AA MINORITY REPORT 2017 (revised)

Click here
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts

Saturday, 12 March 2016

“Alcoholics Anonymous accused of discrimination”


According to the above article Larry Knight (apparently an agnostic/atheist AA member) is taking “AA World Services and its GTA Intergroup (GTAI) to Ontario’s human rights tribunal, alleging discrimination on the basis of creed.” The fact that the agnostic/atheist groups are themselves acting in breach of the traditions/guidelines goes slightly unmentioned by the author of the article (who clearly knows sweet FA about how AA operates. But then opinions such as hers are cheap, and therefore correspondingly valueless). It occurs to us that it's something of a shame that there's no Human DUTIES tribunal. You can be damn sure the queue for those wishing to assert their responsibilities towards others would be considerably shorter. Finally though the argument presented by Mr Knight is to say the least disingenuous if not transparently perverse (ie. a clear case of someone 'trying it on'). Still good luck to him. If it keeps him off the booze …...

Of course as always There Is A Solution. The atheist/agnostic groups are at complete liberty to set up their own fellowship, produce their own literature, and design their own programme of recovery. This would seem preferable to clinging to AA in a somewhat parasitic fashion and moaning about the fact that the word “God” is used a lot (as in 'for God's sake', 'God help us', 'God .. get me out of here!' etc etc … you get our meaning!). Naturally the same option is open to all those groups who use the Lord's Prayer in their meeting formats. Feel free to go forth (and indeed multiply) and leave the rest of us - who don't give a monkey's either way - in peace. God (of your understanding – including NO understanding) save us from all those with a chip on their shoulder!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of a non-affiliated Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our usual thanks to the member who drew our attention to this

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

AA Minority report 2012 (continued)(5)


“The assertive leadership in protection of “our common welfare” was well demonstrated by Bill W, the “trusted servants” involved with Chuck D. in 1958 and recently by those in the Toronto intergroup in Canada:

“Toronto’s A.A. Intergroup Bounces Atheists after Spirited Battle” by Dirk Hanson, The Fix, 06/06/11, issue 141:

“Is There A Place For Atheists in Alcoholics Anonymous? – A long-simmering feud is spreading around the world, after one AA establishment voted to expel two atheist/agnostic groups in Canada” by Jesse Beach, The Fix 14/06/11: http://www.alternet.org/story/151294/is_there_a_place_for_atheists_in_alcoholics_anonymous?akid=7112.275856.JI6Ij2&rd=1&t=5

No doubt the courageous Toronto “trusted servants” have received plenty of “accusations…… gobs of rumour, gossip and general scuttle-butt” (Concept IX), perhaps attempts to twist warranty five “incitement to public controversy,” to try and throw them off beam. However, although it is unfortunate this matter has gone public, when compared to the incitement to public controversy caused by the behaviour in cult groups described in the Washington Post and The Independent, and the potential incitement to public controversy to be caused by A.A groups re-writing the A.A. program, each according to their dictator’s own sundry ideas, personal beliefs and prejudices, the article does show A.A. (In Canada at least) to have a legitimate organised structure with a duly elected responsibility and authority, rather than a headless anarchy.

“Salute to Canada – Our congratulations and thanks to Canada; no finer AA exists.” (Bill W. May 1951, Language of the Heart page 191)

For an A.A. group to re-write the Twelve Steps is to violate Tradition 4 (Long Form).

“For instance no group or intergroup could feel free to initiate, without consultation, any publicity that might affect AA as a whole. Nor could it assume to represent the whole of Alcoholics Anonymous by printing and distributing anything purporting to be AA standard literature” (Bill W. A.A. Grapevine March 1948,  Language of the Heart page 81).

“Our literature is a principle means by which A.A. recovery, unity, and service are facilitated” (Concept XI).

