

would

> > > like lately.

> > > [...]

> > > You're right, Catholic theology has nothing in common with

AA,

> >other

> > > than a popular prayer.

> >

> >I'm certainly no theologian, but I can't think of *any*

conventional

> >religion, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, that would seem to

dovetail

> >with steppism.

> >

> >AA has often been criticized as " religious " , but I think one

could

> >equally well call it " anti-religious " , in the same sense that it's

> >anti-family, anti-marriage, etc. Anyone joining AA will at some

> >point be expected to put their " sobriety " (and along with it, AA,

BB,

> >HP, and the group) ahead of their religion, family, marriage,

etc.

> >It's been said before, but AA is first and foremost about AA,

not

> >keeping people alcohol-free or anything else.

>

> Seems to me that AA is religious in the same sense that

Christianity

> is religious -- i.e., it is a religion. Naturally it would be difficult to

> practice two religions at the same time, so most people who

> convert to AA end up giving up their previous faiths.

>

> This is no more remarkable than, e.g., giving up Christianity

upon

> conversion to Islam.

>

>

[Guest guest]

AA is religious becuase it spouts a specfic belief, that god if you

pray god will awnsers your prayers and remove your defects. that

god has a will and plan for you to follow. that god was a universal

creator.

wilson though this was a universal truth all religions shared and

none would be conflicted with. he was a moron.

> > > Yeah, I'm Catholic but I haven't been practicing as well as I

would

> > > like lately.

> > > [...]

> > > You're right, Catholic theology has nothing in common with

AA,

> >other

> > > than a popular prayer.

> >

> >I'm certainly no theologian, but I can't think of *any*

conventional

> >religion, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, that would seem to

dovetail

> >with steppism.

> >

> >AA has often been criticized as " religious " , but I think one

could

> >equally well call it " anti-religious " , in the same sense that it's

> >anti-family, anti-marriage, etc. Anyone joining AA will at some

> >point be expected to put their " sobriety " (and along with it, AA,

BB,

> >HP, and the group) ahead of their religion, family, marriage,

etc.

> >It's been said before, but AA is first and foremost about AA,

not

> >keeping people alcohol-free or anything else.

>

> Seems to me that AA is religious in the same sense that

Christianity

> is religious -- i.e., it is a religion. Naturally it would be difficult to

> practice two religions at the same time, so most people who

> convert to AA end up giving up their previous faiths.

>

> This is no more remarkable than, e.g., giving up Christianity

upon

> conversion to Islam.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, , I think you stated it pretty clearly. I was

thinking the same thing but didn't know how to express it.

> >

> > > Also, it occurs to me that if AA has been found

> > > religious, that would automatically differentiate AA's beliefs

> from

> > > the beliefs of other established religions, rather than just an

> > > umbrella over them as it likes to position itself.

> > >

> > ----------------

> >

> > Hi -- this is not correct -- I'm wondering why you think

> this? In fact, the federal court rulings state just the opposite --

> that any " general " reference to a God or " Higher Power " and its

> supposed influence on humans is a religious teaching -- no need to

be

> specific, and no need to be either the same as or different from any

> particular established religion.

> >

> > Also, in Kerr v. Farrey (I believe this was the case), the

court

> mentioned that the " spiritual v. religious " argument was worthless.

> AA has attempted to justify that lame distinction by pointing out

that

> the 12 step ideology is not the teaching of an organized established

> religion. The court said this was irrelevant to the Establishment

> Clause issue.

> >

> > ~Rita

>

> Hi Rita,

>

> In fact, I'm swimming in too deep a water here. I think what I was

> trying to get at is that agnostics and athiests have been successful

> in saying that AA was religious and therefore outside of their

belief

> systems. I was trying to infer that if AA is religious, then it

could

> be oppositional to other religious beliefs, and I do think it is. I

> was partly basing this on your story. Both you and Tommy have said

> that the AA religious beliefs were contrary to your personally held

> religious beliefs.

>

> AA tries to position itself as " spiritual " as opposed to

" religious. "

> I'm not really talking about legalities, just what they present.

In

> this way, (supposedly) people of any faith can participate and it

will

> not conflict with their religion. From what I saw there, I don't

> believe this. I just don't know how to prove it in the right words.

>

> See you,

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, , I think you stated it pretty clearly. I was

thinking the same thing but didn't know how to express it.

> >

> > > Also, it occurs to me that if AA has been found

> > > religious, that would automatically differentiate AA's beliefs

> from

> > > the beliefs of other established religions, rather than just an

> > > umbrella over them as it likes to position itself.

> > >

> > ----------------

> >

> > Hi -- this is not correct -- I'm wondering why you think

> this? In fact, the federal court rulings state just the opposite --

> that any " general " reference to a God or " Higher Power " and its

> supposed influence on humans is a religious teaching -- no need to

be

> specific, and no need to be either the same as or different from any

> particular established religion.

