Alcoholics Anonymous: On religion, discipline and aid

October 23, 1939 Cleveland Plain Dealer

Alcoholics Anonymous Makes Its Stand Here

By ELRICK B. DAVIS

“In a previous installment, Mr. Davis outlined the plan of Alcoholics Anonymous, an organization of former drinkers who have found a solution to liquor in association for mutual aid. This is the second of a series.

Religion

There is no blinking the fact that Alcoholics Anonymous, the amazing society of ex-drunks who have cured each other of an incurable disease, is religious. Its members have cured each other frankly with the help of God. Every cured member of the Cleveland Fellowship of the society, like every cured member of the other chapters now established in Akron, New York, and elsewhere in the country, is cured with the admission that he submitted his plight wholeheartedly to a Power Greater than Himself.

He has admitted his conviction that science cannot cure him, that he cannot control his pathological craving for alcohol himself, and that he cannot be cured by the prayers, threats, or pleas of his family, employers, or friends. His cure is a religious experience. He had to have God's aid. He had to submit to a spiritual housecleaning.

Alcoholics Anonymous is a completely informal society, wholly latitudinarian in every respect but one. It prescribes a simple spiritual discipline, which must be followed rigidly every day. The discipline is fully explained in a book published by the society.

Discipline

That is what makes the notion of the cure hard for the usual alcoholic to take, at first glance, no matter how complete his despair. He wants to join no cult. He has lost faith, if he ever had it, in the power of religion to help him. But each of the cures accomplished by Alcoholics Anonymous is a spiritual awakening. The ex-drunk has adopted what the society calls "a spiritual way of life."

How, then, does Alcoholics Anonymous differ from the other great religious movements which have changed social history in America? Wherein does the yielding to God that saves a member of this society from his fatal disease, differ from that which brought the Great Awakening that Jonathan Edwards preached, or the New Light revival of a century ago, or the flowering of Christian Science, or the campmeeting evangelism of the old Kentucky-Ohio frontier, or the Oxford Group successes nowadays?

Every member of Alcoholics Anonymous may define God to suit himself. God to him may be the Christian God defined by the Thomism of the Roman Catholic Church. Or the stern Father of the Calvinist. Or the Great Manitou of the American Indian. Or the Implicit Good assumed in the logical morality of Confucius. Or Allah, or Buddha, or the Jehovah of the Jews. Or Christ the Scientist. Or no more than the Kindly Spirit implicitly assumed in the "atheism" of a Col. Robert Ingersoll.

Aid

If the alcoholic who comes to the fellowship for help believes in God, in the specific way of any religion or sect, the job of cure is easier. But if all that the pathological drunk can do is to say, with honesty, in his heart: "Supreme Something, I am done for without more-than-human help," that is enough for Alcoholics Anonymous to work on. The noble prayers, the great literatures, and the time-proved disciplines of the established religions are a great help. But as far as the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous is concerned, a pathological drunk can call God "It" if he wants to, and is willing to accept Its aid. If he'll do that, he can be cured.

Poll of "incurable" alcoholics who now, cured, are members of the Cleveland Fellowship of the society, shows that this has made literally life-saving religious experience possible to men and women who, otherwise, could not have accepted spiritual help. Poll shows also that collectively their religious experience has covered every variety known to religious psychology. Some have had an experience as blindingly bright as that which struck down Saul on the road to Damascus. Some are not even yet intellectually convinced except to the degree that they see that living their lives on a spiritual basis has cured them of a fatal disease. Drunk for years because they couldn't help it, now it never occurs to them to want a drink. Whatever accounts for that, they are willing to call "God."

Some find more help in formal religion than do others. A good many of the Akron chapter find help in the practices of the Oxford Group. The Cleveland chapter includes a number of Catholics and several Jews, and at least one man to whom "God" is "Nature." Some practice family devotions. Some simply cogitate about "It" in the silence of their minds. But that the Great Healer cured them with only the help of their fellow ex-drunks, they all admit.”

(our emphases) 

Comment: Well that clears up the 'AA is/is not religious' issue doesn't it – NOT! Confused? You should be! No wonder the rest of the world don't get what we're about if we don't ourselves! Again the distinction between “religious” and “spiritual” is fudged to such an extent that no one's left any the wiser. Perhaps we might try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality 

and in particular the following: 

“Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.”[2] 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.[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.”

None of the above definitions come into conflict with AA's traditions and taken together form an inclusive approach which avoids altogether any problems of affiliation (religious or otherwise)."

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Buddha wasn't God. He was a man who through his own efforts transcended phenomenal existence. No divine intervention required!

“Constitutionally Coerced” - another perspective

Constitutionally Coerced: Why Sentencing a Convicted Offender to a Faith-Based Rehabilitation Program Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause

See also Links and downloads

PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here

aacultwatch forum daily reflections

Extracts from our forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch under thread: “aacultwatch forum daily reflections”

“About the Akron A.A.’s break with the Oxford Group, very little was set down in writing. Nor did Dr. Bob ever say much about the matter…” (Dr. Bob and the Good old Timers page 212)

“On the second day of New Year, 1940, Dr. Bob wrote Bill: ‘Have definitely shaken off the shackles of the Oxford Group’ (a choice of words indicates his attitude then) ‘and are meeting round my house for the time being. Had 74 Wednesday in my little house, but shall get a hall soon.’ … … … After a few meetings, Wally G. checked Kings School, where his daughter went. From then on it was every Wednesday night for the Kings school group,” (Dr. Bob and The Good Old timers pages 218-219)

“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.” (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers page 161)