“And again, “Some [of the Washingtonian local groups] dipped into their treasuries to finance their own publications. There was no overall editorial policy……We are sure that if the original Washingtonians could return to this planet they would be glad to see us learning from their mistakes…… Had we lived in their day we might have made the same errors. Perhaps we are beginning to make some of them now.” (Bill W. AA Grapevine August 1945. Language of the Heart page 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonian_movement

However, the principle applied to the atheist-agnostic groups in Toronto ought to be applied to any dual purpose group presenting itself as an “on your knees pray to God” Christian “early AA” - neo Oxford Group, or any other religion:

“Some years ago, numbers of AAs formed themselves into “retreat groups” having a religious purpose. At first they wanted to call themselves AA groups of various descriptions. But they soon realized this could not be done because their groups had a dual purpose: both AA and religion”. (Bill W. AA Grapevine February 1958; Language
of the Heart page 222).

“Speaking for Dr. Bob and myself I would like to say that there has never been the slightest intent, on his part or mine, of trying to found a new religious denomination. Dr. Bob held certain religious convictions, and so do I. This is, of course, the personal privilege of every A.A. member. Nothing however, could be so unfortunate for A.A.’s future as an attempt to incorporate any of our personal theological views into A.A. teaching, practice or tradition.” (Bill W. AA Comes of Age page 232)

“Beyond a Higher Power, as each of us may vision him, A.A. must never, as a society, enter the field of dogma or theology….. Lest we kill our usefulness by being bogged down in theological contention” (Bill W. Letter 1954, As Bill sees It page 116)

“This was the great contribution of our atheists and agnostics. They had widened our gateway so that all who suffer might pass through, regardless of their belief or lack of belief.” (Bill W. A.A. Comes of Age page 167)

“The atheist may stand up in an A.A. meeting denying God, yet reporting how he has been helped in other ways”….. we make no religious requirement of anyone…..In this atmosphere the orthodox, unorthodox, and the unbeliever mix happily and usefully together” (Bill W. “Pass it On page 172-173)

We wonder if the motivation behind the Toronto atheist group’s actions is out of a sense of insecurity arising from the influence of Traditions 4, 6 and 12 violations; the missionaries of the dishonest rendering of AA’s history by fundamentalist Christian authors emanating from the USA; Dick B. Joe McQ and Wally P.

Extracts from “By the Power Of God, A Guide to Early A.A. Groups & forming similar Groups Today” by Dick B:

“Of course the A.A. of yesteryear is truly gone forever. There is no Dr. Bob – physician, Bible student, ‘Prince of Twelve-Steppers,’ ambassador for Christ. There is no loving Anne Smith,- ‘Mother of A.A.’ ‘Founder’ nurse, evangelist, employment agent, and dispenser of ‘spiritual pablum’[sic] … …There is no quiet time…. where the Bible is studied,…prayer is made to God……. “(page xiii)

“There is a Good Big Book/Bible study group in California……There is also a ‘Safe to Talk about Jesus meeting’…….There is a Big Book/Bible study meeting in Florida. There are spiritual retreats for AAs and their families in at least seven locations in the United States and one in England.” (Page xiii)

“So also ‘Absolute purity.’…. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…. (Page 42)

And – ‘Absolute unselfishness’….So likewise who ever he be of you that forsaketh not all….” (Page 42)

“And ‘Absolute Love’ A new commandment that I give unto you that ye love one another …” (Page 42)

“Carrying the Message…As part of AAs Twelfe [sic] Step…And he[Jesus] said unto them….”(Page 189)

“Possible Approaches in Meetings 1. Listening to the readings of scripture. Perhaps segments of the Oxford Group book, How to read the Bible [Roger Hicks, How to read the Bible (London: Moral re- Armament, 1940)]” (Page 215)

“Alcoholism can be cured. Today’s people have just changed the language to satisfy the unbelievers” (page 233)

Dick B’s Alcoholics Anonymous History website: http://www.dickb.com/index.html

Extracts from “Back to Basics Alcoholics Anonymous Beginners meetings” by Wally P:

“In order for the process to work, newcomers need to be matched up with A.A. members who are willing to guide them through the four one hour sessions……..Newcomers do not attend beginners’ meetings alone, they are accompanied by their sponsors/sharing partners…..