> >

> > Also, in Kerr v. Farrey (I believe this was the case), the

court

> mentioned that the " spiritual v. religious " argument was worthless.

> AA has attempted to justify that lame distinction by pointing out

that

> the 12 step ideology is not the teaching of an organized established

> religion. The court said this was irrelevant to the Establishment

> Clause issue.

> >

> > ~Rita

>

> Hi Rita,

>

> In fact, I'm swimming in too deep a water here. I think what I was

> trying to get at is that agnostics and athiests have been successful

> in saying that AA was religious and therefore outside of their

belief

> systems. I was trying to infer that if AA is religious, then it

could

> be oppositional to other religious beliefs, and I do think it is. I

> was partly basing this on your story. Both you and Tommy have said

> that the AA religious beliefs were contrary to your personally held

> religious beliefs.

>

> AA tries to position itself as " spiritual " as opposed to

" religious. "

> I'm not really talking about legalities, just what they present.

In

> this way, (supposedly) people of any faith can participate and it

will

> not conflict with their religion. From what I saw there, I don't

> believe this. I just don't know how to prove it in the right words.

>

> See you,

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, , I think you stated it pretty clearly. I was

thinking the same thing but didn't know how to express it.

> >

> > > Also, it occurs to me that if AA has been found

> > > religious, that would automatically differentiate AA's beliefs

> from

> > > the beliefs of other established religions, rather than just an

> > > umbrella over them as it likes to position itself.

> > >

> > ----------------

> >

> > Hi -- this is not correct -- I'm wondering why you think

> this? In fact, the federal court rulings state just the opposite --

> that any " general " reference to a God or " Higher Power " and its

> supposed influence on humans is a religious teaching -- no need to

be

> specific, and no need to be either the same as or different from any

> particular established religion.

> >

> > Also, in Kerr v. Farrey (I believe this was the case), the

court

> mentioned that the " spiritual v. religious " argument was worthless.

> AA has attempted to justify that lame distinction by pointing out

that

> the 12 step ideology is not the teaching of an organized established

> religion. The court said this was irrelevant to the Establishment

> Clause issue.

> >

> > ~Rita

>

> Hi Rita,

>

> In fact, I'm swimming in too deep a water here. I think what I was

> trying to get at is that agnostics and athiests have been successful

> in saying that AA was religious and therefore outside of their

belief

> systems. I was trying to infer that if AA is religious, then it

could

> be oppositional to other religious beliefs, and I do think it is. I

> was partly basing this on your story. Both you and Tommy have said

> that the AA religious beliefs were contrary to your personally held

> religious beliefs.

>

> AA tries to position itself as " spiritual " as opposed to

" religious. "

> I'm not really talking about legalities, just what they present.

In

> this way, (supposedly) people of any faith can participate and it

will

> not conflict with their religion. From what I saw there, I don't

> believe this. I just don't know how to prove it in the right words.

>

> See you,

>

[Guest guest]

> AA is religious becuase it spouts a specfic belief, that god if you

> pray god will awnsers your prayers and remove your defects. that

> god has a will and plan for you to follow. that god was a universal

> creator.

>

> wilson though this was a universal truth all religions shared and

> none would be conflicted with. he was a moron.

hehehehe!

Dave, you hit the nail on the head here! And so succinct and direct.

Righteous!

[Guest guest]

> AA is religious becuase it spouts a specfic belief, that god if you

> pray god will awnsers your prayers and remove your defects. that

> god has a will and plan for you to follow. that god was a universal

> creator.

>

> wilson though this was a universal truth all religions shared and

> none would be conflicted with. he was a moron.

hehehehe!

Dave, you hit the nail on the head here! And so succinct and direct.

Righteous!

[Guest guest]

> AA is religious becuase it spouts a specfic belief, that god if you

> pray god will awnsers your prayers and remove your defects. that

> god has a will and plan for you to follow. that god was a universal

> creator.

>

> wilson though this was a universal truth all religions shared and

> none would be conflicted with. he was a moron.

hehehehe!

Dave, you hit the nail on the head here! And so succinct and direct.

Righteous!

[Guest guest]

> >AA has often been criticized as " religious " , but I think one could

> >equally well call it " anti-religious " , in the same sense that it's

> >anti-family, anti-marriage, etc. Anyone joining AA will at some

> >point be expected to put their " sobriety " (and along with it, AA,

BB,

> >HP, and the group) ahead of their religion, family, marriage, etc.

> >It's been said before, but AA is first and foremost about AA, not

> >keeping people alcohol-free or anything else.

>

> Seems to me that AA is religious in the same sense that Christianity

> is religious -- i.e., it is a religion. Naturally it would be

difficult to

> practice two religions at the same time, so most people who

> convert to AA end up giving up their previous faiths.

>

> This is no more remarkable than, e.g., giving up Christianity upon

> conversion to Islam.

