See also Links and downloads
PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here
Thursday, 28 February 2013
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
aacultwatch forum daily reflections
Extracts
from our forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch
under thread: “aacultwatch forum daily reflections”
“The
year of the great Berkshire meeting, 1936, also brought difficulties
for the Oxford Group. In August, the New York World-Telegram
published an article about Buchman, charging that he was pro- Nazi.
The newspaper quoted Buchman as saying: ‘I thank heaven for a man
like Adolf Hitler who built a front-line defence against the
Anti-Christ of Communism. Think what it would mean to the world if
Hitler surrendered to God. Through such a man, God could control a
nation and solve every problem. Human problems aren’t economic,
they’re moral, and they can’t be solved by immoral measures.’
While most discussions of the incident, even by Buchman's critics,
have since vindicated him, the article brought the group into public
controversy … … … … In 1938, after Oxford University
requested that the group, because of the controversy, no longer use
its name, it took the name Moral Rearmament, abbreviated to M.R.A.
(Pass It On pages 170-171)
“It
became the Oxford Group in 1928 and renamed itself Moral rearmament
(M.R.A.) in 1938.” (Pass It On page 130)
“So
when the first break in Ohio came, it came in Cleveland, rather than
Akron.” Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers page 161)
“Clarence
said, ‘ I made the announcement at the Oxford Group that this was
the last time the Cleveland bunch was down as a contingent – that
there we were starting a group in Cleveland that would only be open
to alcoholics and their families. Also that we were taking the name
from the book ‘Alcoholics Anonymous.’
'The
roof came of the house. 'Clarence you can't do this!' someone said.
'
Its done'.
'We've
got to talk about this!'
'It's
too late' I said." (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers page 164)
“The
meeting was set for the following week [May 11, 1939],’ Clarence
said. I made the mistake of telling these people the address. They
invaded the house and tried to break up our meeting. One fellow was
going to whip me. All in the spirit of pure Christian love! But we
stood our ground.' Dorothy’s recollections differed slightly. ‘We
didn’t have any name,’ she said, ‘but we let everybody know it
was definitely not an Oxford Group. Just alcoholics.' … … … ‘As
a matter of fact,’ Dorothy said, ‘at one of our very early
meetings, all the strict Oxford Group contingent came up from Akron
and was very bitter and voluble. They felt we were being extremely
disloyal to everyone in doing this. It was quite a step to pull away
from Akron.” (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers pages 164-165)
“Whatever
the conversation between Doc may have had with Clarence before the
Cleveland group started, he gave it his full support from the
beginning, as did many other Akron A.A. members ‘Dr. Bob was at all
these early meetings, which took place at our house,’ Al said in a
letter to Bill.” (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers pages165-166)
“In
November of 1939 the first all-AA group was formed in the City of
Cleveland – the old Borton Group. (Dr. Bob and the Good Old timers
page 169)”
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Monday, 25 February 2013
Religion – what is it? Some legal perspectives
“II — THE MODERN DEFINITION OF RELIGION
It seems unavoidable, from Seeger, Welsh,
and Torcaso, that the Theistic formulation presumed to be
applicable in the late nineteenth century cases is no longer
sustainable. Under the modern view, "religion"
is not confined to the relationship of man with his Creator, either
as a matter of law or as a matter of theology. Even theologians of
traditionally recognized faiths have moved away from a strictly
Theistic approach in explaining their own religions.[31]
Such movement, when coupled with the growth in the United States, of
many Eastern and non-traditional belief systems, suggests that the
older, limited definition would deny "religious"
identification to faiths now adhered to by millions of Americans. The
Court's more recent cases reject such a result.
If the old definition has been repudiated,
however, the new definition remains not yet fully formed. It would
appear to be properly described as a definition by analogy. The
Seeger court advertently declined to distinguish beliefs
holding "parallel positions in the lives of their respective
holders."[32]
Presumably beliefs holding the same important position for members of
one of the new religions as the traditional faith holds for more
orthodox believers are entitled to the same treatment as the
traditional beliefs. The tax exemption cases referred to in Torcaso
also rely primarily on the common elements present in the new
challenged groups — the Ethical Society and the Fellowship of
Humanity — as well as in the older unchallenged groups and
churches. In like fashion, Judge Wright reasoned by analogy in
crediting the prima facie claim made out for Scientology in Founding Church of Scientology, supra.[33]
The modern approach thus looks to the familiar religions as models in
order to ascertain, by comparison, whether the new set of ideas or
beliefs is confronting the same concerns, or serving the same
purposes, as unquestioned and accepted "religions."