For the Newcomer: 1.Your primary obligation is to attend all four sessions…. 2. We will read the appropriate parts of the ‘Big Book’ to you…. (Page 38)

“It is time to assign sponsors or sharing partners to those who need them. Will the newcomers please stand. These are the people who are about to take the Twelve Steps” (Page 39)

“Next the author instructs us to check what we have put on paper. Here the sponsor or sharing partner can be very helpful: Check…When in doubt and when it is important, what does another person who is working two way prayer think about this thought or action? .... Talk over together what you have written…Tell each other what guidance has come. This is the secret of unity….Then the author explains, to what many of us, is the most difficult part of all …Obey... Carry out the thoughts that have come. You will only be sure of guidance as you go through with it… [How to listen to God, p3]” (page 120)

“It is time to make a commitment to working with others…please stand. This is the Twelfe [sic] Step question ‘Will you carry the message to other alcoholics?’ please answer, one at a time, ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ After you have answered, please be seated. [Have each newcomer answer the question]” (page 146)

The following are some early A.A. definitions of God and prayer, by what some of today’s Back to Basics, “original A.A”., “On your knees” missionaries might call the “Original AA members” or “The first One Hundred”, “Big Book Authors,” “founders”:

“Most of us in Akron didn’t like all this praying…….We’d had enough of it in the Oxford Group. I still don’t like praying in A.A. I don’t like the Serenity Prayer. New York brought it in, and we resented it. We thought they were bringing back the Oxford Group” (1942, Oscar W. Early Akron A.A. group member) (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers, page 271)

1937: “And their concept of a Higher Power was different from that of the groupers, who were not prepared to accept light bulbs and Third Avenue buses as examples of “God as I understand Him .………… This, too, was an attitude that represented a fundamental difference between the A.A.s and the Oxford Groupers. A.A.s were more and more inclined to allow newer members to arrive at a concept of a Higher Power in their own time and manner.” (Pass It On, page 161)

“Try to find your own God – As you understand Him.” (Quote of Dr. Bob) ( Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers, page 281)

1940: “ At his time – January – 1940 he wasn’t making you get out of bed to pray on your knees, to pray with you, I’m not sure that would have worked too well with me.” A recollection of Dr. Bob by John S. (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers, page 276)

1941:”Any concept of the Higher Power is acceptable. A sceptic or an agnostic may choose to think of his inner self, the miracle of growth, a tree, man’s wonderment at the physical universe, the structure of an atom, or mere mathematical infinity. Whatever form is visualized, the neophyte is taught that he must rely on it, in his own way, to pray to the power for strength.” (Jack Alexander article about AA , page 19)”

Comment: Toronto AA is an example of a pro-active service structure rather than a moribund one; this is what is meant by “leadership”. Here also is illustrated the necessity of a “canonical” literature within AA (ie. conference approved) which establishes the foundation both for our programme of recovery and the constitution of our society. Without these we are simply directionless and clueless – or as it might be put - just another bunch of drunks! Similarly the formation of “dual purpose” groups (of whatever denomination or type) by definition creates an “outside affiliation” and therefore (under Tradition 3) excludes these from further participation within the AA service structure (which will necessarily entail de-listing of the group and removal of its members (qua “group” membership) from service structure participation (and where necessary appropriate notification to outside agencies to that effect under Warranty Five, Concept 12) etc – but which does not affect in any way the right of each individual to be a member of AA as such ie. the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking).

Finally – and very very briefly:

Dick B – a revisionist (and flawed) perspective of AA history with a Christian agenda.

Wally B – yet another version of doing the programme by “rote”. No thinking required here!

'Nuff said

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Thursday, 12 January 2012

A Minority report (continued)



“SECTION 1

Analysis of past and current events, USA, Canada, UK

The following is an extract from A.A. Comes of Age. Bill W’s response to protect A.A.’s public relations by thwarting the plans of a potential figurehead with a “wonderful vision” and his “message”. Today one only has to replace the word “radio” with “website.” An example of TraditionTwo and Concept IX in action:

