Your Criticism Of
Is 'Similar To Nazism'
AA is not in unison with drug rehabs ... drug rehabs might think so, but it's not the case.
Nowhere in AA literature is there a call for 90 meetings in 90 days. I was never told to do that as an AA thing.
If drinking is a disease, then I'm recovering. If it's a sin, then I"m holier than social drinkers, since I don't drink at all. It really doesn't matter to me what you call it.
Bill W, as I understand, has nothing to do with Jesus. I was never told by anyone in AA or by any AA literature that he did. I'm not even Christian.
"Age Of Sobriety"? AA doesn't claim that social drinkers need to quit. It doesn't even claim that "problem drinkers" need to quit. It only claims that people who desire to quit might do so in AA.
Trusted Servants have NO authority in AA. If they do, then the group they're in isn't an AA group, no matter what they call themselves.
More time sober doesn't give anyone an "upper hand", people who've been continuously sober for 20 years will say "all any of us have is today."
I don't call people who stop going to meetings because I think they should be back "in" the group. I call them because I miss their companionship on a personal level. I assume that if anyone calls me, it's also a personal decision, and a personal desire to talk to me. No one "speaks for AA" in that way. That's a really ridiculous idea.
I think your "cult" article is picking out some stupid things a few AA members will say and do, and judging everyone on that count. That's like judging all African Americans by the ones who are criminals, or judging all Christians by the ones who go out and kill doctors, or judging all people with tatoos by the ones that are on drugs, or judging all teenagers by the ones who commit suicide, or judging all children by the ones who are bullies, or judging all British citizens by the ones who involve themselves in soccor riots, or judging all Australians by watching Crocodile Dundee, or judging all Africans by the ones who practice female genital mutilation, or judging all romance novel readers by the ones who are "old maids", or judging all gays by the ones who are also child molesters, or judging all transgendered people by the ones who decide to keep both sexual organs, or judging all lesbians by Ellen Degeneres, or judging all Catholics' hygeine by the personal hygeine of the Pope, or judging all AOL users by the ones who forward hoax warnings, or judging all computer experts by the hackers, or judging all the fans of that country singer by the ones who wear Hawaiian shirts to the concerts, or judging ALL AA MEMBERS BY ME!!!!!
I was actually at one point interested in Rational Recovery ... but now that I see that it's apparently based upon the "higher power" of Hate Of AA, I'm thinking it's similar to Nazism! Mutual hate brings people together, that's a sociological fact - but not my personal choice.
I have not found AA to be based on mutual hatred.
From: Recovery Watch <email@example.com>
To: Recovery Watch List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: AA Accountability
Date: Sunday, July 18, 1999 10:18 AM
Alcoholics Anonymous, the organization, cannot hide behind the shield you have built for it.
We judge AA by its conference-approved literature and by the actions and words of its members. This is only right, because we cannot judge AA by what other people say about AA, only by what AA says and by what AA members say and do. What you seem to want is for AA to not be held accountable for the mess it and its members have created.
Thus far, AA has refused to take a stand on the practice of enforced AA attendance, though it has every right, within its traditions, to do just that. This compromise of AA's tradition that it is a voluntary program in no way constitutes an "outside issue" which AA has "no opinion" on. AA has every right -- rather, AA has a duty to speak out against this misuse of what AA calls its most basic tradition: that of AA being strictly voluntary
AA refuses to prevent its methods from being the main cirriculum of commercial treatment centers, though AA holds the rights to these methods. AA literature even recommends this practice.
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.