But it is one thing to conclude "by analogy"
that a particular group or cluster of ideas is religious; it is quite
another to explain exactly what indicia are to be looked to in making
such an analogy and justifying it. There appear to be three
useful indicia that are basic to our traditional religions and that
are themselves related to the values that undergird the first
amendment.
The first and most important of these indicia is
the nature of the ideas in question. This means that a court must, at
least to a degree, examine the content of the supposed religion,
not to determine its truth or falsity, or whether it is schismatic or
orthodox, but to determine whether the subject matter it comprehends
is consistent with the assertion that it is, or is not, a
religion.[34]
Thus the court was able to remark in Founding Church of
Scientology:
It might be possible to show that a self-proclaimed religion was merely a commercial enterprise, without the underlying theories of man's nature or his place in the Universe which characterize recognized religions.[35]
Similarly, one of the conscientious objectors
whose appeal was coupled with Seeger, submitted a long
memorandum, noted by the Court, in which he defined religion
as the "sum and essence of one's basic attitudes to the
fundamental problems of human existence."[36]
Expectation that religious ideas should address
fundamental questions is in some ways comparable to the reasoning of
the Protestant theologian Dr. Paul Tillich, who expressed his view on
the essence of religion
in the phrase "ultimate concern."[37]
Tillich perceived religion
as intimately connected to concepts that are of the greatest depth
and utmost importance. His thoughts have been influential both with
courts and commentators.[38]
Nor is it difficult to see why this philosophy would prove attractive
in the American constitutional framework. One's views, be they
orthodox or novel, on the deeper and more imponderable questions —
the meaning of life and death, man's role in the Universe, the proper
moral code of right and wrong — are those likely to be the most
"intensely personal"[39]
and important to the believer. They are his ultimate concerns. As
such, they are to be carefully guarded from governmental
interference, and never converted into official government doctrine.
The first amendment demonstrates a specific solicitude for religion
because religious ideas are in many ways more important than other
ideas. New and different ways of meeting those concerns are entitled
to the same sort of treatment as the traditional forms.
Thus, the "ultimate" nature of the ideas
presented is the most important and convincing evidence that they
should be treated as religious.[40]
Certain isolated answers to "ultimate" questions,
however, are not necessarily "religious" answers, because
they lack the element of comprehensiveness, the second of the three
indicia. A religion
is not generally confined to one question or one moral teaching; it
has a broader scope. It lays claim to an ultimate and comprehensive
"truth." Thus the so-called "Big Bang" theory, an
astronomical interpretation of the creation of the universe, may be
said to answer an "ultimate" question, but it is not, by
itself, a "religious" idea. Likewise, moral or patriotic
views are not by themselves "religious," but if they are
pressed as divine law or a part of a comprehensive belief-system that
presents them as "truth," they might well rise to the
religious level.
The component of comprehensiveness is particularly
relevant in the context of state education. A science course may
touch on many ultimate concerns,[41]
but it is unlikely to proffer a systematic series of answers to them
that might begin to resemble a religion.
St. Thomas Aquinas once defined theology by asserting,
... this science commands all the other sciences as the ruling science... This science uses for its service all the other sciences, as though its vassals, ....[42]
The teaching of isolated theories that might be
thought to address "ultimate" questions is not the teaching
of such a "ruling science." When these theories are
combined into a comprehensive belief system, however, the result may
well become such a "ruling science" that overflows into
other academic disciplines as the guiding idea of the student's
pursuits. It is just such a "ruling science" that the
establishment clause guards against.
A third element to consider in ascertaining
whether a set of ideas should be classified as a religion
is any formal, external, or surface signs that may be analogized to
accepted religions. Such signs might include formal services,
ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and
organization, efforts at propagation, observation of holidays and
other similar manifestations associated with the traditional
religions. Of course, a religion
may exist without any of these signs,[43]
so they are not determinative, at least by their absence, in
resolving a question of definition. But they can be helpful in
supporting a conclusion of religious status given the important role
such ceremonies play in religious life.[44] These formal signs of religion
were found to be persuasive proofs of religious character for tax
exemption purposes in Washington Ethical Society and
Fellowship of Humanity, discussed supra. They are noted
as well in Founding Church of Scientology supra. Thus, even if it is true that a
religion
can exist without rituals and structure, they may nonetheless be
useful signs that a group or belief system is religious.
Although these indicia will be helpful, they
should not be thought of as a final "test" for religion.
