“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

What scares the new atheists

See here

“The vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact flourishing”

“Evangelical atheists at the present time are missionaries for their own values. If an earlier generation promoted the racial prejudices of their time as scientific truths, ours aims to give the illusions of contemporary liberalism a similar basis in science. It’s possible to envision different varieties of atheism developing – atheisms more like those of Freud, which didn’t replace God with a flattering image of humanity. But atheisms of this kind are unlikely to be popular. More than anything else, our unbelievers seek relief from the panic that grips them when they realise their values are rejected by much of humankind. What today’s freethinkers want is freedom from doubt, and the prevailing version of atheism is well suited to give it to them.”

Or, to put it another way - what brand of non-religion are you selling?

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Atheism – the Grauniad

You CAN have your cake AND eat it!

For all those dogmatists out there who think that God DEFINITELY does exist or that He/She/It/They DEFINITELY doesn't exist good old Kant (and others) come to the rescue:

“Idea of God

Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner ... the object of this idea", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good". The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view"; compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590–91).

Along with this 'idea' on reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of religious organizations that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).Nevertheless, other interpreters consider that Kant was trying to mark off a defensible rational core of Christian belief. Kant sees in Jesus Christ the affirmation of a "pure moral disposition of the heart" that "can make man well-pleasing to God".

Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein.”

Source: Wikipedia – Kant 

And from William James (Wikipedia) (author of The Varieties of Religious Experience) (cited in the book Alcoholics Anonymous, There is a Solution, Ch 2, p. 28):

“Cash Value

From the introduction to William James's Pragmatism by Bruce Kuklick, p.xiv.

James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness. If what was true was what worked, we can scientifically investigate religion's claim to truth in the same manner. The enduring quality of religious beliefs throughout recorded history and in all cultures gave indirect support for the view that such beliefs worked. James also argued directly that such beliefs were satisfying—they enabled us to lead fuller, richer lives and were more viable than their alternatives. Religious beliefs were expedient in human existence, just as scientific beliefs were. “

“Will to Believe Doctrine

Main article: The Will to Believe

In William James's lecture of 1896 titled "The Will to Believe," James defends the right to violate the principle of evidentialism in order to justify hypothesis venturing. This idea foresaw the demise of evidentialism in the 20th century and sought to ground justified belief in an unwavering principle that would prove more beneficial. Through his philosophy of pragmatism William James justifies religious beliefs by using the results of his hypothetical venturing as evidence to support the hypothesis' truth. Therefore, this doctrine allows one to assume belief in a god and prove its existence by what the belief brings to one's life."

(our emphases)

Comment: It would seem the “truth” is a far more elusive concept than the dogmatists (scientific or religious) would have us believe!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

AA: Is it only way alcoholics can go?

"Group's spiritual element troubles atheists, agnostics.

By Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje, mstoeltje@express-news.net

Michael is a recovering alcoholic. Though he attends Alcoholics Anonymous, Michael struggles with the program's spiritual element. He would prefer to join a support group without the religious overtones but one does not seem to exist in San Antonio.

As is tradition on this day, people are busy forming resolutions to make 2012 better than the year now receding in the rearview mirror.

For people with alcohol and drug problems, this might entail joining a group like Alcoholics Anonymous. According to AA doctrine and its 12-step program, redemption from the disease comes not from willpower but from reliance on a “higher power” — as Step Three puts it, “God as we understood him.”

This is where things get dicey for some alcoholics and addicts who are atheist or agnostic, especially if they've been mandated to attend 12-step groups by the courts. Why should they be forced to sit through meetings that violate their own secular beliefs?

In recent decades, mutual-help groups such as Smart Recovery, LifeRing and Secular Organization for Sobriety have formed across the nation to offer support without spiritual concepts, but they've yet to make their way to San Antonio.

Members of AA say their program isn't religious — it's spiritual. A member's higher power can be anything they choose — God, Jesus, Buddha, the power of love, even AA membership itself, which exceeds more than 1 million people in the U.S. alone.