Hi ,

I'd agree with you except for one important fact: AA portrays itself

as being " spiritual, not religious " . And, it uses the idea of " God

as you understand Him " to imply that AA is compatible with any

religion or any conception of a supreme being, which AA

disingenuously refers to as a " Higher Power " . Islam, though, makes

no pretenses about being anything other than what it is, and does not

claim to be compatible with a wide variety of religious beliefs.

So, a newcomer may very well feel that their fundamental ethical and

moral beliefs will not conflict with AA, whether they be Methodist,

Jewish, Buddhist, or Druid. After all, the twelve steps emphasize

that faith is to be put in God " as you understand Him " , and AA makes

a big point out of selling this particular part. But, quite a few

people who are serious about their faiths find that they have

profound disagreements and difficulties with AA.

One of these, for example, is the idea of " God as you understand Him "

(sometimes called GAYUH by AA critics). According to AA doctrine,

*anything* is acceptable as a higher power. This is, of course,

demonstrably absurd - if you substitute an inanimate object (say, a

brick) for all the HP/GAYUH/God references in the twelve steps, you

get absurd statements like:

Step 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to

the care of the brick.

and,

Step 5: Admitted to the brick, to ourselves, and to another

human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

Clearly, not just anything is going to work. But, consider this

excerpt from the section on step two in the " 12 Steps And 12

Traditions " ...

> You can, if you wish, make A.A.,itself your `higher power.'

> Here's a very large group of people 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.

Hmmm - allowing AA to be the " Higher Power " ? And it appears that

this only means it's a large organization with some answers that the

newcomer doesn't have. But remember, this newcomer will later be

expected to pray to this HP, ask the HP to remove all defects of

character, etc.

Praying to a brick, or to an organization of people, or to anything

you please, for that matter - well, there's a word for that. It's

called " idolatry " . If " idolatry " sounds a little too old-fashioned,

how about " blasphemy " or " heresy " ? Saying that Jesus was an

alcoholic probably doesn't qualify for either of those, but praying

to a brick or to AA and expecting either to hear your prayers and act

on them almost certainly would.

Even if an AA member conceptualizes their HP as their own

understanding of a supreme being, he or she has to accept the fact

that they belong to an organization which makes some fundamental

statements about what their relationship to a supreme being should

be, and expects its members to adhere to those rules. Yet, this same

organization says it is perfectly acceptable if the guy across the

room is indeed praying to that brick.

Imagine if someone walked into the local Presbyterian church, and

said, " I'd like to join your organization, but, you should know, I

have my own conception of God. I don't believe in the Holy Trinity,

the divinity of Jesus, the sacrament of baptism, and I also hold the

Gospel of Luke to be invalid. " Now, imagine that the minister

said, " That's ok - your beliefs are just as true and valid as anyone

else's here, and you're in an equal state of grace with everyone

else. " Well, you might as well throw the Bible right out the window -

as well as the Koran, the Book of Mormom, etc. Whatever that group

of people is practicing, it sure isn't Presbyterianism.

The point is, every religion has certain specific, fundamental ideas

about the nature of a supreme being, humanity's relationship with it,

etc. Because of that, merely the idea that people can imagine

any " God " they want to, and one person's idea is as good as another,

is in itself in conflict with most religions.

There are other points of conflict as well besides GAYUH, which need

not be explored here. Among these are:

substitution of " disease " for " sin "

denial of responsibility for one's actions

commonly found belief among AA members that the " Big Book " is

divinely inspired

requirement of confession of sins, but not of actual repentance,

within the twelve steps

lack of any clear-cut standard for what constitutes " sin " , since

" God " can be anything one wants

Again, I'd have much less of a problem with this if AA would simply

*admit* that it is religious. Instead, it cloaks itself in the

mantle of " spirituality " , denying its religious nature.

Incidentally, this is a pretty common tactic among more well-known

cults, which sometimes portray themselves as " religious study

organizations " or something similar to disguise their nature.

The effect is the same as with a more run-of-the-mill cult, however.

By the time a new member realizes the fundamental conflicts between

AA and his or her beliefs, the brainwashing is already well under

way, and it may be too late. Although phrases like " the steps are

just suggestions " and " take what you want and leave the rest " are

bandied about in AA, the real message is crystal clear: Work the

steps or die. And many AAers end up abandoning their previous

ethical and moral systems, not due to calm deliberation and

reflection, but because of terror of losing their " sobriety " .

[Guest guest]

> >AA has often been criticized as " religious " , but I think one could

> >equally well call it " anti-religious " , in the same sense that it's

> >anti-family, anti-marriage, etc. Anyone joining AA will at some

> >point be expected to put their " sobriety " (and along with it, AA,

BB,

> >HP, and the group) ahead of their religion, family, marriage, etc.

> >It's been said before, but AA is first and foremost about AA, not

> >keeping people alcohol-free or anything else.

>

> Seems to me that AA is religious in the same sense that Christianity

> is religious -- i.e., it is a religion. Naturally it would be

difficult to

> practice two religions at the same time, so most people who

> convert to AA end up giving up their previous faiths.

