With 'help' like this, secular sobrietiests don't need AA stepper 'enemies'

Skeptical blogger Ed Brayton, at the imploring of an anti-AA website, recently did a post on skepticism and the 12-step movement.

Of course, it was a dogwhistle for your usual assortment of steppers, who made the usual arguments:
1. Claims that, despite multiple federal court rulings to the contrary, AA and NA aren't religious, not even in the eye of the First Amendment.
2. Any 12-step "industry" is all Hazelden; AA has no blame, not even for getting in bed with Hazelden 50 years ago.
3. Steps, etc. are just "suggestions."
4. Nothing else that's wrong with AA is AA's fault.

Of course, steppers are immune to reason, but, it was good to refute them, anyway, for Ed's regular readers to learn more about AA. That includes learning that atheists in recovery can, will and do twist their reasoning enough not only to be involved with AA but to say it works.

Even that's not that unusual, nor is it new to me to run into them. (When you run into an atheist, or "atheist," philosophy professor who talks about praying, NOTHING a self-proclaimed atheist does is strange.)

But, then, a certain "Glenn" popped up about 3/4 the way through the discussion, with several bizarre comments.

First, he said alcoholism was a "moral issue." Now, he didn't explicitly say "just a moral issue," but it's clear that's what he meant. I tried to reason with him from several angles.

First, I pointed out what modern neuroscience is discovering about brain chemistry and addiction. He showed no interest in following up on that.

Second, I showed him that the "moral issue" was actually just what AA believed, when it claimed alcoholism was not just a "disease" but a "spiritual disease." That's why you have to admit powerlessness, ask a god to remove "defects," etc. Not only did he not "get it," he started, in essence, getting near ranting level about alcoholism being a moral issue.

Third, he then claimed that I supported courts "coercing" people into secular recovery groups like Lifering. He was totally ignorant of the fact that the issue isn't court power to "coerce" people into ANY sobriety support program, but rather, to unconstitutionally "coerce" people into a program that has been recognized as religious, in light of the First Amendment.

Nor did he get the idea that courts can and do "coerce" convicted criminals into all sorts of "conditions," like ankle bracelet monitors, community service, etc. Now, if a criminal doesn't like that coercion, he or she is free to take a spot in a county or state jail.

He then claims it's different, going on to talk about "abstinence coercion." Well, maybe you want it to be, Mr. Glenn, but, legally, it's not. And, what you want doesn't change law or the enforcement thereof.

Moral of the story?

If you don't know anything about addiction/alcoholism, then just don't talk about it. You do more harm than good, and, just like a zealous stepper, you're likely to make an individual alcoholic/addict less likely to get help.