AA MINORITY REPORT 2017 (revised)

Click here

Wednesday 31 August 2011

The natives are “revolting”: dissent in the Hampton Wick ranks

“I am writing again, this time to inform you that I have been attending the Hampton Wick ‘cult’ meeting for the past number of weeks to observe what’s taking place, and there seems to be some dissent within the ranks.

As mentioned previously on your site, the secretary has a ‘prompt sheet’ saying that one could get a copy of the Q&A leaflet, or, “better still”, speak to a sponsorship co-ordinator. On an occasion where I was in attendance at HW, a young member called …... was standing-in for the secretary. I remember ….. when …. first came in at the age of ….. about four or five years ago. He fortunately appears to prefer the AA message to the cult’s (although he still attends these particular meetings). Anyway, on this occasion, …... decided that AA’s official publication should take precedence over the sponsorship co-ordinators …..., and decided to ‘swap them around’ and suggest that reading the Q&A leaflet was the “better-still” option. After the meeting, from my observation, Billy (the member I informed you about before) charged at him from the other end of the room, pulled him to one side and instructed him to stick to the script, and told him he was “going half-measures” by 'demoting sponsorship'. Also, Alex R (Plymouth-reared GSR and sponsor for practically all the female members of the group) instructs her sponsees not to even meet members of the opposite sex for coffee until they have reached a certain point in recovery. This concerns me; after all, controlling what people do in AA is one thing, but controlling what people do outside AA is quite cultish indeed. Alex was originally sponsored at the meetings in Plymouth , her sponsor’s sponsor being none other than Wayne P.” [see Plymouth Road to Recovery on website]

Some of the dramatis personae:

John B (founder of the group - circa 1999).
Billy M (often shares about being spiritual, but this only appears to go as far as sharing)
Rupert B (Billy’s sponsor – more mainstream-AA)
Alex R (sponsors all the women)
Colin (previously a group officer but relapsed after being instructed not to take prescribed medication by a certain happy man in Ealing, don’t know where he is now…)

I have also been informed of a similar incident at the Tuesday meeting in Richmond [Ormond Road], where, at a group conscience, instead of members nominating each other or themselves for service positions, Billy allegedly took over the group conscience and elected the group officers himself, rather than having the group decide, with most of them being his sponsees. This is a breach of traditions one, two and twelve. A group member told me that he was discouraged by Billy from putting his own name forward for the secretary position, being told that he was only putting himself forward because of his ‘ego’. Instead, the secretary is a young girl called C, who is a sponsee of Alex’s, and the poor girl has been influenced by members of the Ealing gang. Many of these younger (in the sense of clean time) members are completely unaware of the true AA message, with many of them saying that the AA message is “get a sponsor”. “


Editor's comment: And so “the show” must go on and on and on..... “Self-will run RIOT”

(our thanks to our reporter)

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS. More to come on this one! You can bet on it!

Sunday 28 August 2011

Leaving the cult

“I FEEL COMPELLED TO SHARE MY EXPERIENCE AND POINTERS THAT I THINK MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO MEMBERS WHO ARE IN JOYS OR ANOTHER CULT-LIKE GROUP TO SHARE MY EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS WHAT I WISH I WOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY UPON LEAVING THE CULT.

I didn’t quite realize how traumatic and painful it would be leaving a recovery cult. I reached out to former Joys [Joys of Recovery] members for support and guidance. I was in school at the time when all this drama began with the cult and unfortunately I decided to drop out of school. It was difficult to study and concentrate after all that was going on but still I wish that I would have continued showing up in class because in hindsight I could have used the human interaction. I realized that when leaving a cult it's very isolating so I would suggest to put yourself in structured environments such as a job or thing where you can be around people. I had to learn to socialize again. Also leaving a cult leaves a significant void in one's social life. Also when I was first having problems with Joys I felt very ashamed. I thought and believed everything that was going on was my fault and I was the bad one. So I was much too ashamed to reach out to others in mainstream AA at first. I was being shunned by the group and I got pretty isolated and I wanted to self destruct as a result. I was having intense thoughts of relapsing. It was truly thanks to a merciful higher power that I didn’t relapse; although many must have thought I did. I was behaving very alcoholic and even having problems at work. I rationalized instead of picking up booze I would eat. I weighed 130 lbs and wore size 2-4 clothes. Within 6 months I weighed 220 and wore size 18 because all I did was binge on doughnuts from the corner store and sleep and in between that I started educating myself about cults. I was still attending the meeting at this point.

In hindsight I wish that as soon as I realized I was no longer in good standing with the cult I wish I would have stopped attending the meetings and dropped service positions. The reason I think that would have been best is because the cult meetings tend to have this very subtle way of tearing up any one who disagrees with them in their shares as well as treating them very poorly. Quite naturally this creates a lot of resentment in the alcoholic who is being used as the scapegoat by the cult and resentments are deadly. As a matter of fact while all this was going on I was still doing my daily’s and writing my 10th step and taking a half hour to meditate, but there were more resentments coming at me ( I had an entire group of people abusing me) than I could handle and process even with all the tools, which is another reason while I believe it's best to get as far away from these nut jobs as possible. After a couple of months of all this abuse I did quit all the tools. I could barely get out of bed. I believe this could have been avoided had I just gotten away and not let myself get so damn isolated and asked for help and opened up to people about what was going on. I used what little thinking capability and judgement ability I had to survive this experience. My perceptions and judgement calls as well as my world view had all been altered by the cult and without them TELLING ME HOW TO THINK about stuff I was quite a mess. However I did know enough at that point to stay the hell away from my family who are all active alcoholics and drug users. It really upset me that my cult sponsor was telling me to go around my family esp. my mom (who drinks) who is the person least supportive of my recovery. I felt like she was trying to cause me to relapse (and so was the rest of the cult) to make an example. This particular suggestion could have been deadly because I was extremely used to and very much in the habit of following any order my sponsor dished out on me without questioning or thinking about it. That’s frightening because some of her suggestions were dangerous. THANK GOD I didn’t listen. I think it is very critical and important who you put yourself around after leaving the cult for more reasons than I have time to list.