“Dr. Bob sought to discover and familiarize himself with the spiritual laws in great part through his reading, which was extensive… … … ... ... ...‘He read about every religion,’ said Smitty, ‘not only the Christian religion. He could tell you about the Koran, Confucius, even voodooism, and many other things…’ ” (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers pages 309-310)

“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.” (Saturday Evening Post 1941; The Jack Alexander article about AA page 19)

“As finally expressed and offered, they [The Twelve Steps] are simple in language, plain in meaning. They are also workable by any person having a sincere desire to obtain and keep sobriety. The results are proof. Their simplicity and workability are such that no special interpretations, and certainly no reservations, have ever been necessary” - Dr. Bob (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers page 227)

“Dr. Bob never talked much about religion, but he was a very religious person. Whenever he got stuck about something, he always prayed about it. But that wasn’t something he spread around. It was his own private attitude.” – Elgie R. (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers page 314)

“But, Smitty noted, his father didn’t come on strong about philosophy or religion with others, because he didn’t want to scare them off.” (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers page 310)

(our emphases)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

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)

 

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 3

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

The Traditions

Preamble

Concepts

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“Tradition 4

Linking the subject of this post to the above posts and to my post on page 2 of Committee 1, Question 1, regarding the frequently asked questions by professionals on the GSO (GB) website and the bad press reports in the national press, what constitutes an AA group would consider what effect its own affairs have on other groups and AA as a whole.

It should be a serious concern to all AA members that some federal and state courts in the USA have ruled that "Adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytisation." and that “AA is a religion.” (Source: national press report, Great Britain); and that one of the frequently asked questions by professionals in Great Britain is: “Is it a cult? (Source: GSO website: Information for professionals: F.A.Q.s: http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/professionals/?PageID=84

Something is going seriously wrong with AA public relations and some groups that call themselves AA groups are responsible for this. Many alcoholics of agnostic, atheist, or religious beliefs other than Christianity are being turned away from AA. This is because some groups that call themselves AA groups are adopting the doctrines of outside published literature which implicate the AA program as being evangelical Christian.

Although I do not know much about law, I think there may be legal implications for AA as a whole. If in future more courts continue to rule that AA is religious, then it will be increasingly difficult for AA to say that it is not religious. There could be a possibility that in future AA World Services and the General Service Board in Great Britain could be court ordered to remove statements in official AA literature which state that AA is not religious. Some AA groups or the General Service Board and GSO could be held in contempt of court if they then continued to distribute the official AA pamphlets where a court ruled AA is religious. How can an organisation state that it is not religious where the law states that it is?

Some information on court rulings can be searched on the internet by using the search terms: “USA court rulings AA is a religion” and “AA cult”

What constitutes an AA group would not give the impression that it is religious or that it is a cult. It would have the AA structure of an up side down triangle. Power in the group would be in the democratic majority vote of the whole group, inclusive to all group members, irrespective of their length of sobriety. According to Tradition Two an AA group would not have a pyramid structure of a cult. Power in the group would not be in a leading personality; a “guru” or “grand sponsor” or in a small steering committee composed of his or her friends. Nor would the group imply teaching of the 12 steps as a religious doctrine, or try to increase its membership by coercion or solicitation. This would give the appearance of it being a religious cult. Evidently, from the national press reports and courts, some groups are behaving in this manner and they are giving the public this impression; therefore they are affecting other AA groups and AA as a whole by damaging overall AA public relations. Such groups are outside the bounds of the General Warranties of Conference which safeguard AA as a whole, and therefore, they cannot call themselves AA groups.

Concept 12, Warranty 5: “We have no doctrine that has to be maintained. We have no membership that has to be enlarged. We have no authority that has to be supported. We have no prestige, power or pride that has to be satisfied.”

Concept 12, warranty 5: “If we recognize that religion is the province of the clergy and the practice of medicine is for doctors, then we can helpfully cooperate with both.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

The use of the Lord's Prayer in AA meetings.....

“…... or why should we be so surprised when cult groups fail to abide by the traditions (which they largely do) when we ourselves so blithely ignore them?

“Tradition 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 AA Preamble:

“Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.

Copyright © The AA Grapevine, Inc.”

(our emphases)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lords_prayer

Whilst not claiming that a Wikipedia entry may be regarded necessarily as a definitive source it does seem quite evident that the Lord's Prayer is in fact Christian in origin and forms a central part of Christian practice. From this there follow some quite serious implications (if taken together with the above tradition and preamble), which suggest that any group that uses such a prayer demonstrates an outside affiliation and therefore (and according to that tradition) may not even call itself an AA group. Its members may hold whatever views, beliefs etc they like (individually) but even if every member of the group were a practising Christian (of whatever denomination) this group would still be in breach of this tradition. Moreover the prayer presents a set of ethical precepts (and concepts) which may be quite alien to any non-Christian attendees and although a moral review is a central component of the recovery programme (together with some indicated categories) there is no suggestion that such an appraisal should necessarily comply with a particular religious tradition (eg. as outlined in this prayer). Finally, although AA and its programme are undeniably derived (in part) from this tradition it could equally be argued that Christianity itself is based upon necessarily “pagan” origins. Whereabouts in the time line therefore does AA establish finally its foundations? In practical terms, and given the present public debate about the supposed “religiosity” of AA (and its possible negative impact on AA attendance), it is probably not very helpful for the membership (collectively) to engage in any practices which clearly have a primarily “religious” (and denominational) component - rather it would be better to focus on those that may be regarded as essentially “spiritual” (and which would be inclusive of all religions and philosophies).

Again referring to the above source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

and in particular the following:

“Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.”[2] 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.[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.”

None of the above definitions come into conflict with AA's traditions and taken together form an inclusive approach which avoids altogether any problems of affiliation (religious or otherwise).”

Think on that!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(PS Our usual thanks to this correspondent)