Defining religion
is a sensitive and important legal duty.[45]
Flexibility and careful consideration of each belief system are
needed. Still, it is important to have some objective guidelines in
order to avoid ad hoc justice.”
Source:
Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F. 2d 197 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1979
Comment: Perhaps some useful hints here in assisting AAs clarify their own distinction between what constitutes a 'formal religious' perspective and what might be termed a more inclusive 'spiritual' orientation, the latter being entirely consistent with fundamental AA principles
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Comment: Perhaps some useful hints here in assisting AAs clarify their own distinction between what constitutes a 'formal religious' perspective and what might be termed a more inclusive 'spiritual' orientation, the latter being entirely consistent with fundamental AA principles
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Sunday, 24 February 2013
The Role of AA Sponsors: A Pilot Study
“Aims:
The aim of this study was to explore the roles of Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) sponsors and to describe the characteristics of a
sample of sponsors.”
Extracts:
“The
roles of a sponsor, as delineated in this pamphlet [Questions and Answers on Sponsorship (Alcoholics Anonymous, 2005)].,
are summarized below:
- A sponsor does everything possible, within the limits of personal experience and knowledge, to help the newcomer get sober and stay sober through the AA programme.
- They field any questions the new member may have about AA.
- Sponsorship gives the newcomer an understanding, sympathetic friend when one is needed most—it assures them that at least one person cares.”
Sponsoring
roles:
Sponsorship styles:
“A
number of sponsors were of the view that the message of AA should be
delivered gently to sponsees. It seems that within the various
subcultures that exist in AA, some members can be quite harsh with
newcomers and some sponsors are perceived as ‘controlling’ by
their sponsees. One member admitted to having been a controlling
sponsor initially but now recognized that
this was the wrong approach.
When
I came in [to AA], I was very much a ‘step Nazi’. I told everyone
exactly what to do and fired them [i.e. stopped sponsoring them] if
they didn’t do what I said. (sponsor 14, male, 70 years old)”
“Sponsors who do not give advice directly use the mechanism of describing or sharing their personal experience of recovery as a way of guiding sponsees rather than telling them what to do. This approach is most in keeping with AA principles.
AA
guidance may be applied in a straightforward fashion when it relates
to sobriety. The message for sponsees is clear: do not drink, go to
meetings and work the programme of AA. However, a number of sponsors
recognized that their sponsees often needed help in areas of their
lives other than in maintaining sobriety. In these circumstances,
some sponsors were prepared to advise as long as the advice was
either sought by their sponsee or it was given within the principles
of AA. This seems to be a reasonable approach and not contradictory
to AA guidance.”
“Controlling
behaviour by sponsors
The
matter of advice giving may relate to the extent to which some
sponsors wish to impose their will on their sponsees. A number of
sponsors referred to what could be loosely described as their
controlling behaviour, often recognizing that it is unhelpful.
Sponsor 14 even referred to himself as a ‘step Nazi’. The term
‘controlling behaviour’ is not well described in the psychiatric
literature and is, perhaps, a lay term. However, AA literature refers
to this type of behaviour as ‘self-will run riot’, which it
believes to be at the core of ‘the disease’ of alcoholism.”
Comment:
It's interesting to note that the term 'step Nazi' has now migrated
into research literature. This will do wonders for AA's
reputation!
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Saturday, 23 February 2013
Friday, 22 February 2013
Thursday, 21 February 2013
Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)
Question
2:
“Would
the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group,
within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to
Traditions 4 - 6?
Background
Consider
the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and
practical implications when deliberating each question.”
Extract:
“The
question is clear enough and the background is sufficient (and does
not exclude additional citation)
“The Traditions have these words to say on Groups in AA.
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.
Tradition 4 (Long form). With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”
(Source: GUIDELINES for A.A. in Great Britain - Revised January 2000 No. 1)
Tradition 3 may be divided into two parts: firstly that which relates to membership of AA as a whole; secondly what constitutes an AA group as such (but qualified). The first part includes only one proposal – that membership is open to anyone “who suffer[s] from alcoholism” (self diagnosed). Their membership cannot be restricted on any other ground. These may, in turn, form an AA group (subject only to the above constraint but see Traditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10).