I still didn’t tell my family what was going on I had a lot of fears programmed in to me by the cult about the outside world. In hindsight I wish I wouldn’t have started bingeing on food because it's been pure hell, I developed a bad food compulsion and it's very difficult to get back to good food habits again. Instead I wish I would have just swallowed my damn pride and opened up to mainstream AA members for help.”

(our thanks to this US member for their insightful contribution)

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Thursday 25 August 2011

East Kent update

Two more groups in the East Kent area have signed up with the Primary Purpose cult movement (see here for a discussion). In the latest edition of the cult directory (August 2011) the following appear:

Dover
Monday at 7.30pm
Rear Room
Our Lady of Dover RC Church
Roosevelt Road
Dover
All meetings ‘Open’
Contacts: Harry K …..Harry A

Herne Bay
Wednesday at 7.30pm
The Retreat, RC Church
2 Clarence Road
Herne Bay
All meetings ‘Open’
Contact: Harry K …....

This movement (should you need to be reminded) knowingly misrepresents AA recovery rates (we say “knowingly” because we've pointed it out to them – still no reply on that? We wonder why? See here for a thoroughly researched – and accurate – study of actual recovery rates). Moreover they frequently quote from a draft of the Big Book in support of their erroneous arguments (a version incidentally that was rejected by the early fellowship in favour of the published first edition). Further they circulate an essay entitled Gresham's Law and Alcoholics Anonymous, a piece which is intended to demonstrate a decline in recovery rates and the reasons behind this (but which fails entirely to provide ANY evidence to support these opinions – see Critique). This “faction” places much emphasis on “personalities” before “principles” with their heavily promoted study guides (unvaryingly these are examples of micromanagement taken to the extreme and with very little scope for individual interpretation. It's so much easier isn't it, to let other people do your thinking for you? See here our own recovery course. Of course NEITHER of these methods are required in order to recover from alcoholism!) They are also a “primary” source for the latest rash ('rash' indeed being the operative word!) of circuit speakers (with accompanying CDs, work sheets, websites, audio file links, and all the other paraphernalia so essential to the “professional” alcoholic) with much advertised appearances by these “personalities” in both this country and the US. In one instance at least these promotional events are associated with commercial interests (drawing resources from AA and into the pockets of these individuals). Finally they talk frequently about the traditions but ignore these when they become 'inconvenient'. They are the “experts” on recovery who no one actually needs; otherwise known as “oxygen thieves”!

You will note from the contact details of the two groups mentioned above the unusual proliferation of “Harrys” in East Kent. Harry A is well known in the area and has been responsible for single-handedly boring the entire local fellowship for quite a number of years now (actually it seems like forever!). Ever the AA guru Harry never passes up the opportunity to deliver a lecture to anyone who cannot make good their escape quickly enough. In one instance (that we know of) a group got so tired of being subjected to his weekly sermonising that they formally asked him to desist. He did so and left never to be seen again – much to their relief. To the best of our knowledge Harry has never actually had a conversation WITH anyone in AA (and probably not elsewhere for that matter); he talks AT you rather than TO you! As for the other one this brand of Harry (Harry K) hails from “across the pond” originally. Again he is a classic example of the AA “know it all” and is frequently to be seen ostentatiously carrying his own well thumbed (and no doubt heavily indexed) copy of the Big Book to meetings. This AA “lawyer” is well renowned (would that be the correct designation?) for his erudition when it comes to quoting from the text (something that he does frequently and with great enthusiasm), employing his “synthetic knowledge” to great effect and thereby vanquishing all who dare to stand in his path. Again he is a prime example of someone who has substituted the superficial gloss of 'expertise' for the practical (and perhaps rather boring) application of spiritual principles in “all his affairs”. As usual the disparity between appearance and reality predominates – do not under any account scratch below this particular 'surface'!

It will be interesting to discover if either of these groups are aware (or were even consulted) of their inclusion in the cult directory? Was this the result of a group conscience or did the “bleeding deacons” dictate the terms?

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tuesday 23 August 2011

Greetings from Northern California

“The description of …...... seems to 'highlight' a couple more red flags to watch for. Your site already mentions the 'Joe&Charlie' Big Book dog and pony show, these lectures are often to be encountered. The warning is that the 'study' is held in a private location, or a space not used by any AA group. These classes indoctrinate newcomers into a false understanding of AA's history and create flocks of disinformed 'AA history experts' who push their agendas in real AA groups business meetings and elsewhere.

We have one such 'leader' near me (El Cerrito, California across the bay from San Francisco) his 'Big Book Studies' held in his house, or in rented spaces, are carried on by followers now that he is getting old. They follow J&C, and include the Gresham's Law pamphlet, the draft version of 'How it Works,' and the false claims of AA's failure rate.

There is also a widespread mania for marching newcomers through the big book with highlighters in hand, often of coded colors for different 'themes.' I have found our fellowships supply of reading copies includes many that are heavily marked on almost every page--for the first two or three chapters; evidently their owners abandoned the books after their indoctrination failed.

I don't know if the two phenomena are directly linked, but I suspect that we will find the same individuals promoting both.