At free meetings throughout San Antonio each week, there are generally no sectarian references, which are considered taboo since it violates AA's big-tent approach. Still, most meetings end with a group recitation of the Lord's Prayer, the provenance of which is Christian.

This practice alienates some nonreligious members and potential members, as does the whole higher-power concept and what can sometimes be a preponderance of generic “God talk” at meetings.

“It's a bit of a problem,” said Michael, 53, who is gay and an atheist. (In keeping with AA's tradition of anonymity, only first names are being used.) He attended his first AA meeting here in 1999, one aimed at gay and lesbian alcoholics. His drinking had become daily, which worried him.

“But people were talking about going to jail, having blackouts,” he said. “I thought, ‘I don't have these kinds of problems.'”

Still concerned about his drinking six years later, he returned to the meeting. When it ended with the Lord's Prayer, Michael vowed to never go back.

But then some mornings, he found he needed a drink to soften a hangover. Eventually, Michael returned to his old group but still felt out of place.

Recently, he found an AA group he likes, which he uses as his higher power. So far, though, he's only been able to go four months before relapsing. He admits he hasn't followed AA protocol, such as getting a sponsor, someone who guides a newcomer through the steps.

“If there were secular options, I think I absolutely would stick with it, and I believe a large number of people would as well,” he said. “But somebody has to start it.”

A different approach

In the 1980s, secular alternatives did begin to form. Smart Recovery, the most well-known with 2,000 members, is based largely on cognitive-behavioral therapy, a counseling approach that seeks to change maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. In the free SR support groups, which take place in person and online, members are taught ways to cope with cravings, stay motivated and live a balanced life.

Unlike at AA, they're told they can conquer alcohol or other addictions without help from above.

“Some people aren't comfortable with the idea of powerlessness,” said executive director Shari Allwood.

“Addiction can be overcome,” she said. “We don't expect you to attend meetings for the rest of your life. You can put these tools to use in your life and move on.”

Some SR members don't believe alcoholism is a disease — the prevailing medical view, given the role genetics plays in some, but not all, cases of alcoholism and for the physical changes in the brain that happen during addiction that never fully go away and make it hard to quit and stay sober. Personal choice plays a role as well.

Groups like Smart Recovery are minuscule compared with the mammoth AA. “It's a Catch-22,” said Dr. John F. Kelly, assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “Because the alternatives to AA are so small, clinicians are reluctant to refer patients there. And most of the evidence so far (regarding effectiveness) has been about AA.”

Contrary to AA's critics, a growing body of research shows that for many people with alcohol use disorders, AA is effective. One study found that of patients who regularly attended AA after alcoholism treatment, about half remained abstinent after one year. Many who weren't at least cut their consumption.

“For those who want to change their drinking behavior, AA can be an important resource, as can other mutual-help organizations,” said Dr. Robert Huebner, acting director of the National Institute onAlcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Division of Treatment and Recovery Research.

At this point, there are few studies showing the efficacy of AA alternatives. Existing ones are of poor quality, mainly due to small sample sizes, Huebner said. But new studies are under way, including an NIAAA-funded one of Smart Recovery.

‘How it works'

Dedicated 12-step members don't need studies to convince them the philosophy works: Their redeemed lives are proof enough.

Still, AA may not be suitable for everyone, some experts believe.

“The single best predictor of whether or not someone will go to AA is the severity of their drinking problem,” said J. Scott Tonigan, a researcher at the University of New Mexico. “The more you've lost control of your life, the more the 12-step message resonates.”

But in the last 20 years, researchers have found that alcoholism — once considered an “all or nothing” disease that invariably worsens over time — actually lies along a continuum.

“People with alcohol use disorders have mild, moderate and severe forms of the disorder, with the majority of people experiencing problems in the mild-to-moderate range,” Huebner said. “This finding has major implications for our treatment system, because the focus traditionally has been on people with disorders at the most severe end of the continuum.”