Tradition 4 deals with group autonomy (but qualified and not unrestricted)
From this it follows that membership of AA (and consequent individual participation in the fellowship) should be distinguished from membership of an AA group (and its collective participation in the fellowship); the two are not necessarily the same. One can be a member of AA without being a member of a particular AA group or groups. Moreover this (almost) unrestricted right of AA membership does not imply or entail that any group (composed solely of AA members) has a correspondingly unrestricted right to call itself an AA group. Tradition 3 above clearly indicates otherwise. Therefore whereas an alcoholic may declare themselves to be a member simply because they say so (and quite rightly) the same does not apply to an AA group. These two basic concepts should not be indiscriminately conflated.
The question as to WHO decides whether an AA group is one or not relies mostly on Traditions 1 and 4. The first makes clear the priority of the “whole” over the 'parts'. If members singly (or collectively) act in such a fashion as to threaten the “common welfare” then the interests of the “whole” must take precedence. If the former continue to act irresponsibly then the latter will be obliged to take action; there really is no other choice. Tradition 4 moreover makes it clear that group autonomy is subject to consultation in some instances. Again if no consultation takes place and/or our “common welfare” is again threatened then the “whole” is presented with same choice.
The notion that an AA group may function (as such) completely independently of the AA service structure is merely disingenuous (quite apart from being impractical). It ignores completely Traditions 1, 3 and 4. For example Tradition 3 indicates the central criterion for an AA group: “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.” The key phrase here is “no other affiliation” - this does not imply 'no' affiliation. A group that refers to itself as an “AA” group explicitly affiliates itself with AA generally, and one might reasonably assume therefore with both the AA fellowship and AA programme. Why in this case would such a group not wish to be part of the service structure, and even more interestingly, why should it not seek to be in “harmony with” other “neighbouring groups” (under Tradition 4) as represented by, for example, the local intergroup? If its objectives, methods etc are so at odds with these latter then why again would such a group wish to affiliate itself with AA in the first place?
The principle of non-affiliation is in fact referred to in two of the traditions:
Tradition 3: ”........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.”
Tradition 6: “.......While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”
In both instances there is a context but neither of these subtract from the fundamental principle so clearly stated in the conclusion to Tradition 6 viz. “An A.A. group can bind itself to no one” (other than self-evidently – and definitionally - AA itself). This principle is exemplified in the AA preamble but not limited by this.
It can be seen from the above that any AA group can indeed organise a convention (or anything they like) within the terms of Tradition 3 but then this is not the applicable tradition. Tradition 4 (see above) indicates that consultation ought to take place prior to any such planned action. But again it begs the question why would any AA group wish to organise something without consulting all of the affected groups (ie. “neighbouring groups”) via the most appropriate service structure – the local intergroup? Similarly this tradition covers advertising on websites, announcements etc. (and indeed the very existence of these websites).
[Definition of terms:
Affiliate: To become closely connected or associated
Co-operate: To work or act together toward a common end or purpose
Institution: an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community]
A collection of AA members may decide to co-operate towards any end they like (ie. as a collection of individuals who happen to be AA members). But an AA “group” has “but one primary purpose” and its attendees (members and visitors) need meet only one membership requirement. Moreover within the context of AA there is only one reason why members should “band together” ie. to fulfil that “one primary purpose” (Tradition 5). If an AA group should direct its efforts towards any other goal (subsidiary or otherwise) it becomes a “dual” or even “multi purpose” group and has therefore set aside that tradition. Even if a group merely advertises such events it is actively “endorsing” these and therefore has itself chosen to disregard Tradition 6. But generally the operative tradition here is, I repeat, primarily Tradition 4, and not Tradition 3.
With respect to the distinction to be drawn between the notions of “affiliation” and “co-operation” reference should again be made to Tradition 6:
“While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”
Here it would seem that these concepts lie along a continuum with co-operation placed at one end and affiliation or endorsement located at the other. If a group pursues some objective other than our primary purpose ie. the promulgation of sectarian practices and beliefs, financial enterprises (e.g. paid circuit speakers, recovery courses, retreats etc – and see here Tradition 12) or even simply endorses (actual or implicit) them (via notices, advertisements etc) then it is in breach of Tradition 6 (as well as Tradition 5). Co-operation should be limited to information provision on the part of AA (or AA groups) but with no suggestion of endorsement.
Finally the notion of differing “common interest collections” represents presumably groups of members (who happen to be in AA) but who are pursuing interests which diverge from our primary purpose. Such “collections” are according to our own traditions not AA groups. Moreover groups which endorse their activities are again in breach of Tradition 6.