Thanks”

and:

“Of course studying the Big Book is not a Bad Thing, nor are 'beginner's meetings' or sponsorship. I think the 3rd and 4th traditions are compatible with holding any sort of Big Book study as an AA meeting. For that matter, even as a 'non-meeting.'

The problem comes with the intrusion of outside influence. The 'studies' I am thinking were intellectual dead-ends; they repeated Joe&Charlie-isms with no curiosity or inquiry. Every mistake, falsehood, and inaccuracy repeated as holy writ.

In this manner 'Big Book' studies, beginner's mtgs. and sponsorship easily glide into tools for cult recruiting, enforced conformity, and the training of 'experts' who tour from meeting to meeting, group to group, carrying what they believe to be the real AA.

I gather that your troubles in the Home Counties really do represent 'a' cult, with the same individuals and the same agendas surfacing again and again. Here it seems that there are a snowballing accumulation of cultish influences: Joe&Charlie, Clancy/Pacific Group, 'Back to Basics,' Mel B's AA 'History,' Primary Purpose in Texas etc. While these do overlap a great deal, I feel that the general effect is a sort of gravitational pull into cultishness, with American Right-Wing Xianity casting a pall over all.

Last week I talked with a fellow who had gotten sober in Los Angeles around '81. He had drifted away from meetings and was returning now that he had retired and moved to Marin County (across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco). He was shocked by the uniformity, excessive reading, and pushy sponsorship he saw there. When he got sober, the meetings he saw showed none of this, even reading 'How it Works' (which originated in LA) was not typical. Evidently the Pacific Group's version of 'old time' AA is false even for Los Angeles.”

(our thanks to this contributor)

Cheerio


The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Friday 19 August 2011

The way of the cult: “Tough love” or “bullying”?

"Fellas,

Good to be reminded of the evil of Synanon. [see below 10/08/11] I live near San Francisco and Marin County, where the shit hit the fan for Dederich and Co., and I remember the feeling as the news broke.......

One of the most sinister aspects of the later Synanon was its creation of institutional dependants. Members of Synanon lived on Synanon property, worked at Synanon jobs, gave up their children for Synanon rearing, and on at least on occasion, switched from their spouses to new partners chosen by Dederich.

Synanon members were taught that they would inevitably relapse if they left the fold. When Synanon collapsed, the predictions were fulfilled. Many ex-Synanon members ended up finding another sort of institution to shelter them from the strain of sobriety in the real world: they went to work in treatment centers.

To this day, organizations like San Francisco's 'Delancy Street Foundation' and a host of youth treatment 'boot camps' employ the degrading attack therapy Dederich spawned. This has a ripple effect on nearby AA groups as new members may have been subjected to this kind of indoctrination and seek to continue these practices in AA. Even those who enjoy the freedom of life outside institutions may be more vulnerable to cultish pseudo-AA practices in sponsorship and step work."


The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our usual thanks to our reporter)

Tuesday 16 August 2011

More 'bleating' from “Wessex (cult) Intergroup”!

'Fraid so. They're at it again! And back in full 'victim' mode - and with a lecture thrown in for good measure! Here's the latest offering from our little friends – the 'pointed headed' ones – in a communication addressed to anyone who can be bothered to listen. Well someone has to …...dammit!




As you can see it's the usual mix of self-justification, selective recall, tradition and concept 'mangling' and with the blame fully allocated to everyone else of course. Remember the key cult axiom! We (the cult) are always right and you (AA) are always wrong! Got it! Good! Now we can continue..... Here various traditions (and Concepts) are mentioned although strangely enough Tradition 4 is omitted from this catalogue of misquotes and misrepresentations. The cult are not at all keen on Tradition 4. It is very very very inconvenient (especially that annoying second bit!). To remind you:


4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.

(our emphasis)

But Tradition 2 does get a look in. Again:

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

Presumably their ire here is directed towards the failure of “our leaders” to behave like their (the cult's) “trusted servants”. It must be really irritating dealing with people who simply will not do the “right thing” and follow cult orders. Remember you must always do “exactly what your sponsor says”! Tut tut tut! Naughty AA members! Slaps on the wrist all round we say! Or then again is it the sheer temerity of the intergroups concerned daring to “...... follow their group conscience alone”! But isn't that after all what the Tradition says? ie. “there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience”. The cult's argument here seems very confused if not contradictory! But then again they are rather prone that way! “Tired and emotional” we think the expression is! Anyway, and to adopt a more serious tone, various objections are raised by the cult on procedural matters. The fact that the two intergroups mentioned have repeatedly said no to the Bournemouth Road to Recovery (cult) group - and repeatedly told them why - does not seem to have quite sunk in. Essentially they have been designated “too controversial” (which includes minor stuff like abusive sponsorship, outside affiliations, breaching guidelines and traditions, interfering with medical diagnosis and so on and so forth). Of course they deny all this but then as a friend of ours from the area expresses it: “Q: How can you tell when a cult member is lying? A: When you see their lips moving”. Now we come to Tradition 3 which is:

3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.

Now it would seem that in this instance the cult is confusing participation within the service structure with membership of AA. As far as we can tell there is nothing indicated in the two intergroups' conduct which suggest that they have the least intention of denying any member (including cult members) the right to attend AA meetings. They have simply declined the cult group's request to join their intergroups. This is quite a different matter and absolutely nothing to do with Tradition 3. So this objection may really be termed “a fish of quite another hue” or otherwise: A RED HERRING!

