Another Agnostic Group Ousted

Thanks BB for this post. I hope many people read the article and wonder about how AA is run.

I don't understand how agnostics (let alone atheists) can work the steps even if the word God is taken out. To me it doesn't solve many problems. You still have to believe in something other than yourself keeping you sober. I have yet heard a good logical explanation as to how this is possible.

Interestingly:
"For the last twenty-two years, there has been no growth in AA’s membership. In January of 2012 the number of members worldwide was recorded at 2,133,842, roughly the same as it was in 1990."

I'm baffled by this as well. It's impossible to count members. I know they count meeting attendees but say for example that John D. attends 3 meetings a week. He gets counted three times. Let's say Avo O. is doing a 90/90. That person gets counted 7 times and he's only one member. I'm sure that there are people attending only once or twice, wincing, and running the other way. They are counted as "members" too, even though they won't be returning. Many of those getting their slipped signed are not really members, and won't be back after the door hits their ass after that last time. It appears that the tallied 2 million members is inaccurate and likely much lower.

I find it interesting that the Toronto AA Agnostics are watching the "alcoholism treatment industry" as if it is a competing cult in the analysis of the situation. They appear to be watching the "prime prospect hunting grounds" in their area and making changes due to what they perceive as perhaps a threat to their market share.

It’s also worth noting that the alcoholism treatment industry is burgeoning in Toronto. Need to spend a few weeks in rehabilitation? Well, there’s Renascent and Bellwoods and Homewood, a few miles down the road. Homewood recycles 1200 people through its three or four week addiction recovery program every year, and it’s the smallest of the three centres.

The really big name around town, however, and across Ontario, is the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). It’s actually pronounced as two syllables (CAM-H). These days if you are the average person in Ontario confronting the problem of alcoholism for the first time, you are probably more likely to think of CAMH before you think of AA. A lot of people in this province owe their recovery in part to CAMH, which is noted for not using words in its program like “God,” ”Him” and ”Power.”

All of the above just to say that AA is apparently no longer the only game in town.

Even though I know both agnostis and atheists that go to AA, why would a specific ag group be surprised that AA would consider changing the material to be wrong?

From what I understand and have seen, AA's don't like change. Generally speaking that is. Look at the BB. Besides the stories in back it doesn't change, yet science has come along way (even in the addiction world) in the years since the first print.

Clara, remember when we had a long discussion about changing AA? Not that we have anything to do with it, but we played "what if?". There were a lot of points that you opposed simply because it was a “tradition”. That sounded rigid to me. I understand that it can be difficult, but it doesn't make much sense to remain complacent when the world is changing around us.