So it's not a question of AA or Smart Recovery being better or worse, said Keith Humphreys, professor of psychiatry at Stanford School of Medicine. It's a question of fit.

“People in Smart Recovery tend to have more education, better jobs, less severe (drinking) problems,” he said. “The narrative of self-control resonates with them: They haven't been lying in the street. They go to an AA meeting and think, ‘That's way worse than anything that's happened to me!' This is true for a lot of people, particularly high-bottom drunks. They may be happier in Smart Recovery.”

A “bottom” refers to an incident, usually dramatic, that prompts an alcoholic to accept he or she must stop drinking.

But how does AA, which has its roots in religion, psychology and medicine, “work?”

Many recovering alcoholics say their higher power played the main role. Cathy, 61, a retired business executive, said she was a “hopeless” alcoholic who tried willpower, traditional psychotherapy and self-help books for years to no avail.

“I couldn't live without alcohol, period,” she said. “I didn't lose my house or my husband, I didn't have DUIs. But there was a complete emptiness inside, a spiritual malady. I had lost my soul. And only my relationship with my higher power, whom I choose to call God, was able to fill that hole.”

Scientists theorize that AA works mainly by using a layman's version of cognitive-behavioral therapy, complemented by social connection. They note the many parallels between AA's approach and the psychological one.

“(Members) say prayer and meditation help them; scientists call that a cognitive exercise in coping mechanisms,” Tonigan said. “You say the Serenity Prayer when you're angry; in cognitive-behavioral therapy we call that rehearsal training. Changing ‘playmates and playpens' in AA is called avoiding triggers in CBT.”

One large study found it is the social component of AA — going to meetings, having a sponsor — that is most beneficial to most alcoholics, more so than the spiritual practices, said Harvard's Kelly.

“Prayer and meditation only seemed to be an explanatory effect among the most severe members, although they also benefited from the social network,” he said.

The law has gotten involved in the debate. Federal courts across the country have ruled that judges can't mandate DUI or drug offenders to attend AA or related 12-step programs as part of probation if they object on religious grounds — a suitable secular alternative must be provided. It's a church-state thing.

Lisa Graybill, director of the ACLU of Texas, said her office regularly gets complaints from nonbelievers ticked off because they've been ordered to 12-step programs, but so far none have resulted in litigation.

In his 23 years at the Bexar County probation office, assistant chief Abel Salinas said he hasn't heard of a single probationer objecting to a 12-step mandate on religious grounds. When asked to provide a list of local secular alternatives, he offered fee-based drug-education classes at driving schools.

But 12-step waivers are rarely granted, said Salinas, and only to defendants who can prove beyond doubt they cannot attend meetings for legitimate reasons, such as work schedules. A defendant must ask for alternatives to 12-step; it's not offered by the courts.

“Everyone would try to get out of going,” he said.

The Center for Health Care Services offers nonspiritually-based support groups, but hey're open only to clients enrolled in its addiction-treatment programs.

One local criminal defense attorney who wished to remain nameless because he regularly appears before judges here, said those who object to AA on religious grounds are aware of the risk in voicing such concerns.

“The problem is judges hold so much power,” he said. “Are you going to tell the person who holds your fate in his hands that you don't want to go to AA? (Judges) can make your life really hard, and the goal of most people is to stay out of ... jail, no matter the cost.”

Interestingly, studies show atheists — if they commit to AA — tend to fare as well sobriety-wise as believers.

That's the tack Suzanne, 75, took four years ago, when she joined an AA group in Austin geared to atheists and agnostics. She said she keeps her focus on working the steps and practising the AA principles — humility, rigorous honesty, service to others — and lets the spiritual stuff work itself out.

“I realized that maybe my definition of spiritual was too narrow,” she said. “One meaning of spirituality is the immaterial. I mean, you can't see love.””

