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)