At this point the concepts are dragged into the equation specifically THE RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION. Again for your edification:

IV At all responsible levels, we ought to maintain a traditional "Right of Participation," allowing a voting representation in reasonable proportion to the responsibility that each must discharge. (short form)

You will note from this that the right refers specifically to “voting representation” etc and moreover as it is applied within the “Conference structure”. It does not refer to the supposed “right” of a cult group to join a local intergroup. This may not be called a “red herring” so much as a complete non sequitur – or just a lot of hooey in plain English - or American if you like! (See here for Concept IV in full detail). We're getting slightly bored here (as doubtless you are as well) but we'll Carry On Regardless – oooh I saaay!! So now we come to “punitive action”. This expression derives from Concept XII, Warranty 5. Again:

Warranty Five: “That no Conference action ever be personally punitive or an incitement to public controversy.”

Apart from the specific application of this guideline the general principle indicated hardly applies to the situation in south-west Region. These intergroups are clearly not acting on the basis of punishing anyone but rather in the interests of preserving the integrity, well-being and effectiveness of both Alcoholics Anonymous and its membership (and with especial emphasis on the safety of those who come to us for help). It is as ridiculous to suggest that these service structures are acting from malign intent as it is to propose that a surgeon bears a grudge against a tumour he/she is excising from a patient's body; the well-being of the “whole” person can only be secured by such an intervention. (but see aacultwatch forum: “Cult Failure Rates” - for a more detailed analysis of the problem together with the (properly) cited “Conceptual” underpinning). The paragraph concludes with a reference to “vested interest” and includes a rather transparent attempt to seek to “divide and rule” the two intergroups. The only “vested interest” that we can detect is the one we have outlined above ie. the well-being etc of AA; but then this has never been high on the cult's agenda! The letter meanders on for a while longer, a mixture of “trumpet blowing” and a nod in the direction of AA unity with offers of co-operation intertwined with more accusations directed towards the two existing (and legitimate AA intergroups) ie. “discriminatory bias and egocentric bigotry”. How to win friends and influence people? Probably not - and hardly redolent of “With love in Fellowship” with which this particularly confused missive rather unconvincingly concludes.

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our usual thanks for our reporter's contribution)

Saturday 13 August 2011

Is There a Place for Atheists in Alcoholics Anonymous?


(Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/151294/is_there_a_place_for_atheists_in_alcoholics_anonymous?akid=7112.275856.JI6Ij2&rd=1&t=5)


A long-simmering feud is spreading around the world, after one AA establishment voted to expel two atheist/agnostic groups in Canada.
June 14, 2011 |

Was Alcoholics Anonymous meant to be a mosaic or a melting pot? Does its culture embrace one and all who have a desire to stop drinking, or is the intention to blend everyone into a single AA homogeneity? These were the questions raised by a recent furor in Toronto, where two AA meetings were banished from the city’s official directory for catering to atheist and agnostic members with an adapted version of the 12 Steps. Not surprisingly, given AA's reach, the controversy has spread around the world.

"Just tell me what to do ’cause I hurt so bad," was David R.’s attitude when he first joined AA. “I really wanted to stop drinking and I was truly ready to ‘go to any length’—and I did.” The trouble was that God “as we understood Him” meant, in David’s case, no God at all. “Because I am a people-pleaser, I faked it with the theistic elements, half-knowing I was faking," he says. "I was afraid that I would drink if I didn't. I am grateful to be sober. I couldn't have done it without AA: the meetings, the support of some understanding people and activities not related to drinking.”

You sense a “but” coming next. Says David: “There are many concepts that didn't seem right, helpful or logical to me, right from the beginning. They didn't fit my experience of how I got sober and was staying sober.” Having worked through, and taken others through, the 12 Steps, he heard about an agnostic group—one of Toronto’s first “Freethinker” meetings, called Beyond Belief—and checked it out.

Because I had been so compliant in traditional AA meetings,” he says, “I found it difficult to hear people complain about ‘the God thing’ and how they had felt excluded at other meetings. I was uncomfortable when people questioned AA dogma, or were firmly atheist. I went through a period of not feeling at home in either Beyond Belief or traditional meetings; I called myself ‘agnostic’ in the strict sense of ‘not knowing and not possible to know.’”

Gradually, he had an attitude adjustment. “The main thing I got from Beyond Belief at first was the concept that AA didn't know everything, that there were people with very long-term sobriety who questioned core dogma and didn't get drunk or struck by lightning. Eventually that realization became very liberating.”

As a Secular Humanist, David is now an active member of Beyond Belief and recently served as group secretary, responsible for the AA literature supply, making weekly announcements and handling the group’s monthly commitment to take the AA message into a detox at a local hospital. His initial hope that the agnostic position can strengthen the will to sobriety, rather than threaten it, has grown into a conviction. “The purpose of rational thought and skepticism is not to comfort, but to uncover the truth," he says. "My sobriety feels safer the more based on truth and rational thinking it becomes.”

David was part of a growth surge for Beyond Belief, which started with a dozen members who agreed on a format of ideas posted by some of the other North American and European agnostic groups that have been welcoming AA members since 1975. Every meeting started with this preamble:

"This group of AA attempts to maintain a tradition of free expression, and conduct a meeting where alcoholics may feel free to express any doubts or disbeliefs they may have, and to share their own personal form of spiritual experience, their search for it, or their rejection of it. We do not endorse or oppose any form of religion or atheism. Our only wish is to assure suffering alcoholics that they can find sobriety in AA without having to accept anyone else's beliefs or having to deny their own."

Beyond Belief attracted up to 50 attendees at its Thursday meetings, and added a Saturday evening Step-study. A new group, We Agnostics, also started on Tuesday nights. Each group had its share of 25-to-35-year sober members, living proof that AA works without God. David and his comrades also witnessed half a dozen one-year celebrations from members who had found that the new groups succeeded for them, when others had failed. Agnostic AA was working in Toronto.