“An old story, revealing several aspects of A.A.’s public relations problem, comes to mind: One of our pioneer members conceived the idea of starting a group in his city by radio….. So our promoter friend constructed a series of ‘Twelve Lectures on Alcoholics Anonymous.’ These were a strange mixture of A.A. and his own religious ideas. He soon put them on air with all the vigour of a Chautauqua orator. Contrary to our expectations, he got a modest result. Inquiries came in and he started a group. Now flushed with success, he was smitten with a wonderful vision......... We advised him that the trustees felt his message inappropriate for national consumption. So he wrote a hot letter to this effect: ‘To hell with the trustees, the world is waiting for my message. I’ve got the right to free speech and I’m going on air whether you like it or not.’ This ultimatum was an alarming poser. It looked like promotion, professionalism, and anonymity-breaking all in one package…. every ad man and salesman in Alcoholics Anonymous would soon be selling A.A.’s wares, willy-nilly. We would loose control of our public relations.…………. We assured our well-meaning friend that we would certainly uphold his right to free speech. But we added that he ought to uphold ours, too. We assured him that if his ‘lectures’ went on air, we would advise every A.A. group of the circumstances and ask them to write strong letters to the sponsoring life assurance company, letters of a kind the sponsor might not like to receive. The broadcast never went on air.” (AA comes of Age pages 130-131)

The following is another example of Tradition Two and Concept IX in action; an A.A. committee taking an uncompromising stand against a power driving leader in 1958. This action split 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 accept the group conscience or wind up drunk came eventually, but only after 20 years. The subsequent history of Synanon shows that a cult run by an alcoholic can be very successful with long-term viability. The group’s leader Chuck D (who incidentally was to some years later appoint himself Pope, and his wife, High Priestess of the cult Church of Synanon), recalled his 1958 not so spiritual baptism with 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, let’s 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)


Where did it come from? Synanon Church and the medical basis for the $traights:

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

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:

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://www.lib.utk.edu/spcoll/manuscripts/1711.html

We 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. 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 backbone to stand and defend A.A. Tradition. 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.’s public relations, were his cult to have remained in A.A.?”

Comment: Again largely self-explanatory. The above indicates how effectively direct action by clear-thinking AA members (who moreover have some knowledge of our guiding principles) can nip a problem in the bud. You will note moreover that the action came from the AA groups and members, and not from other parts of the service structure. In addition to the above we would cite Tradition Three here:

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.

(our emphasis)

This clearly demonstrates that those groups that possess outside connections may NOT call themselves an AA group. Moreover the decision as to whether they are or are NOT so denominated is NOT solely theirs to make. We refer here to Tradition Four (the much misquoted Tradition Four!):

4.—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 neighboring 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.

(our emphases)

If a group (or groups) acts in such a way (knowingly) and fails subsequently to mend its conduct it then becomes the responsibility (and indeed duty) of other groups to take the requisite action (which may include denying that group (or groups) the use of the AA name, this to ensure “our common welfare” remains “paramount”.

Moreover this principle extends not only to outside affiliations but even further. See Tradition Ten:

10.—No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.

From this it can be seen that similarly those groups (and in this instance even an AA member) should abstain (but only insofar as they might be seen as implicating AA) from such conduct. Therefore those groups that espouse a particular religious or non-religious interpretation (atheistic, agnostic (see Toronto AA below), Christian, Buddhist, Moslem etc), or political orientation etc are in breach of this tradition. Note that the category of “controversial issues” relates to those “outside” the immediate purview of AA; this does not include the airing of controversial views WITHIN the Fellowship and ABOUT the Fellowship. The intention of this tradition is clearly not to stifle debate but rather to define its parameters within a given context. Those members who seek to “shut down” all debate on “controversy” grounds have missed the point! Additionally the word “particularly” is employed which suggests that the list is not exhaustive but intended to be exemplary and selective. Therefore other issues too may be considered as being included within this category.

In this connection we cite Tradition Three again (and as an example of a breach of Tradition Four):

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.

From this it can be seen that as stated in the short form of this tradition:

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

It follows from this therefore that ANY AA member may attend ANY AA meeting in the world without ANY further qualification. Those groups which seek to impose further qualifications on admission are in clear breach of this tradition (amongst others). This would include the so-called “non-restrictive” meetings (generally women's only), the ethnically specific meetings, gay/lesbian meetings, young people's meetings etc. All of these run contrary not only to this tradition but also Tradition One:

1.—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.

Note the word “whole”.

Finally as an update to the above theme we refer you to a selection of links covering the Toronto Atheists ban:


Needless to say (in our view) Toronto AA got it right!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Some of the links in the original report are not functioning. We have renewed them here but members are advised otherwise to use the link details in a search engine to discover the new location