>

> This is no more remarkable than, e.g., giving up Christianity upon

> conversion to Islam.

Hi ,

I'd agree with you except for one important fact: AA portrays itself

as being " spiritual, not religious " . And, it uses the idea of " God

as you understand Him " to imply that AA is compatible with any

religion or any conception of a supreme being, which AA

disingenuously refers to as a " Higher Power " . Islam, though, makes

no pretenses about being anything other than what it is, and does not

claim to be compatible with a wide variety of religious beliefs.

So, a newcomer may very well feel that their fundamental ethical and

moral beliefs will not conflict with AA, whether they be Methodist,

Jewish, Buddhist, or Druid. After all, the twelve steps emphasize

that faith is to be put in God " as you understand Him " , and AA makes

a big point out of selling this particular part. But, quite a few

people who are serious about their faiths find that they have

profound disagreements and difficulties with AA.

One of these, for example, is the idea of " God as you understand Him "

(sometimes called GAYUH by AA critics). According to AA doctrine,

*anything* is acceptable as a higher power. This is, of course,

demonstrably absurd - if you substitute an inanimate object (say, a

brick) for all the HP/GAYUH/God references in the twelve steps, you

get absurd statements like:

Step 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to

the care of the brick.

and,

Step 5: Admitted to the brick, to ourselves, and to another

human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

Clearly, not just anything is going to work. But, consider this

excerpt from the section on step two in the " 12 Steps And 12

Traditions " ...

> You can, if you wish, make A.A.,itself your `higher power.'

> Here's a very large group of people 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.

Hmmm - allowing AA to be the " Higher Power " ? And it appears that

this only means it's a large organization with some answers that the

newcomer doesn't have. But remember, this newcomer will later be

expected to pray to this HP, ask the HP to remove all defects of

character, etc.

Praying to a brick, or to an organization of people, or to anything

you please, for that matter - well, there's a word for that. It's

called " idolatry " . If " idolatry " sounds a little too old-fashioned,

how about " blasphemy " or " heresy " ? Saying that Jesus was an

alcoholic probably doesn't qualify for either of those, but praying

to a brick or to AA and expecting either to hear your prayers and act

on them almost certainly would.

Even if an AA member conceptualizes their HP as their own

understanding of a supreme being, he or she has to accept the fact

that they belong to an organization which makes some fundamental

statements about what their relationship to a supreme being should

be, and expects its members to adhere to those rules. Yet, this same

organization says it is perfectly acceptable if the guy across the

room is indeed praying to that brick.

Imagine if someone walked into the local Presbyterian church, and

said, " I'd like to join your organization, but, you should know, I

have my own conception of God. I don't believe in the Holy Trinity,

the divinity of Jesus, the sacrament of baptism, and I also hold the

Gospel of Luke to be invalid. " Now, imagine that the minister

said, " That's ok - your beliefs are just as true and valid as anyone

else's here, and you're in an equal state of grace with everyone

else. " Well, you might as well throw the Bible right out the window -

as well as the Koran, the Book of Mormom, etc. Whatever that group

of people is practicing, it sure isn't Presbyterianism.

The point is, every religion has certain specific, fundamental ideas

about the nature of a supreme being, humanity's relationship with it,

etc. Because of that, merely the idea that people can imagine

any " God " they want to, and one person's idea is as good as another,

is in itself in conflict with most religions.

There are other points of conflict as well besides GAYUH, which need

not be explored here. Among these are:

substitution of " disease " for " sin "

denial of responsibility for one's actions

commonly found belief among AA members that the " Big Book " is

divinely inspired

requirement of confession of sins, but not of actual repentance,

within the twelve steps

lack of any clear-cut standard for what constitutes " sin " , since

" God " can be anything one wants

Again, I'd have much less of a problem with this if AA would simply

*admit* that it is religious. Instead, it cloaks itself in the

mantle of " spirituality " , denying its religious nature.

Incidentally, this is a pretty common tactic among more well-known

cults, which sometimes portray themselves as " religious study

organizations " or something similar to disguise their nature.

The effect is the same as with a more run-of-the-mill cult, however.

By the time a new member realizes the fundamental conflicts between

AA and his or her beliefs, the brainwashing is already well under

way, and it may be too late. Although phrases like " the steps are

just suggestions " and " take what you want and leave the rest " are

bandied about in AA, the real message is crystal clear: Work the

steps or die. And many AAers end up abandoning their previous

ethical and moral systems, not due to calm deliberation and

reflection, but because of terror of losing their " sobriety " .

[Guest guest]

> >AA has often been criticized as " religious " , but I think one could

> >equally well call it " anti-religious " , in the same sense that it's

> >anti-family, anti-marriage, etc. Anyone joining AA will at some

> >point be expected to put their " sobriety " (and along with it, AA,

BB,

> >HP, and the group) ahead of their religion, family, marriage, etc.

> >It's been said before, but AA is first and foremost about AA, not

> >keeping people alcohol-free or anything else.