Only for literalists, it wasn’t AA at all. Tradition Three—“The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking”—wasn’t their focus. It was “God as we understand Him.” They took this to mean that a primary requirement for being classified as an AA group was a belief in some sort of God. No God? No AA.

So where does that leave Hindus, Taoists, Native Americans, Buddhists, Humanists and the many other non-monotheistic creeds in our culture? Atheists aren’t the only “No God, please” people who struggle with alcoholism.

Members from several local God-focused AAs started talking about how to put a stop to this agnostic “sect,” and got in touch with the General Service Office’s Mary Claire Lunch. She told them, “What the other AA group does is none of your group’s business. Taking another group’s inventory with regard to the Traditions is just not done. What a slippery slope that could be! You might offer to bring this observation about the other group changing the Steps to the attention of your Area Delegate.”

So Robb W., Panel 61 Delegate for Area 83, was the next to hear from the aggrieved parties. His response, a precise parsing of the fellowship's abstruse Traditions, is worth quoting in full, above all for his final sentence, which could not have been more conclusive or less ambiguous:

"I have received numerous emails and phone calls about a particular group in the GTA that is using their own version of the 12 Steps. The only rules that we have in Alcoholics Anonymous are those which we impose upon ourselves. We do not force people (or groups, districts or areas) to conform to our will. While conformity to the principles set out in our 12 Steps is suggested, it is still only a suggestion.

"That being said, Tradition Four states that ‘Each Group is autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole.’ Many things are done in AA groups, districts and areas under the banner of 'group autonomy.' This is rightly so although we need keep in mind the second half of the Tradition: ‘except in matters affecting other Groups or AA as a whole.’ It is the responsibility of the General Service Conference to preserve the integrity of the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous.

"If a group chooses to use its own interpretation of our Steps and Traditions, they should have the freedom to do so. However, this should be kept within that group for those who agree and not placed in the public domain as representing or related to Alcoholics Anonymous.

"We need always keep in mind that wherever two people gather to share and recover from Alcoholism, they may be called an AA Group provided that, as a group, they have no other purpose or affiliation.

"There is only one requirement for membership in Alcoholics Anonymous and it does not include belief in God."

And that might well have been that. But the anti-agnostic contingent somehow found in this letter a mandate to ask the Greater Toronto Area Intergroup to strike the two GSO-sanctioned groups from their directory. And so, with the support of about 30 other groups—in a city of about 200 groups and over 500 meetings—the agnostic AA groups were cast out and denied all future AA services and publicity. Quoted in The Toronto Star, a supporter of the Intergroup action said of the agnostic AAs: “They’ve changed [the Steps] to their own personal needs. They should never have been listed in the first place.”

Across the continent in California, Doug L. had a comparable experience. He lives in South Orange County now, but got sober in the hipper Laguna Beach area. “Sobriety was good. I spent much time with my sponsor discussing my higher power," he recalls. "He was into yoga and encouraged me to get serious about my calling to be a Buddhist practitioner.”

Moving to a new town meant a new AA environment. “It did not take long for people to realize I was not going to accept a Christian concept of God," Doug says. "The more I tried to help newcomers who questioned the God stuff, the more I alienated myself in the fellowship. You see, we have a lot of fundamentalist Christians in South County.”

Doug’s attempts to start a Freethinker meeting met with hostility. “When I posted a notice about AA Freethinkers online, members would come immediately behind me and tear it down. When I discussed the idea, I was told I was going to get drunk if I didn't admit I was powerless! The idea of removing God from the 12 Steps was met with righteous indignation.”

Soon Doug was read the riot act by his fellow 12-Steppers: “I was told that our Intergroup would not list any Freethinker or agnostic meetings. I was told that I was not to discuss Freethinker issues. I was told that AA is all-inclusive and there was no need to have splinter groups; I reminded the Steering Committee that our meeting directly lists separate gay meetings. I am now labeled a troublemaker.”
Still committed to establishing a Freethinker group in his area, Doug now works the 12 Steps “on concurrent paths with the 12 Steps of Buddhism—there are many similarities between the two sets of steps.” But there are some differences, too. “The teachings of the Buddha tell me I am not powerless.”

AA had one million members when agnostic groups joined the scene in 1975. That figure doubled in the next 25 years. New York, San Francisco and Chicago are examples of cities where groups that accept God and groups that reject God can tolerate each other. But in the last 10 years AA has been shrinking. According to the GSO service manual, membership dropped from 2,160,013 in 2000 to 2,044,655 in 2008, a fall of 5.6%. Is the 76-year-old fellowship experiencing shrinking pains? And is there a need for a scapegoat?

The anonymously-authored White Paper on Non-Believers was circulated last year to Intergroup reps and Executive Committee members. It makes a passionate plea:

"Fellow members, we are allowing in our midst the initiation and promotion of a path called ‘Sobriety without God.’ What if the newcomer of the future is encouraged to choose that selection instead of the traditional 12 Step path? And what if, as a result, he ends up with a somewhat acceptable ‘water-wagon sobriety’ instead of the promised ‘spiritual awakening’ of the 12 Steps? Are we not guilty of duplicity of the highest order and can we any longer think of ourselves as ‘trusted servants?’ After all, the power we are serving is clearly God Himself!"

The White Paper promotes the mythology of how much better AA was in the good old days, when harmony reigned and newcomers all got sober by finding God. Agnosticism wasn’t a creed, but an intellectual holdout from the one truth: God keeps us sober. (But AA would "love" non-believers to health until they got better and found this one truth.)

The problem with this position is that the “one truth” never existed in the first place. Jim B., an AA founder, didn’t believe in a Supreme Being. He was the reason for the only requirement for membership being a desire to stop drinking. He outlived Bill W. and died sober, having brought AA’s message to new cities and new members from Philadelphia to San Diego.

