From AA Agnostica – Page 11

An AA Pamphlet for Agnostics – The 1980s

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Ten.
Posted on AA Agnostica in November 2013.

Conference Approved Literature.

“The greatest danger facing AA today (is)… prohibiting non-Conference approved literature, i.e., ‘banning books’.”
The Manager of the AA General Service Office (GSO),
Bob Pearson, 35 years ago. AA’s Greatest Danger – Rigidity.

In the last three and a half decades, nothing has changed. The only books available at the GSO, Intergroups, Central Offices and at the literature tables at traditional AA meetings are “conference approved”. Everything else is indeed banned.

And why is that? Because the only literature that is conference approved is published by the GSO and that’s where they get their profits. In fact, in 2019 the GSO made $9,358,751 from literature sales.

Thus “conference approved”. And the “banning” of everything else, no matter how helpful it might be for those in recovery.

Shame on the GSO.

By Roger C.

In October, 1981, Ed S. wrote to the AA trustees’ Literature Committee and asked that the idea of preparing and publishing a “Conference-approved” pamphlet for agnostics and atheists in the fellowship be reconsidered.

You see, he had tried to get such a pamphlet once before, and the idea had been rejected.

In the 1970s Ed had been a trustee – one of AA’s 21 policy and financial administrators – and a member of a sub-committee of the Literature Committee.

He and Paula C. – the other member of the subcommittee – had recommended that AA compile and write “a pamphlet for the Agnostic and/or Atheist.” In a report presented to the full Literature committee in July, 1976, they wrote that such a pamphlet “is needed to assure non-believers that they are not merely deviants, but full, participating members in the AA Fellowship without qualification.”

Continue reading “An AA Pamphlet for Agnostics – The 1980s”

An AA Pamphlet for Agnostics – The 1970s

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Nine.
Posted on AA Agnostica in August 2013.

The word “God” (or “Him”, etc.) appears 281 times in the first 164 pages of the Big Book.

As a result, the struggle to make Alcoholics Anonymous more accessible to non-believers has gone on forever.

It began when the book was written. And the struggle continues to this day.

By Roger C.

A “Conference-approved” pamphlet for agnostics and atheists in AA was first proposed in 1975.

The proposal was the result of a letter from Al L., an AA member in Florida, who asked the trustees’ Literature Committee to consider publishing such a pamphlet.

(The trustees of AA consists of 14 alcoholics and 7 non-alcoholics. These trustees are the principal planners and administrators of AA’s overall policy and finances, which is about as high-level as it gets in Alcoholics Anonymous.)

This is what Al wrote to the trustees:

I’m a happy non-belligerent agnostic. I feel that many non-believers miss the AA boat before they find out that they are also welcome. The ‘God bit’ frightens then off before they learn that their spiritual beliefs or non-beliefs need not deprive them of the blessings of AA.

Is it possible for the “powers that be” in AA to publish a pamphlet designed specifically for agnostics? I don’t mean the Big Book’s version – Chapter IV We Agnostics – that doesn’t make sense to me. Never did…

Many agnostics believe at first that AA, with all of its “Let God Do It” and “That one is God, may you find him now” is really a thinly veiled attempt to shove “religion” down their throats. You and I of course know that isn’t the case…

Continue reading “An AA Pamphlet for Agnostics – The 1970s”

Marty Mann and the Early Women of AA

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Eight.
Posted on AA Agnostica in April 2013.

Dr. Bob (the co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous) threw up his hands and said, “We have NEVER had a woman and will NOT work on a woman.”

By bob k

A tremendous change has taken place over the past few generations in the way alcoholics are viewed in our society. Although it is undeniable that some level of unawareness and misunderstanding remains, substantial improvements have been effected since the 1930s. We have cause to be grateful.

The once virtually universal stigma that besieged alcoholic men was exponentially greater for women. “Nice women” didn’t drink to excess. This made it extremely difficult to admit to a drinking problem in the first place. As our pioneers battled not only for their own sobriety, but for some level of “respectability,” their reluctance to associate themselves with “beggars, tramps, asylum inmates, prisoners, queers (sic), plain crackpots, and fallen women,” (12 & 12, p. 140), can be looked on with some degree of sympathy.

Continue reading “Marty Mann and the Early Women of AA”

Responsibility is our Theme

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Seven.
Posted on AA Agnostica in October 2012.

Quotes from Bill Wilson:

“How much and how often did we fail?”

“Let us never fear needed change. Once a need becomes clearly apparent… in AA as a whole… we cannot afford to sit still and look the other way.”

By Roger C.

Bill W spoke at the General Service Conference held in New York City in April, 1965. The Conference theme was “Responsibility To Those We Serve.”

AA was thirty years old. Bill was 70 years old. It was a period of reflection for him. “We old-timers are a vanishing breed,” he said of the early members of AA. “The greater part of us have gone out into the sunset of this world.”

He expressed the hope that the disappearing early AAers had left the members of the day a heritage sufficient to their needs, one which could be “enlarged and enriched.”

Bill was preparing for the 30th Anniversary International Convention to be held later that year in July in Toronto. Much of the spirit of the Conference would also prevail at the Convention, where the theme would be, simply, “Responsibility,” and Bill would repeat much of this speech.