>

> Seems to me that AA is religious in the same sense that Christianity

> is religious -- i.e., it is a religion. Naturally it would be

difficult to

> practice two religions at the same time, so most people who

> convert to AA end up giving up their previous faiths.

>

> This is no more remarkable than, e.g., giving up Christianity upon

> conversion to Islam.

Hi ,

I'd agree with you except for one important fact: AA portrays itself

as being " spiritual, not religious " . And, it uses the idea of " God

as you understand Him " to imply that AA is compatible with any

religion or any conception of a supreme being, which AA

disingenuously refers to as a " Higher Power " . Islam, though, makes

no pretenses about being anything other than what it is, and does not

claim to be compatible with a wide variety of religious beliefs.

So, a newcomer may very well feel that their fundamental ethical and

moral beliefs will not conflict with AA, whether they be Methodist,

Jewish, Buddhist, or Druid. After all, the twelve steps emphasize

that faith is to be put in God " as you understand Him " , and AA makes

a big point out of selling this particular part. But, quite a few

people who are serious about their faiths find that they have

profound disagreements and difficulties with AA.

One of these, for example, is the idea of " God as you understand Him "

(sometimes called GAYUH by AA critics). According to AA doctrine,

*anything* is acceptable as a higher power. This is, of course,

demonstrably absurd - if you substitute an inanimate object (say, a

brick) for all the HP/GAYUH/God references in the twelve steps, you

get absurd statements like:

Step 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to

the care of the brick.

and,

Step 5: Admitted to the brick, to ourselves, and to another

human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

Clearly, not just anything is going to work. But, consider this

excerpt from the section on step two in the " 12 Steps And 12

Traditions " ...

> You can, if you wish, make A.A.,itself your `higher power.'

> Here's a very large group of people 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.

Hmmm - allowing AA to be the " Higher Power " ? And it appears that

this only means it's a large organization with some answers that the

newcomer doesn't have. But remember, this newcomer will later be

expected to pray to this HP, ask the HP to remove all defects of

character, etc.

Praying to a brick, or to an organization of people, or to anything

you please, for that matter - well, there's a word for that. It's

called " idolatry " . If " idolatry " sounds a little too old-fashioned,

how about " blasphemy " or " heresy " ? Saying that Jesus was an

alcoholic probably doesn't qualify for either of those, but praying

to a brick or to AA and expecting either to hear your prayers and act

on them almost certainly would.

Even if an AA member conceptualizes their HP as their own

understanding of a supreme being, he or she has to accept the fact

that they belong to an organization which makes some fundamental

statements about what their relationship to a supreme being should

be, and expects its members to adhere to those rules. Yet, this same

organization says it is perfectly acceptable if the guy across the

room is indeed praying to that brick.

Imagine if someone walked into the local Presbyterian church, and

said, " I'd like to join your organization, but, you should know, I

have my own conception of God. I don't believe in the Holy Trinity,

the divinity of Jesus, the sacrament of baptism, and I also hold the

Gospel of Luke to be invalid. " Now, imagine that the minister

said, " That's ok - your beliefs are just as true and valid as anyone

else's here, and you're in an equal state of grace with everyone

else. " Well, you might as well throw the Bible right out the window -

as well as the Koran, the Book of Mormom, etc. Whatever that group

of people is practicing, it sure isn't Presbyterianism.

The point is, every religion has certain specific, fundamental ideas

about the nature of a supreme being, humanity's relationship with it,

etc. Because of that, merely the idea that people can imagine

any " God " they want to, and one person's idea is as good as another,

is in itself in conflict with most religions.

There are other points of conflict as well besides GAYUH, which need

not be explored here. Among these are:

substitution of " disease " for " sin "

denial of responsibility for one's actions

commonly found belief among AA members that the " Big Book " is

divinely inspired

requirement of confession of sins, but not of actual repentance,

within the twelve steps

lack of any clear-cut standard for what constitutes " sin " , since

" God " can be anything one wants

Again, I'd have much less of a problem with this if AA would simply

*admit* that it is religious. Instead, it cloaks itself in the

mantle of " spirituality " , denying its religious nature.

Incidentally, this is a pretty common tactic among more well-known

cults, which sometimes portray themselves as " religious study

organizations " or something similar to disguise their nature.

The effect is the same as with a more run-of-the-mill cult, however.

By the time a new member realizes the fundamental conflicts between

AA and his or her beliefs, the brainwashing is already well under

way, and it may be too late. Although phrases like " the steps are

just suggestions " and " take what you want and leave the rest " are

bandied about in AA, the real message is crystal clear: Work the

steps or die. And many AAers end up abandoning their previous

ethical and moral systems, not due to calm deliberation and

reflection, but because of terror of losing their " sobriety " .

[Guest guest]

> I was trying to infer that if AA is religious, then it could

> be oppositional to other religious beliefs, and I do think it is.

