Which "distinct theology" would that happen to be? Because I just don't see it.

This is dated, there are more current cases. But almost anyone who undertakes an examination of AA and the Big Book, finds it to be religious with theological precepts:

Robert Warner had his constitutional rights violated when a judge and the Orange County Department of Probation required him to attend meetings of the religion-based Alcoholics Anonymous program. But in upholding a lower ruling, the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a District Judge that Warner suffered no substantial damages, and gave him $1 as compensation.

In Monday's ruling, Justices noted that the AA meetings had "a substantial religious component" which included prayers, stipulations that inmates had to pray to God in order to successfully deal with personal problems, and the requirement that they participate in other religious exercises. The ruling also noted that Mr. Warner, who pleaded guilty to drunk driving and driving without a license in November, 1990, was not offered an alternative secular program. An Atheist, Warner initially attending the Alcoholics Anonymous meetings but was insulted by the "religious nature" of the format. Warner -- like a number of Atheists throughout the country -- was compelled to participate in A.A. or A.A.-based programs as a condition for probation or other considerations from the court....

GRIFFIN v. COUGHLIN (N.Y. 1996). In this case, the New York court ruled that the visiting privileges of an inmate's family could not depend on the prisoner's participation in treatment programs that adopt the "religion-centered practices and precepts of Alcoholics Anonymous." The court also noted the coercive nature of the A.A. program, that inmates were provided no alternative for a secular rehabilitation regimen. Another case from the Seventh Circuit (KERR v. FARREY, 1996) found that the state had violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment when it compelled inmates to attend substance abuse programs which have explicit religious content, or otherwise be penalized as higher security risks and suffer adverse parole consequences.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alanon1.htm

If you want me to spend more time marshaling proof that independent examiners find AA to be religious and holding to a particular theology, I shall do so. This is a quick site I already knew of. Or, one could just read the Big Book. But for starters, why not just post all the 12 Steps, and then ask others to believe they are not theological?

[Bush] might be dry, but he isn't sober and I doubt he's even dry at this point.

That is how it is with many if not most in AA. Simply not drinking is not enough to qualify as "sober" and "right" with the program, even if one has not taken a sip of alcohol in 20 years. One is merely "dry" until one does all the confessions and adopts most of the the rest of the theology and groupthink.

Junglered:In fact, however you stop, stopping isn't enough. And you're not sober by simply stopping, you're dry. Sobriety implies MORE and comes with the work around the issue(s) that got you addicted in the first place.

No. Sober is sober, as in, being not intoxicated. Certainly there are many dual diagnosis people, for whom the drinking was self-medication; I do not at all dispute that. But many in AA think just doings the 12 Steps is all that is needed for attending to the underlying problem -- when there actualy is one other than a biological predisposition to addiction.

KB4Hire: There's even the chapter in the BB titled "To The Agnostic".

Yes, and would you care to discuss how condescending and offensive that chapter is? But I understand why you don't wish to post all of the 12 Steps; someone else just did, however, and their theological and theistic (personal, interventionist God who "removes character defects," aka "forgives and helps avoid sins") content are manifest. Blotting out the origins of borrowing from the Oxford Group does not change the fact that the AA program mirrors that Xian movement, as for example avoiding the word "sin" and using a euphemism.

And that's one of the thoughts that I had. Alcoholism happens for all kinds of reasons, genetic, biochemical, emotional, etc. Perhaps a need for self-medication....

Oh goodness, nothing you wrote bothered me, and I think you have a sensible take on the whole issue. AA is a good option for some. The problem is that it has come -- mostly by having been co-opted by the lucrative tx industry -- to be regarded as the only way. And, *some* AA members, and it can vary by region and group, are extremely rigid in enforcing AA orthodoxy, including the religious/prayer/confession aspects.

There are a few Atheist AA groups in places like NYC that are very cool. Non-atheists go also, just to get away from the suffocating orthodoxy -- the whole 12 Step paradigm is problematic for a good many whose religious outlook just is not compatible with AA.

Orthodoxy and the religious underpinnings of the program can hurt people when presented as the only way, if that way is wrong for them. For those whom AA has helped to stay sober, more power to them. But the entrenchment in our culture of 12 Step programs being the "ideal recovery model" is harmful for the others.

(And I want to acknowledge that "Anonymous" is right in saying a lot of AA members hate it that courts order people to go, the whole sign in sheet business & etc. Definitely, many AA groups are very uncomfortable with that, to their credit.)

To see whether the MSM will confront your heavily documented criticisms of them in Tragic Legacy. I'm betting they will decide they have to lob some spitballs by way of reviews. But I could be wrong.