With respect to the example cited of “Alano” clubs I refer here to “Clubs in AA. Are they with us to stay? (originally a Grapevine article but published in “A.A. Tradition—How It Developed (http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-17_AATraditions.pdf). Bill Wilson discusses in this article the origin and evolution of the “club” system in the US. Clearly these institutions posed some dilemmas in terms of how they were to be reconciled within AA's structure and principles. To quote: “This tangle slowly commenced to unravel, as we began to get the idea that clubs ought to be strictly the business of those individuals who specially want clubs, and who are willing to pay for them.......that an A.A. group, as such, should never get into active management of a business project.” From these (and subsequent) comments it is clear that the relationship between AA groups and the Alano clubs is not substantially different from that which exists between an AA group and the landlord of a premises hired for the purposes of a group meeting (or IG meeting). The only difference is that the landlords in this instance also happen to be AA members (but not AA groups). No one would indeed suggest that such an arrangement constitutes an “affiliation” or “endorsement”. But a landlord/tenant relationship is not currently the one under discussion. The affiliation principle applies rather where groups seek to “become closely connected or associated” with institutions, movements etc with diverging, or even on occasion related objectives to those of AA . Cooperation might be appropriate (as indicated above ie. the provision of requisite information) but no more than this. The Alano comparison therefore is invalid.
Finally it is unfortunate that the above contributor should descend to such emotive language as “self-righteous AA policemen” or attribute to them such unworthy motives. The provision for the exclusion of groups already exists under our own traditions. Exclusion of AA members is simply not possible according to those same traditions:
3.—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. “
“The Traditions have these words to say on Groups in AA.
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.
Tradition 4 (Long form). With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”
(Source: GUIDELINES for A.A. in Great Britain - Revised January 2000 No. 1)
Tradition 3 may be divided into two parts: firstly that which relates to membership of AA as a whole; secondly what constitutes an AA group as such (but qualified). The first part includes only one proposal – that membership is open to anyone “who suffer[s] from alcoholism” (self diagnosed). Their membership cannot be restricted on any other ground. These may, in turn, form an AA group (subject only to the above constraint but see Traditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10).
Tradition 4 deals with group autonomy (but qualified and not unrestricted)
From this it follows that membership of AA (and consequent individual participation in the fellowship) should be distinguished from membership of an AA group (and its collective participation in the fellowship); the two are not necessarily the same. One can be a member of AA without being a member of a particular AA group or groups. Moreover this (almost) unrestricted right of AA membership does not imply or entail that any group (composed solely of AA members) has a correspondingly unrestricted right to call itself an AA group. Tradition 3 above clearly indicates otherwise. Therefore whereas an alcoholic may declare themselves to be a member simply because they say so (and quite rightly) the same does not apply to an AA group. These two basic concepts should not be indiscriminately conflated.
The question as to WHO decides whether an AA group is one or not relies mostly on Traditions 1 and 4. The first makes clear the priority of the “whole” over the 'parts'. If members singly (or collectively) act in such a fashion as to threaten the “common welfare” then the interests of the “whole” must take precedence. If the former continue to act irresponsibly then the latter will be obliged to take action; there really is no other choice. Tradition 4 moreover makes it clear that group autonomy is subject to consultation in some instances. Again if no consultation takes place and/or our “common welfare” is again threatened then the “whole” is presented with same choice.
The notion that an AA group may function (as such) completely independently of the AA service structure is merely disingenuous (quite apart from being impractical). It ignores completely Traditions 1, 3 and 4. For example Tradition 3 indicates the central criterion for an AA group: “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.” The key phrase here is “no other affiliation” - this does not imply 'no' affiliation. A group that refers to itself as an “AA” group explicitly affiliates itself with AA generally, and one might reasonably assume therefore with both the AA fellowship and AA programme. Why in this case would such a group not wish to be part of the service structure, and even more interestingly, why should it not seek to be in “harmony with” other “neighbouring groups” (under Tradition 4) as represented by, for example, the local intergroup? If its objectives, methods etc are so at odds with these latter then why again would such a group wish to affiliate itself with AA in the first place?
The principle of non-affiliation is in fact referred to in two of the traditions:
Tradition 3: ”........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.”
Tradition 6: “.......While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”
In both instances there is a context but neither of these subtract from the fundamental principle so clearly stated in the conclusion to Tradition 6 viz. “An A.A. group can bind itself to no one” (other than self-evidently – and definitionally - AA itself). This principle is exemplified in the AA preamble but not limited by this.