The White Paper argues that two fundamental beliefs cannot coexist in AA, that belief in God is superior to all other creeds, and that believers in AA must suppress or eliminate the agnostic or atheist voice in the fellowship. Otherwise, AA will perish.

Most of AA remains moderate and accommodating, but in the post-Bill Wilson era the voice of moderation hasn’t always won the day. One delegate, who voted against the motion to expel the agnostic groups at the GTA Intergroup, marked the occasion by reading out a definitive statement by Bill W. from the 1946 Grapevine:

"Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA Group. This clearly implies that an alcoholic is a member if he says so; that we can't deny him his membership; that we can't demand from him a cent; that we can't force our beliefs or practices upon him; that he may flout everything we stand for and still be a member. In fact, our Tradition carries the principle of independence for the individual to such an apparently fantastic length that, so long as there is the slightest interest in sobriety, the most unmoral, the most anti-social, the most critical alcoholic may gather about him a few kindred spirits and announce to us that a new Alcoholics Anonymous Group has been formed. Anti-God, anti-medicine, anti-our Recovery Program, even anti-each other—these rampant individuals are still an AA Group if they think so!"

AA faces serious challenges. Just as BP would have preferred to keep the Gulf of Mexico oil debacle inside the boardroom, AA would have preferred what happened in a church basement in North Toronto to remain AA’s little secret. But the story broke in The Toronto Star and went viral. What would once have been an internal matter is now aired in the full sight of the public.

Another challenge is that there are now three times as many atheists in North America as there were in the 1960s. So if AA wants to move away from inclusivity, it will surely be a smaller fellowship when it celebrates its 100-year anniversary.

AA is a religion in denial,” says Jim Christopher, founder of Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS). “Belief in a path of faith can work, and that is great. No one can deny that AA works for a lot of alcoholics.” SOS is a fellowship of 20,000 recovering addicts, 90% of whom have been to AA. “I would be afraid of a 100% intellectual approach, too,” adds Jim, “Becoming addicted isn’t an intellectual process. According to my intellect, booze brought euphoria, a lie that my intellect called a life-affirming experience. Recovery is a fusion of head and gut.” SOS is neutral on religion.

Jerry T., an agnostic AA member from Florida, points out: “AA's history is one of it knowing better and being proven wrong. First it was the women who couldn't be alcoholics, who had to fight for their place. Then it was the non-smokers. Most every specialty meeting had some kind of fight or controversy surrounding its existence. The wonderful thing about our struggle is that it is going to force recognition of a lot of elephants in the room.”

Back in Toronto, David R. has attended SOS since the AA creed divide took place. “I have been alternately angry and sad, yelling and crying. But, like hitting bottom, there's relief, too," he says. "I am livid at the unfairness and injustice. There was no dialogue, no attempt to address the issue of the rewritten 12 Steps, no acknowledgment of the service we've provided and the people we've helped. There was no fellowship, just ideology, power play and dogma. I believe the controversy is less about belief in God, and more about the fact that we challenged power.”

One thing is clear, however: given demographic trends, AA’s power struggle over the "God Question" is far from finished.”
Comment: Freedom of thought and expression? Yes. Rewriting the Steps? No. The fact is that any member of AA is entirely free to utilise whatever concept of a Higher Power they choose (which includes No God); that is their business and no one else's. They are also free to express their beliefs (or non-beliefs) to anyone they like and wherever they like. They can write essays about it, campaign on it, and, if they feel really strongly about it, go on hunger strike to emphasise the strength of their convictions. That again is their business. What they MAY NOT do is seek to enforce their interpretation on other AA members by unilaterally rewording OUR steps and then presenting this interpretation within the context of an AA meeting or group. Their conduct is in fact a clear breach of Tradition Four. (Incidentally we would argue on precisely the same grounds if a group sought to advocate a particular religious position (including any revision of the literature to accommodate that stance) whilst referring to itself as an AA group). Theistic, atheistic, agnostic, pagan... all are perfectly acceptable orientations for individual members but not for AA groups. Interestingly Bill Wilson's “definitive” quote (above) (though definitive for what reason we have no idea. Because Bill Wilson said it? We think not!) from Grapevine is directly contradicted by Tradition 3 (long form):

Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation
(our emphasis)

Clearly a group that advocates a particular stance which is extrinsic to its primary purpose (in this case - non-religious) has created such an affiliation.
(In the above instance we would rather place our reliance on a principle assented to - and formally adopted at - the 1st International Convention AA (1950) than upon Bill Wilson's opinion expressed in a magazine article)

Additionally note should be taken here of Tradition 1 (long form):

Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward”.

We have argued elsewhere that the welfare of the individual and of AA are necessarily co-extensive; harm to one inevitably leads to the diminution in the well-being of the other. Their interests are not mutually exclusive. However this does not imply that an individual or group of individuals may elect to vary the principles of the organisation of which they claim to be a part simply because some central elements of its philosophy (or rather their interpretation of these) do not sit easily with them. In connection with this a number of years ago a small group of AA members (but not an AA group!), and who happened to be Buddhist, discussed whether they should adopt a reworded version of the Steps which more accurately reflected their own perspective. Each Step was discussed in turn and in a matter of about half an hour they concluded (unanimously) that no redaction was required. They could see no essential conflict between Buddhist teaching and the existing formulation of the recovery programme. Both systems, they concluded, were entirely compatible.