Absolutely! I'm stealing a line from a friend of mine, but

anyway...In our modern world, there are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus,

Judeo-Christians, etc. Closer to home, Jews and Christians disagree

on some pretty important things. Within Christianity, there are

significant points of dissension between Catholics and Protestants.

And, within the Protestant camp, there are Methodists, Baptists,

Presbyterians, etc., all of whom split apart for less than trivial

reasons. The simple fact is, if you're religious, most of the people

in the world don't agree with you.

I don't see why AA should be exempt from that.

[Guest guest]

> I was trying to infer that if AA is religious, then it could

> be oppositional to other religious beliefs, and I do think it is.

Absolutely! I'm stealing a line from a friend of mine, but

anyway...In our modern world, there are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus,

Judeo-Christians, etc. Closer to home, Jews and Christians disagree

on some pretty important things. Within Christianity, there are

significant points of dissension between Catholics and Protestants.

And, within the Protestant camp, there are Methodists, Baptists,

Presbyterians, etc., all of whom split apart for less than trivial

reasons. The simple fact is, if you're religious, most of the people

in the world don't agree with you.

I don't see why AA should be exempt from that.

[Guest guest]

> I was trying to infer that if AA is religious, then it could

> be oppositional to other religious beliefs, and I do think it is.

Absolutely! I'm stealing a line from a friend of mine, but

anyway...In our modern world, there are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus,

Judeo-Christians, etc. Closer to home, Jews and Christians disagree

on some pretty important things. Within Christianity, there are

significant points of dissension between Catholics and Protestants.

And, within the Protestant camp, there are Methodists, Baptists,

Presbyterians, etc., all of whom split apart for less than trivial

reasons. The simple fact is, if you're religious, most of the people

in the world don't agree with you.

I don't see why AA should be exempt from that.

[Guest guest]

> <SNIP> Again, I'd have much less of a problem with this if AA would

simply

> *admit* that it is religious. Instead, it cloaks itself in the

> mantle of " spirituality " , denying its religious nature.

> Incidentally, this is a pretty common tactic among more well-known

> cults, which sometimes portray themselves as " religious study

> organizations " or something similar to disguise their nature.

,

I enjoyed your analysis which made many excellent points.

I've become curious about the " spiritual, not religious " doctrine.

When and how did this develop? Did it predate the 1960s land

decision against mandated AA for DUIs? In the BB and even in the

appendices written in the mid 1950s, uses the

terms " spiritual " and " religious " as synonyms. And some early AA

literature from the Akron groups circa 1950s doesn't shy from terming

AA a religion.

[Guest guest]

> Thanks for your comments!

>

>

Hi ,

Thanks for your well thought out analysis. I'm no theologan or expert

by any means but AA appears to preach a doctrine that I don't

remember the name of, but is sometimes called the Elect--Alcoholics

as the chosen people or the Elect. I'm sure AA has corrupted this

doctrine which is (or used to be) taught by a Protestant sect

(Puritan?). Also, and I hesitate to mention this, but in the interest

of accuracy I believe you confused Catholic Catechism with Sacred

Scripture several times. See:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm

Good luck in your efforts to educate clerics about the real AA.

Please keep us posted.

Jim

[Guest guest]

> Thanks for your comments!

>

>

Hi ,

Thanks for your well thought out analysis. I'm no theologan or expert

by any means but AA appears to preach a doctrine that I don't

remember the name of, but is sometimes called the Elect--Alcoholics

as the chosen people or the Elect. I'm sure AA has corrupted this

doctrine which is (or used to be) taught by a Protestant sect

(Puritan?). Also, and I hesitate to mention this, but in the interest

of accuracy I believe you confused Catholic Catechism with Sacred

Scripture several times. See:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm

Good luck in your efforts to educate clerics about the real AA.

Please keep us posted.

Jim

[Guest guest]

can you provide a reference to which material you know of? i

would be very interested in finding it.

.. And some early AA

> literature from the Akron groups circa 1950s doesn't shy from

terming

> AA a religion.

[Guest guest]

> Ditto. I am especially interested in the history of AA coercion. I

> think Stuart mentioned something about an early case in the 1960's.

>

> Jim

Jim, I would also like to know exactly when and who the first person

was who was government coerced into AA. If Stuart is talking about

the land case mentioned in Schaler's " Addiction is a Choice " , then

I beleive that was not until the 80's. I've got a copy I've loaned

out and will check it later. It appears that coercion in the military

began in the 60's. The following is taken from a piece I wrote called

" U.S. Military Exporting Spiritual Tyranny. " :

The March-April 1985 issue of the pro-12 step magazine, " Alcoholism " ,

dedicated its entire issue to alcohol/drug treatment in

the military with " A Salute to the Military. " Fifteen years ago all

treatment in the military was based on the 12 steps. It still is.