It can be seen from the above that any AA group can indeed organise a convention (or anything they like) within the terms of Tradition 3 but then this is not the applicable tradition. Tradition 4 (see above) indicates that consultation ought to take place prior to any such planned action. But again it begs the question why would any AA group wish to organise something without consulting all of the affected groups (ie. “neighbouring groups”) via the most appropriate service structure – the local intergroup? Similarly this tradition covers advertising on websites, announcements etc. (and indeed the very existence of these websites).
[Definition of terms:
Affiliate: To become closely connected or associated
Co-operate: To work or act together toward a common end or purpose
Institution: an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community]
A collection of AA members may decide to co-operate towards any end they like (ie. as a collection of individuals who happen to be AA members). But an AA “group” has “but one primary purpose” and its attendees (members and visitors) need meet only one membership requirement. Moreover within the context of AA there is only one reason why members should “band together” ie. to fulfil that “one primary purpose” (Tradition 5). If an AA group should direct its efforts towards any other goal (subsidiary or otherwise) it becomes a “dual” or even “multi purpose” group and has therefore set aside that tradition. Even if a group merely advertises such events it is actively “endorsing” these and therefore has itself chosen to disregard Tradition 6. But generally the operative tradition here is, I repeat, primarily Tradition 4, and not Tradition 3.
With respect to the distinction to be drawn between the notions of “affiliation” and “co-operation” reference should again be made to Tradition 6:
“While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”
Here it would seem that these concepts lie along a continuum with co-operation placed at one end and affiliation or endorsement located at the other. If a group pursues some objective other than our primary purpose ie. the promulgation of sectarian practices and beliefs, financial enterprises (e.g. paid circuit speakers, recovery courses, retreats etc – and see here Tradition 12) or even simply endorses (actual or implicit) them (via notices, advertisements etc) then it is in breach of Tradition 6 (as well as Tradition 5). Co-operation should be limited to information provision on the part of AA (or AA groups) but with no suggestion of endorsement.
Finally the notion of differing “common interest collections” represents presumably groups of members (who happen to be in AA) but who are pursuing interests which diverge from our primary purpose. Such “collections” are according to our own traditions not AA groups. Moreover groups which endorse their activities are again in breach of Tradition 6.
With respect to the example cited of “Alano” clubs I refer here to “Clubs in AA. Are they with us to stay? (originally a Grapevine article but published in “A.A. Tradition—How It Developed (http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-17_AATraditions.pdf). Bill Wilson discusses in this article the origin and evolution of the “club” system in the US. Clearly these institutions posed some dilemmas in terms of how they were to be reconciled within AA's structure and principles. To quote: “This tangle slowly commenced to unravel, as we began to get the idea that clubs ought to be strictly the business of those individuals who specially want clubs, and who are willing to pay for them.......that an A.A. group, as such, should never get into active management of a business project.” From these (and subsequent) comments it is clear that the relationship between AA groups and the Alano clubs is not substantially different from that which exists between an AA group and the landlord of a premises hired for the purposes of a group meeting (or IG meeting). The only difference is that the landlords in this instance also happen to be AA members (but not AA groups). No one would indeed suggest that such an arrangement constitutes an “affiliation” or “endorsement”. But a landlord/tenant relationship is not currently the one under discussion. The affiliation principle applies rather where groups seek to “become closely connected or associated” with institutions, movements etc with diverging, or even on occasion related objectives to those of AA . Cooperation might be appropriate (as indicated above ie. the provision of requisite information) but no more than this. The Alano comparison therefore is invalid.
Finally it is unfortunate that the above contributor should descend to such emotive language as “self-righteous AA policemen” or attribute to them such unworthy motives. The provision for the exclusion of groups already exists under our own traditions. Exclusion of AA members is simply not possible according to those same traditions:
3.—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. “
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Case law (US) (relating to AA and religion) (contd)
914 F.
Supp. 828 - Dist. Court, ND New York, 1996
...
the plaintiff's participation in the FRP on his learning, knowing,
believing, and/or working with the "Twelve Steps of Alcoholics
Anonymous," an allegedly ... However, courts must remain
cognizant that not "every state action implicating religion is
invalid if one or a few citizens find it ...
904 F.
Supp. 582 - Dist. Court, ND Texas, 1995
...
The US Magistrate Judge found there was no established legal
principle that the 12-Step Alcoholics Anonymous Program was a forced
indoctrination of religion, or the required adoption of any
particular religious preference in violation of any First Amendment
right to free ...
118 F.
Supp. 2d 298 - Dist. Court, ND New York, 2000
...
secular purpose; (2) whether it advances or inhibits religion in its
principal or primary effect; and (3) whether it fosters excessive
entanglement with religion. ... eg, Warner, 115 F.3d at 1076 n. 8 (2d
Cir.1996)(holding that because the Plaintiff was sent to Alcoholics
Anonymous as a ...