Source: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/AA-Is-it-only-way-alcoholics-can-go-2435378.php#ixzz1iLRSnwti

Comment: Just a reminder that we haven't cornered the market in alcoholism treatment! AA is not necessarily the most appropriate course for all who suffer from this condition

Moreover - How It DOESN'T Work:

• endorsement of (and participation in) any court mandated (chit system) attendance at AA meetings (a breach of our own traditions);
• overt sectarian religiosity exhibited by AA groups (but not by individual members) (yet another breach of our traditions);
• our failure to clarify the distinction between 'spiritual' and 'religious', and communicate this adequately to the general public. This is easily remedied viz:
  
  
  “Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality; an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.” Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life; spiritual experience includes that of connectedness with a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm. Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life. It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality]
  
  
  Cheerio
  
  The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

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)

http://www.treatmentsolutionsnetwork.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/18/from-the-desk-of-juan-lesende-how-drug-abuse-treatment-turns-into-mistreatment/

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

http://thestraights.com/theprogram/synanon-story2.htm

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:

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066985,00.html

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:

Does religion belong at AA? Fight over 'God' splits Toronto AA groups

Toronto's AA Intergroup Bounces Atheists After Spirited Battle

Toronto Ban on AA Atheists Sparks Global Flap

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

Derbyshire AA Intergroup?

A while ago we received a series of emails emanating from the Derby area in relation to the activities of the local intergroup. It would seem from these that all is not well. Various allegations were made as to the conduct of this intergroup with reference to a number of meetings in the Derby City area. We visited the above mentioned intergroup's website to check some of the matters raised in our correspondents' emails and came across a number of features which we found somewhat surprising. We summarised these in one of our own responses. See below:

“Dear …...

Thank you for your email. Firstly we should begin by saying (and as a point of clarification) that our goal is as stated on the website and includes (although not overtly) our full support for the principles on which AA is based ie. the Steps, Traditions, Concepts, guidelines (albeit with some qualifications in the last instance) etc. We were somewhat dismayed therefore to note your reference to “genuinely autonomous” meetings since this in itself represents a misquote of Tradition Four, something which we have gone to considerable lengths to emphasise on our site. We quite categorically do NOT support groups that exercise their own autonomy BUT with a complete disregard for the impact this might have on other groups or AA as a whole, and moreover where such action undermines the effectiveness of the remainder of the Traditions. Although our primary focus is on “cult” groups (as we define them) there are plenty of instances where what might otherwise be described as legitimate AA groups also breach (and seriously) these Traditions, and not only to their detriment but also other groups and AA collectively.

With regard to the intergroup website we have checked through this and there are a number of areas of concern. Firstly the site itself does not seem itself to be directly linked into the main AA website (under Midlands region – Derbyshire). In connection with this we note the following:

Under the heading "Website" (Minutes Dec 2010):

"….. has received no further communication following the contact he made with GSO Electronic sub committee.

….. has also sent two emails to GSO asking if we could have our page back on the new site but has received no reply."

Also under same heading (Minutes Sept 2010)

"….. informed IG that the Derbyshire page had been removed from the G.S.O site because it has links to outside bodies- the body in question is Google maps, the page previously provided a link to Google maps so that a visitor to the page could see where exactly a meeting was located. He stated that he would re-organise the National page to comply with AA guidance, and asked the group whether the links should be taken off the Derbyshire website, which is separate to the national page on the AA website, or not?

It was agreed that the links to Google maps should be kept on the Derbyshire site."