Within this one issue of this one magazine there is enough information

for me expose yet another channel through which the U.S.

government exports its horribly wicked spiritual tyranny abroad. I

will quote from several articles, all of which were written by

active duty and retired officers of the U.S. Navy. The first article's

title speaks for itself and tells how 12-step treatment began in

the Navy:

" AA 12th-Steps the Armed Services " By Captain ph J. Zuska Medical

Corps, USN (Ret.)

" I was fortunate to be on active duty one day when a man with a

big heart came to call

on the Navy. Dick Jewell, a retired Navy commander, who was six

months sober in AA,

decided one day in early February, 1965 to call on the Long

Beach, CA Naval Base

because he remembered from his own active duty career that

alcoholism was not uncommon

and he wanted to share his new-found knowledge...He offered to

conduct a weekly AA

meeting for us, asking that we assign individuals to that meeting

either as medical

referrals or with alcohol related disciplinary problems. Dick

Jewell, in effect, made

a twelfth step call on the Navy....it became obvious that our men

and women were

benefiting from their enforced* AA attendance. "

Of course it was " obvious " , because anyone who resisted or even voiced

disapproval would find themselves on the streets,

stigmatized, and unemployed, which is precisely where I found myself

twenty years after Cdr. Jewell " 12th stepped the Armed

Services. "

Yes, folks, notice that Captain Zuska uses the word " enforced " .

[Guest guest]

> Ditto. I am especially interested in the history of AA coercion. I

> think Stuart mentioned something about an early case in the 1960's.

>

> Jim

Jim, I would also like to know exactly when and who the first person

was who was government coerced into AA. If Stuart is talking about

the land case mentioned in Schaler's " Addiction is a Choice " , then

I beleive that was not until the 80's. I've got a copy I've loaned

out and will check it later. It appears that coercion in the military

began in the 60's. The following is taken from a piece I wrote called

" U.S. Military Exporting Spiritual Tyranny. " :

The March-April 1985 issue of the pro-12 step magazine, " Alcoholism " ,

dedicated its entire issue to alcohol/drug treatment in

the military with " A Salute to the Military. " Fifteen years ago all

treatment in the military was based on the 12 steps. It still is.

Within this one issue of this one magazine there is enough information

for me expose yet another channel through which the U.S.

government exports its horribly wicked spiritual tyranny abroad. I

will quote from several articles, all of which were written by

active duty and retired officers of the U.S. Navy. The first article's

title speaks for itself and tells how 12-step treatment began in

the Navy:

" AA 12th-Steps the Armed Services " By Captain ph J. Zuska Medical

Corps, USN (Ret.)

" I was fortunate to be on active duty one day when a man with a

big heart came to call

on the Navy. Dick Jewell, a retired Navy commander, who was six

months sober in AA,

decided one day in early February, 1965 to call on the Long

Beach, CA Naval Base

because he remembered from his own active duty career that

alcoholism was not uncommon

and he wanted to share his new-found knowledge...He offered to

conduct a weekly AA

meeting for us, asking that we assign individuals to that meeting

either as medical

referrals or with alcohol related disciplinary problems. Dick

Jewell, in effect, made

a twelfth step call on the Navy....it became obvious that our men

and women were

benefiting from their enforced* AA attendance. "

Of course it was " obvious " , because anyone who resisted or even voiced

disapproval would find themselves on the streets,

stigmatized, and unemployed, which is precisely where I found myself

twenty years after Cdr. Jewell " 12th stepped the Armed

Services. "

Yes, folks, notice that Captain Zuska uses the word " enforced " .

[Guest guest]

> Ditto. I am especially interested in the history of AA coercion. I

> think Stuart mentioned something about an early case in the 1960's.

>

> Jim

Jim, I would also like to know exactly when and who the first person

was who was government coerced into AA. If Stuart is talking about

the land case mentioned in Schaler's " Addiction is a Choice " , then

I beleive that was not until the 80's. I've got a copy I've loaned

out and will check it later. It appears that coercion in the military

began in the 60's. The following is taken from a piece I wrote called

" U.S. Military Exporting Spiritual Tyranny. " :

The March-April 1985 issue of the pro-12 step magazine, " Alcoholism " ,

dedicated its entire issue to alcohol/drug treatment in

the military with " A Salute to the Military. " Fifteen years ago all

treatment in the military was based on the 12 steps. It still is.

Within this one issue of this one magazine there is enough information

for me expose yet another channel through which the U.S.

government exports its horribly wicked spiritual tyranny abroad. I

will quote from several articles, all of which were written by

active duty and retired officers of the U.S. Navy. The first article's

title speaks for itself and tells how 12-step treatment began in

the Navy:

" AA 12th-Steps the Armed Services " By Captain ph J. Zuska Medical

Corps, USN (Ret.)