24 P.
3d 1091, 106 Wash. App. 625 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st …, 2001
...
Garcia primarily argues that the chemical dependency treatment
program requires that he participate in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
classes, which he ... The Establishment Clause guarantees that the
"government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in
religion or its ...
852 F.
Supp. 798 - Dist. Court, SD Iowa, 1994
... In
the "Discussion" section of the opinion, however, the court
discusses whether Alcoholics Anonymous "constitutes a religion"
and "rejects plaintiff's assertions that the state improperly
established a religion and that the defendants imposed a religion on
him." Id. at 1017. ...
PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here
See
also Links and downloads
PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here
Monday, 18 February 2013
The Truth about Midtown
Screen
shots from the original “The Truth About Midtown” site
The future
of AA if we're not very very very careful!
It's
already begun!
And who is
responsible?
Over to
you!
Cheerio
The Fellas
(Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Sunday, 17 February 2013
Resistance is futile!
Borg style
sponsorship! Attractive? Mmmm........ We think not!
Cheerio
The Fellas
(Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Saturday, 16 February 2013
aacultwatch forum daily reflections
Extracts
from our forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch
under thread: “aacultwatch forum daily reflections”
Extracts of an interview with Bob S., Jr. AA Grapevine September 2001
“Bob S., Jr., son of AA co-founder Dr. Bob, stopped by the Grapevine office in New York in April 2001, and it seemed like a good time to get some historical perspective on the Twelve Steps. Born June 5, 1918, and one of the last living witnesses to the founding of AA in Akron in 1935, Bob remains sharp of memory, wit, and dress, appearing much younger than his age…. …. …
Extracts of an interview with Bob S., Jr. AA Grapevine September 2001
“Bob S., Jr., son of AA co-founder Dr. Bob, stopped by the Grapevine office in New York in April 2001, and it seemed like a good time to get some historical perspective on the Twelve Steps. Born June 5, 1918, and one of the last living witnesses to the founding of AA in Akron in 1935, Bob remains sharp of memory, wit, and dress, appearing much younger than his age…. …. …
Did
the spiritual experience you had with your parents in recovery help
you get through the war?
Yes.
Of course I wouldn't have admitted it at the time. Those Oxford
Group people scared me to death. They were so zealous. You know, in
your face. But at least some of it stuck. They wanted to
convert everybody right now. They were very, very strong
spiritual people who wanted everybody to be maximum. I used to go to
those meetings, and I always thought I was minimum.
What
was your impression of the split between the Oxford Group and AA?
It
had to be done. The Oxford Group had four absolutes: absolute
honesty, absolute unselfishness, absolute purity, absolute love. I
think anybody coming into Alcoholics Anonymous is not absolutely
"absolute" about anything. Also, the Oxford Group catered
to the upper middle class, and the early alcoholics were not upper
middle class. They were low bottom alcoholics. The Oxford Group
wanted publicity, and the alcoholics already had all the publicity
they wanted. Anyway, it would be very hard to take a new guy coming
in and jump on him about spiritual or religious things, don't you
think? They just wouldn't accept it.
It
still scares some off.
Yes.
So we owe the Oxford Group a tremendous debt of gratitude, but it
was necessary to make the split."
The
Founding of A.A. in New York:
1934
"After
Bill’s release from Towns on December 18, he and Lois started
attending Oxford Group meetings at Calvary House, adjacent to Calvary
Episcopal Church. The rector, Dr. Sam Shoemaker, was a leading figure
in the Oxford Group. In time, Bill would come to regard this man as
one of his closest friends". (Pass It On Page 127)
1935-1937
"In
the fall of 1935, Bill and Lois began to hold weekly meetings on
Tuesday nights in their home on Clinton Street... .... ....
182
Clinton Street, Brookyn Heights, home and meeting place for New York
alcoholics in A.A.'s formative days" (Pass It On Page 162)
"While
Lois later admitted that their success rate was low during the
1935-36 period at Clinton Street, she pointed out that many of the
alcoholics Bill worked with during that time did recover later on. In
other words, Lois said, seeds of sobriety were being planted, to take
root slowly" (Pass It On Page 166)
"
Lois and Bill went to Oxford Group meetings at Calvary Church from
late 1934 until about 1937, and they also went to a number of Oxford
Group "house parties" during those years. From 1935 on,
Hank and Fitz often joined them. Tension began to develop between the
main group at Calvary Church and Bill’s struggling band of
alcoholics. The Oxford Group leaders resented the fact that Bill was
holding separate meetings for alcoholics at Clinton street. They
criticised his work with the alcoholics as being narrow and
divisive.... ... ... Jack Smith, one of Sam Shoemaker’s assistants,
disapproved of Bill's work and finally brought the conflict out into
the open. In an informal talk at a Sunday Oxford Group gathering, he
made reference to special meetings 'held surreptitiously behind Mrs.
