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.

Gurus, authoritarianism and recovery groups — not just an AA phenomenon

For years, beyond its religious emphasis, a major complaint many people have had about Alcoholics Anonymous (and NA), is the idea of “sponsorship.” While the idea of a mentor to help in one’s sobriety, especially if truly voluntarily chosen, may be an idea of worth, in reality, especially with it being a quasi-requirement of AA/NA, it is easily abused.

Predatory-minded sponsors can easily become controlling and manipulative to minds in the midst of trying to clear themselves of the fog of alcohol and/or drugs. Or, people who aren’t official sponsors can do some of this. The predatory nature can come in with sexual manipulation, establishing a power base in a local support group for the sponsor, and more.

Even outside the official sponsorship idea, gurus can set themselves up with new insights on the best way to get clean/sober, etc. And not just inside individual groups.

The name “Clancy” is well known for propagating an entire subset of groups within AA.

Many critics of AA have observed that, sociologically, it’s a place of redemption for people who washed out of their local Lions Club, or something similar.

But, it would seem the problem is related to recovery groups and personalities susceptible to addictions, and not 12-Step models of recovery.

Several examples from the world of “secular recovery” will suffice.

One is Jack Trimpey, founder of Rational Recovery. Trimpey, as though he were the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Recovery, has, in essence, declared recovery groups null and void. He has said alcoholics/addicts who continue to go to such groups are, in essence, still weak.

Then, you have Marty Nicolaus, founder of Lifering Secular Recovery, an offshoot of Secular Organizations for Sobriety. LSR ostensibly was founded as a separate recovery organization after a Nicolaus-led lawsuit against SOS over some serious recovery issues, such as “single-substance sobriety,” failed in court.

I’ve talked to enough people in LSR besides Nicolaus to not doubt that SOS needed a fire under it (to which its founder, Jim Christopher didn’t repond), and there were grounds for the lawsuit. However, I’ve also talked enough to people in SOS, and done enough analysis on my own, to know that personality issues, including Nicolaus’ personality, were involved.

And, at the individual meeting level, “control freaks” and other types have popped up in my LSR experience too. This is true for online meetings as well as face-to-face ones.

That said, I reject the idea of “the addictive personality” as many people (often not really addicts) use it. But, to the degree addiction exacerbates personality traits, and less desirable ones in some people, and recovery groups give them a platform to spew this out, this is a worrisome phenomenon.