So, and in response to the rather disingenuous question posed in the title of this piece: “Is There a Place for Atheists in Alcoholics Anonymous?” our answer is an unequivocal 'yes'. Indeed they cannot be excluded according to our own traditions. But, and to paraphrase that same introduction: “Is There a Place for Atheist AA groups in Alcoholics Anonymous?” our answer is an unequivocal 'no'..... and nor for that matter any other kind of affiliated/specialist/alternative 'agenda' (the last our new designation for 'cult'!) group. Finally, of course, such 'groups' are entirely free to set up on their own, create their own networks, write their own literature, create their own guidelines/rules/precepts/commandments etc so long as they do not use the name Alcoholics Anonymous or claim in any way to be connected with AA. It is after all a free world... isn't it?

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)


Wednesday 10 August 2011

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for the hand of AA to always be there!


An extract from the aacultwatch forum (with permission) under message heading: Cult Failure Rates

“….... I would like you to take a look at the cult of Synanon, I think it is an important piece of contemporary A.A. history, because the separation from A.A. at its beginning demonstrates Tradition Two and Concept IX (for Concepts click here) in action. The courage of the A.A. group members to stand against a power driving leader Chuck D. and his followers, caused the split in the A.A. group, thus protecting A.A. from wider disunity and subsequent bad press. True to Tradition Two, the prediction that the “arch deacon” would either conform to the group conscience or wind up drunk came eventually, but only after 20 years.

I wonder how A.A. would have responded if Chuck had decided to operate his franchise as an autonomous group of A.A., for example “the Synanon group of A.A.” instead of going it alone. Or if the A.A. group members had left the A.A. group all to Chuck by saying “Each group is autonomous! Live and let live! vote with your feet!” instead of having the balls and backbone to have a row for the sake of Traditional A.A. Would the intergroups and GSO of the 1960s have continued to register his groups and how much damage would the extraordinary abuses that were to occur in his cult have done to A.A. public relations, were his cult to have remained in A.A.?

Any society which is indifferent to the abuse of the vulnerable is destined to corruption and collapse, A.A. will be no exception unless measures are put in place to prevent it. I think for a cult group to last 10 years such as the Joys, is not acceptable. It shows an immoral failure of duty of care, a failure of Traditions, Concepts and warranties of conference; especially Tradition Two, concepts IX, XII (warranties 5 and 6). I think there needs to be responsible intervention at group/intergroup level where abuse is reported if vulnerable people and our public relations are to be protected from those who, as Bill W. put it, are “a trifle sicker than the rest of us.” (Concept IX). For Tradition Two to operate in A.A., it has to coincide with the type of leadership described in concept IX, it cannot function without it.

I think A.A. is dealing with a new phenomenon, for which most are unprepared. It presents a conundrum and it is a toxic cocktail of the following ingredients: Global internet communication; the outside influence of a very narrow minded fundamentalist Christian re-write of A.A’s program and history, by authors such as Wally P, Dick B., and Joe McQ; a generation of “elder statesmen” who have no experience of dealing with a serious problem in A.A; who also lack knowledge of A.A. history and the ability to apply Traditions and Concepts; and the majority of whom appear to see no threat in placing individual liberty above that of our common welfare.

This cocktail has produced not so much cult groups, but a collection of cult groups which together amount to a neo-Oxford Group fundamentalist movement with international connections and figureheads as leaders. Joys of Recovery, (Detroit-London), Primary Purpose Group of AA (Dallas), (Global affiliation), Cliff B. Myers R., Chris R., Back to Basics, Wally P.(Global affiliation), Road to recovery Plymouth(Wayne P) etc.

In 1941 the good news was written in the press and A.A. began to take off: “Because of the absence of figureheads and the fact there is no formal body of belief to promote, they have no fears that Alcoholics Anonymous will degenerate into a cult.” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23), I wonder if the co-founders of AA would say the same thing if they were around today.

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-12_theJackAlexArticle.pdf


Today our public image is not so good.

1998: The Independent: "Cult or cure: the AA backlash" ---- "Alcoholics Anonymous is under attack. Those who have been through its mill claim it is `authoritarian' and `fascistic', employs brainwashing techniques and is cult-like in its attitude to members. Ursula Kenny talks to the disaffected who have rejected its road to recovery...."


There can be no doubt that A.A. is getting the reputation of being a cult. To avoid further loss of public confidence in A.A. and if vulnerable people are to be protected from abuse, then I think we need to see a lot more example of the Santa Monica pro A.A. Tradition elder statesmanship of 1958. (Concept IX in action). --In this modern world however, to be of effect to meet the present day needs of the fellowship, I think this needs to be both communicated and operating throughout the A.A. World Service Structure, top to bottom, as soon as possible. The “arch deacon” of Tradition Two, Chuck D., (who incidentally was to some years later appoint himself Pope of the cult Church of Synanon) recalled his 1958 not so spiritual baptism of concept IX, wonderfully executed by A.A. trusted servants. They intuitively knew how handle situations which seem to baffle us today.

“It happened right in the middle of an A.A. meeting. Our whole gang had taken over the Saturday night meeting of the Santa Monica A.A. group at Twenty Sixth and Broadway and built it up from its attendance of ten people to an attendance of about forty five or fifty. There was some objection on some issue by the members of the Board of Directors of the A.A. club. I recall the leader stopping the meeting. They didn’t like us. The alkies didn’t like the addicts, and they didn’t like me in particular…and they didn’t like my gang because they were mostly addicts. They made things difficult for us. I remember getting up in the meeting and saying, ‘All right, lets go home-the hell with this.’ So the whole meeting got up, and we all got into our automobiles and came down to the club, and we never went back to A.A. again.”