Jones Barn' The atmosphere of the Oxford Group then became 'slightly
chilly' toward the Wilsons. Near to the end of 1935, the alcoholics
living at the Calvary mission were instructed not to attend the
meetings at Clinton Street. 'This not only hurt us, but left us
disappointed in the group's leadership,' Lois remembered." (Pass
It On Pages 168-169)
"This
incident led Sam Shoemaker to apologize to Bill later, after he
himself had broken with the Oxford Group in 1941. Shoemaker wrote: '
If you ever write the story of A.A.'s early connection with Calvary,
I think it ought to be said in all honesty that we were coached in
the feeling that you were off on your own spur, trying to do
something by yourself, and out of the mainstream of the work. You got
your inspiration from those early days, but you didn't get much
encouragement from any of us, and for my own part in that stupid
desire to control the Spirit, as he manifested Himself in
individual people like yourself, I am heartily sorry and ashamed.' "
(Pass It On Page 178, footnote)
1937
“Bill
and New York alcoholics separate from Oxford Group. More than 40
alcoholics are now staying sober. (Pass It On Page 407)
“..but
by counting everybody who seemed to have found sobriety in New York
and Akron, they counted more than 40 alcoholics who were staying dry
as a result of the program! … … … ‘Despite the fact Ebby had
slipped, a benign chain reaction, one alcoholic carrying the good
news to the next, had started outward from Dr. Bob and me.’ ”
(Pass It On page 178)
1939
“These
ex-alcoholic men and women number about one hundred at present. One
Group is scattered along the Atlantic seaboard with New York as a
center. Another and somewhat larger body is located in the Middle
West” (Dr. W.D Silkworth M.D. (A New Approach to Psychotherapy in Chronic Alcoholism,” Journal
Lancet, July 1939; A.A. Comes of Age, appendix E:a, pages
304-305)”
(our
emphases)
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Friday, 15 February 2013
Case law (US) (relating to AA and religion) (contd)
Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. McCallum
324 F. 3d 880 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 2003
... But on the contrary—and quite apart from the evidence, confirmed by long experience 884 with the parallel case of Alcoholics Anonymous, that for some substance abusers religion is an effective treatment—there is the fact that Faith Works offers a program that lasts three times ...
Stafford v. Harrison
324 F. 3d 880 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 2003
... But on the contrary—and quite apart from the evidence, confirmed by long experience 884 with the parallel case of Alcoholics Anonymous, that for some substance abusers religion is an effective treatment—there is the fact that Faith Works offers a program that lasts three times ...
Stafford v. Harrison
766 F. Supp. 1014 - Dist. Court, D. Kansas, 1991
... Therefore, while the expression of the philosophy of Alcoholics Anonymous includes references to a Higher Power, this court cannot on that basis alone reasonably conclude either that Alcoholics Anonymous constitutes a religion or that a religion was impermissibly thrust upon ...
Inouye v. Kemna
504 F. 3d 705 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2007
... 9, 2000, his attorney sent a letter to the Hawaii Paroling Authority, expressing Inouye's opposition to being placed in a religion-based narcotics ... 1996), which holds that the Alcoholics Anonymous 12 step program cannot be imposed by the state as a requirement for eligibility for ...
Arnold v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles
956 SW 2d 478 - Tenn: Supreme Court, 1997
... emphasis on a higher power is also the central theme of the third edition of AA's basic text entitled "Alcoholics Anonymous" which is ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that "government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its ...
Cox v. Miller
154 F. Supp. 2d 787 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 2001
... Indeed, the People also argued that "there was no evidence whatsoever that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religious organization as required by statute, or that another members is a clergyman or other member of any religion or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner.". ...
Thursday, 14 February 2013
All dolled up!
Cheers
The Fellas
(Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS Now remember! ALWAYS do
what your sponsor says!
PPS Come
to think of it .. she'd make quite a good sponsor … full of hot air
and loads of experience! (Did we really say that.... Oh dear! What
a giveaway!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)