Next: the templates available on the site do not have any indicated conference approved provenance. One of these (the 4th step inventory) seems to derive from the following site: http://aaworkshop.org/4th-step-inventory.php. [with “Back to Basics” connections. See here for more information on this grouping]. This site has no affiliation with AA as such (although it omits to mention this) and therefore the use of the material (and despite its relatively innocuous content) constitutes an implied endorsement (and affiliation) by Derbyshire Intergroup (a breach of the Traditions). Exactly the same may be said with regard to the 1944 sponsorship pamphlet (again no indication that this is conference approved). Most of the views expressed in this document are again relatively uncontroversial (although there are some with which we might take serious issue) but an AA intergroup really has no business carrying reference material which does not form part of the approved corpus of AA literature (and especially where the existing [AA] literature most adequately covers the areas under question). Under the section “What Happens at Meetings” again the content is relatively harmless but there are a number of statements included which seem to express the personal opinions (and preferences) of the author(s) rather than being purely observational. For example the view is expressed that: “We are not a religious organisation but we are spiritual and many of us (even the atheists among us) find this short prayer helpful.” Apart from the fact that this seems to be something of a broad assumption it is questionable how a prayer addressed directly to God could ever be regarded as “helpful” by someone who is a genuine atheist. Praying to something that you have no belief (or faith) in whatsoever would seem to us to be a rather bizarre activity. There is also something distinctly patronising about the qualifying condition ie. “EVEN the atheists....” (our emphasis). The only category of alcoholic in AA is – an alcoholic in AA! That is it! Again, the observation that: “..... we usually stand in a circle, join hands and say ….” is not as far as we're aware an accurate statement. It may be the case in the Derbyshire area but it is not “the norm” elsewhere. Further: “We do not talk or comment when someone is sharing and it is considered bad manners to comment negatively on an earlier share when it is your turn. (We call that "cross-sharing")”. The expression “cross-sharing” is a relatively recent 'fad' (or for those of us who have been around AA “for a little while” at least!) and we have found, on the contrary, a bit of “negative” sharing can be most instructive especially when it's somebody's life on the line! And of course the question arises: who is it precisely that considers it “bad manners” to “cross-share”? The author(s)? Other members? Who exactly are these “spokesmen for AA”? Indeed there is no guideline which may DIRECT how a member may or may not speak and therefore they should not be subjected to any form of censorship (implicit or otherwise) other than that governed by the relevant statutes. It seems quite unnecessary in our view to include such detailed “opinions” on an AA site which should contain only basic information relating to meeting lists, conventions, intergroup business and links to the relevant sections of the main AA website. This is a yet another example of unhelpful “micro management”!

With reference to the “Sobriety Breakfast” (advertised on the site) this is another clear breach of the Traditions (specifically Tradition Seven). Fund raising “events” (and we would include here profits derived from literature sales - an example of AA traditions being broken not only locally but even nationally!), raffles, dances, discos etc all represent “transactions” contributing to a profit. In exchange for the “goods” or “services” provided a specific charge is made (including generally that element of profit) and a contract comes into existence. There is no indication within the Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous that such “contracts” are intended to be created between it, the Fellowship service structure and its members. The point of a “voluntary contribution” indeed is that no such contractual relationship is created. Both parties (if it may be put that way) are mutual donors and both are mutual beneficiaries, the rewards deriving solely from the relationship itself and not from any extrinsic and “superfluous” benefit.

Finally we would certainly be interested to hear whether the intergroup website has carried information about “informal” meetings (associated with a particular religious denomination) since this would be a clear (and extremely serious) breach of the Traditions. The only reference we can find in the minutes to such “informal” meetings relate to those held at the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary (and this seems to be due to some constraints on accessibility).

We would also be interested to hear specifically why the intergroup took the action you indicated with respect to your group(s) and what steps you have taken to remedy the situation, and what (if any) response you have had from the intergroup in this regard.

For our part we will pass on some of the above observations to both GSO York and also to Derbyshire Intergroup. In the meantime we would appreciate it if you would send us the group details (as they appear in the AA online Where to Find) of both your group(s) and also the groups you refer to as belonging to the cult. This will ensure that no confusion may ensue through misidentification. We will then follow up on the matter

Cheers

The Fellas”

We did subsequently contact Derbyshire Intergroup with regard to the above – no response. We also contacted GSO York who kindly acknowledged our communication.

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to the correspondents from Derby for drawing our attention to these issues)

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 1^st 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)