(From the Desk of Juan Lesende: How Drug Abuse Treatment Turns into Mistreatment By Juan E. Lesende - September 18th 2009)


Chuck Dederich Still Rules Synanon, but Now He Has 1,300 Subjects and a $22 Million Empire -- By Barbara Wilkins --PEOPLE magazine's archive: October 11, 1976, Vol. 6, No. 15: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066985,00.html

Wikipedia – Synanon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanon

Dederick Charles E: ( The link may show “no text available”, if so click blue link “search for this page title”. Search results may show “No page title matches”, If so click on the blue “Dederick Charles E link, about halfway down the page.): http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Dederick%2C_Charles_E.

Finding Aid for the Mitchell-Synanon Litigation Papers, 1979-1989 University of Tennessee Special Collections Library, Knoxville, TN: http://dlc.lib.utk.edu/f/fa/fulltext/1711.html


Comment: Think on that! Our usual thanks to the contributor of the above piece - and for such an excellent analysis!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Sunday 7 August 2011

Some more doctor's opinions!

An interview with George Vaillant (professor of psychiatry who joined the GSB (US) as a non-alcoholic trustee in 1998)


Some interesting perspectives......

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Friday 5 August 2011

Medications and Recovery

(excerpt from the Dual Recovery Anonymous website)

DRA members often go to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings for additional support and fellowship. Often men and women who have been diagnosed with a dual disorder say that they have received misguided advice about their diagnosis and the use of medication at other Twelve Step meetings. Some have been told that they do not have an emotional or psychiatric illness, and that they are experiencing merely self-pity or some other character defect "You don't need those pills. They'll cause you more problems" and "If you're taking pills, then you're in relapse and not really sober". Individuals who have followed such advice have experienced relapse: some have been hospitalized; some have returned to alcohol or drug use; some have attempted or even completed suicide. To say the least, it can be very confusing. Though we can not speak for other organizations, their literature makes clear that these types of statements are not the official position of A.A., N.A., or any other Twelve Step recovery groups that we are aware of.

On page 133 of the Big Book of A.A. it says in part:

Now about health: A body badly burned by alcohol does not often recover overnight nor do twisted thinking and depression vanish in a twinkling. We are convinced that a spiritual mode of living is a most powerful health restorative. We, who have recovered from serious drinking, are miracles of mental health. But we have seen remarkable transformations in our bodies. Hardly one of our crowd now shows any dissipation.

But this does not mean that we disregard human health measures. God has abundantly supplied this world with fine doctors, psychologists, and practitioners of various kinds. Do not hesitated to take your health problems to such persons. Most of them give freely of themselves, that their fellows may enjoy sound minds and bodies. Try to remember that though God has wrought miracles among us, we should never belittle a good doctor or psychiatrist. Their services are often indispensable in treating a newcomer and in following his case afterward.

Reprinted from Alcoholics Anonymous, with permission of A.A. World Services, Inc.

There is also an important piece of A.A. conference approved literature called "The A.A. Member - Medications and Other Drugs" that addresses these issues specifically plus issues of cross addiction. Some D.R.A. members carry copies of this pamphlet with them to help educate others when this issue is brought up. Here are a few excerpts:

...A.A. members and many of their physicians have described situations in which depressed patients have been told by A.A.s to throw away the pills, only to have depression return with all its difficulties, sometimes resulting in suicide. We have heard, too, from schizophrenics, manic depressives, epileptics, and others requiring medication that well-meaning A.A. friends often discourage them from taking prescribed medication, Unfortunately, by following a layman's advice, the sufferers find that their conditions can return with all their previous intensity..."

"It becomes clear that just as it is wrong to enable or support any alcoholic to become readdicted to any drug, it's equally wrong to deprive any alcoholic of medication which can alleviate or control other disabling physical and/or emotional problems.

Reprinted from The A.A. Member - Medications & Other Drugs, with permission of A.A. World Services, Inc.


We also must keep in mind that few recovering alcoholics and addicts in these groups are mental health and treatment professionals. Almost all are certainly well-meaning. Many don't fully understand the difference between the usual depressions and anxieties most recovering folks go through in early sobriety and our psychiatric illnesses--nor should they be expected to. Some people may falsely think that antidepressants are "mood elevators" much like the street drugs they may be familiar with. These are understandable misconceptions, but can lead to poor advice even from some of the "old-timers".

It is clear that no one should play the role of doctor but a licensed physician or psychiatrist. Sponsors and other well-meaning Twelfth Steppers should not give medical advice. DRA members who seek sponsors in other 12 Step groups must weigh carefully the potential sponsor's attitude and understanding concerning medications and psychiatric illnesses. We can not expect them to fully understand, but an attitude of acceptance toward the the nature of our dual disorder and the place properly prescribed medications play in our dual recovery is key. Experience has shown us that honesty is the basis for successful sponsorships.”

(our emphases)

Comment: It is interesting to note here that an outside organisation seems better acquainted with our basic text and guidelines than some of the so-called “AA” groups operating in our midst ie. those collectives whose sole aim and purpose is to transmit dogma rather than recovery, partiality instead of rationality, and seem entirely content to sacrifice whomsoever in pursuit of their particularly obtuse and perverse agenda, all claiming moreover to carry the 'One, True Message' albeit under different guises viz. Primary Purpose, Back to Basics, Visions etc. DRA generously describes this conduct as being essentially “well meaning” or deriving from good intentions. We, however, would ascribe to it rather those essential “cult” qualities of stupidity and prejudice. Here we recall to you the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux: "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" (hell is full of good wishes and desires) or: “The road to hell is paved with good....”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tuesday 2 August 2011

Alcoholics Anonymous (Great Britain) – 2010 membership survey – General Service report








Looks like we're not doing so badly after all – and despite the best efforts of our little “pointed headed” friends!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)