>And for all the people bitching about how AA is religious -- it's not! The "higher power" thing is more of a philosophy than a religion. Bull-fucking-shit. I

>And for all the people bitching about how AA is religious -- it's not! The "higher power" thing is more of a philosophy than a religion. Bull-fucking-shit. I've read the AA "big book" (enough of it that I could stand). It is a religious book. The part about non-believers is especially offensive - to me. It quotes from the Bible, it explicitly refers to the Judeo-Christian God. Many court have ruled people can't be forced to attend AA meetings because it violates the first amendment's freedom of religion clause.[1] If it wasn't religious organization, then it wouldn't. AA can actively harmful - to some people. This whole "go to AA if you have an addition as a first step for everyone" is complete and total nonsense. If people seek AA, struggle with the concept of a higher power, you know GOD, they might think they can't get better. If you are religious, seek AA, if you are not, don't. I disagree completely that AA is a universal treatment. It is not. As I said before - I know an addict, he avoids getting help because he believes that the 12 step programs are offensive. (I share the same opinion - however I acknowledge they work for some people and that's good - I just disagree they should be the "go to" programs for everyone) He knows AA doesn't work for him, but he doesn't know there are non-religious programs and people who have gotten better without religion. Preaching AA as a first step or a cure all is harmful to these people. Do I have personal experience with addition - absolutely. I was never an addict, but I grew up all my life with an addict parent. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#United_States_Court_rulings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#United_Sta... United States courts have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed a religion, it was ruled that it contained enough religious components (variously described in Griffin v. Coughlin below as, inter alia, "religion", "religious activity", "religious exercise") to make coerced attendance at AA meetings a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution.[88][89] In September 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that a parole office can be sued for ordering a parolee to attend AA.[90][91]