" I was fortunate to be on active duty one day when a man with a

big heart came to call

on the Navy. Dick Jewell, a retired Navy commander, who was six

months sober in AA,

decided one day in early February, 1965 to call on the Long

Beach, CA Naval Base

because he remembered from his own active duty career that

alcoholism was not uncommon

and he wanted to share his new-found knowledge...He offered to

conduct a weekly AA

meeting for us, asking that we assign individuals to that meeting

either as medical

referrals or with alcohol related disciplinary problems. Dick

Jewell, in effect, made

a twelfth step call on the Navy....it became obvious that our men

and women were

benefiting from their enforced* AA attendance. "

Of course it was " obvious " , because anyone who resisted or even voiced

disapproval would find themselves on the streets,

stigmatized, and unemployed, which is precisely where I found myself

twenty years after Cdr. Jewell " 12th stepped the Armed

Services. "

Yes, folks, notice that Captain Zuska uses the word " enforced " .

[Guest guest]

>

> [...]

> I must make a slight correction to this:

>

> > The point is, every religion has certain specific, fundamental

ideas

> > about the nature of a supreme being,

>

>

> In fact, Judaism does not. Jewish teaching repeatedly

emphasizes that " Man cannot possibly know what God IS, but only what

God is NOT. " And therein lies Judaism's conflict with Steppism --

Jewish teaching is that man is completely responsible for his actions

and behaviors, and therefore is totally responsible for changing,

e.g. for removing his own " character defects " . God as Jews perceive

him/her/it does NOT have unlimited power, and does NOT change

people's behavior for them. This makes the 12 steps (not to mention

the entire Big Book, with all its references to the need to

suppress " self-will " ) fundamentally impossible to follow without

altering basic Jewish beliefs.

Interesting point...and when I start publicizing some of this

material, I'll have to pay more attention to how I phrase things.

But I think we're still talking about the same thing. Whether it's

altering a Baptist idea of what God *is* (requires *redemption* for

*sin*), or a Judaic idea of what God is *not* (a sort of super-Santa

Claus who will make all flaws go away), AA requires people to, as you

put it, " alter basic beliefs " .

> I have a half-written article about this on a Tripod webpage,

which I'm hoping to eventually expand into a magazine-length article

and send to a Jewish publication. If you are interested, I will e-

mail you the URL.

YES!!!! :-) That's *exactly* the kind of material I'm looking for!

Thanks!!

[Guest guest]

>

> [...]

> I must make a slight correction to this:

>

> > The point is, every religion has certain specific, fundamental

ideas

> > about the nature of a supreme being,

>

>

> In fact, Judaism does not. Jewish teaching repeatedly

emphasizes that " Man cannot possibly know what God IS, but only what

God is NOT. " And therein lies Judaism's conflict with Steppism --

Jewish teaching is that man is completely responsible for his actions

and behaviors, and therefore is totally responsible for changing,

e.g. for removing his own " character defects " . God as Jews perceive

him/her/it does NOT have unlimited power, and does NOT change

people's behavior for them. This makes the 12 steps (not to mention

the entire Big Book, with all its references to the need to

suppress " self-will " ) fundamentally impossible to follow without

altering basic Jewish beliefs.

Interesting point...and when I start publicizing some of this

material, I'll have to pay more attention to how I phrase things.

But I think we're still talking about the same thing. Whether it's

altering a Baptist idea of what God *is* (requires *redemption* for

*sin*), or a Judaic idea of what God is *not* (a sort of super-Santa

Claus who will make all flaws go away), AA requires people to, as you

put it, " alter basic beliefs " .

> I have a half-written article about this on a Tripod webpage,

which I'm hoping to eventually expand into a magazine-length article

and send to a Jewish publication. If you are interested, I will e-

mail you the URL.

YES!!!! :-) That's *exactly* the kind of material I'm looking for!

Thanks!!

[Guest guest]

>

> [...]

> I must make a slight correction to this:

>

> > The point is, every religion has certain specific, fundamental

ideas

> > about the nature of a supreme being,

>

>

> In fact, Judaism does not. Jewish teaching repeatedly

emphasizes that " Man cannot possibly know what God IS, but only what

God is NOT. " And therein lies Judaism's conflict with Steppism --

Jewish teaching is that man is completely responsible for his actions

and behaviors, and therefore is totally responsible for changing,

e.g. for removing his own " character defects " . God as Jews perceive

him/her/it does NOT have unlimited power, and does NOT change

people's behavior for them. This makes the 12 steps (not to mention

the entire Big Book, with all its references to the need to

suppress " self-will " ) fundamentally impossible to follow without

altering basic Jewish beliefs.

Interesting point...and when I start publicizing some of this

material, I'll have to pay more attention to how I phrase things.

But I think we're still talking about the same thing. Whether it's

altering a Baptist idea of what God *is* (requires *redemption* for

*sin*), or a Judaic idea of what God is *not* (a sort of super-Santa

Claus who will make all flaws go away), AA requires people to, as you

put it, " alter basic beliefs " .

> I have a half-written article about this on a Tripod webpage,

which I'm hoping to eventually expand into a magazine-length article

and send to a Jewish publication. If you are interested, I will e-

mail you the URL.

YES!!!! :-) That's *exactly* the kind of material I'm looking for!

Thanks!!