Bill looked back over the years; he did a bit of an inventory of AA’s history, “the better to reveal the areas in which we can improve ourselves.”

“Without much doubt, a million alcoholics have approached AA during the last thirty years,” he said. Estimating that “350,000 of us are now recovered from our malady” through the fellowship of AA, he continued, “So we can very soberly ask ourselves what became of the 600,000 who did not stay.”

No doubt some alcoholics “cannot be reached because they are not hurt enough, others because they are hurt too much. Many sufferers have mental and emotional complications that seem to foreclose their chances,” Bill acknowledged.

But what about all the others?

“How much and how often did we fail them?” he asked.

“Our very first concern should be with those sufferers that we are still unable to reach.”

He had some sense of the failings of the fellowship he had helped launch and which he still clearly revered. One of the themes for his talk was one he had broached before: a growing rigidity in AA.

He referred directly to a contingent within the fellowship which, often unwittingly, made it difficult for an increasingly large number of people to feel comfortable in the rooms of AA. “It is a historical fact,” he said, “that practically all groupings of men and women tend to become dogmatic. Their beliefs and practices harden and sometimes freeze. This is a natural and almost inevitable process.”

He discussed some of the ways that this rigidity could harm the fellowship.

“In no circumstances should we feel that Alcoholics Anonymous is the know-all and do-all of alcoholism,” Bill said, referring to the work of other organizations in the United States and Canada engaged in research, alcohol education and rehabilitation.

“Research has already come up with significant and helpful findings. And research will do far more.”

“Those engaged in education are carrying the message that alcoholism is an illness, that something can be done about it.”

Bill then talked about the growth of rehabilitation facilities in North America and the number of alcoholics treated by these agencies. “True, their approach is often different from our own,” he said.

“But what does that matter,” he asked, “when the greater part of them are or could be entirely willing to cooperate with AA?”

“Too often, I believe, we have deprecated and even derided these projects of our friends.”

“So we should very seriously ask ourselves how many alcoholics have gone on drinking simply because we have failed to cooperate in good spirit with all these other agencies whether they be good, bad or indifferent. Assuredly no alcoholic should go mad or die simply because he did not come straight to AA in the first place.”

Bill was of the view that hardened or frozen beliefs and practices were dangerous in AA. “Simply because we have convictions that work very well for us, it becomes quite easy to assume that we have all of the truth.”

“Whenever this brand of arrogance develops,” he warned, “we are sure to become aggressive. We demand agreement with us. We play God.”

“This isn’t good dogma. This is very bad dogma. It could be especially destructive for us of AA to indulge in this sort of thing.”

Bill defended the right of all AAers to have their own beliefs and to be able to freely express them.

“All people must necessarily rally to the call of their own particular convictions and we of AA are no exception.” Moreover, he continued, “all people should have the right to voice their convictions.”

Bill then returned to the subject of those who had come into AA but not stayed. “Newcomers are approaching us at the rate of tens of thousands yearly. They represent almost every belief and attitude imaginable.”

“We have atheists and agnostics,” he said. “We have people of nearly every race, culture and religion.”

And then Bill got to the heart of his message of responsibility.

In AA we are supposed to be bound together in the kinship of a universal suffering. Therefore the full liberty to practice any creed or principle or therapy should be a first consideration. Hence let us not pressure anyone with individual or even collective views. Let us instead accord to each other the respect that is due to every human being as he tries to make his way towards the light. Let us always try to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Let us remember that each alcoholic among us is a member of AA, so long as he or she so declares.

Towards the end of his address, Bill commented on how difficult it has been for AA to grow at important moments in its history. “Our fears and reluctances and rebellions have been extreme each time we have been faced with great turning points in this society,” he said.

“Let us never fear needed change,” he concluded. “Once a need becomes clearly apparent in an individual, a Group, or in AA as a whole, it has long since been found out that we cannot afford to sit still and look the other way.”

Much of this address – with only minor changes – is reproduced in an article by Bill that was published in July 1965 in the AA Grapevine, Responsibility Is Our Theme. As already noted, the theme of AA’s 30th Anniversary International Convention held later that year was “Responsibility.” It was in response to the concerns raised by Bill that those present adopted the Responsibility Declaration. In an extraordinarily moving event after Bill’s speech on July 3, 1965 at Maple Leaf Gardens in downtown Toronto, more than 10,000 delegates, trustees and AA representatives from 21 countries rose to their feet, joined hands and, led by Bill, recited the new AA declaration with one voice: “I am responsible. When anyone, anywhere, reaches out for help, I want the hand of AA always to be there. And for that I am responsible.” Inspired by this unconditioned affirmation of inclusion, agnostic AA groups invariably end their meetings with this declaration.

For a PDF of this article, click here: Responsibility is Our Theme.

The post Responsibility is our Theme first appeared on AA Agnostica.

The Courts, AA and Religion

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Six.

Is traditional AA religious?

What have the Courts had to say about the religiosity of Alcoholics Anonymous?

By Linda R.

Inside AA, one hears members frequently repeat the well-known phrase “AA is spiritual, not religious.” AA takes pride in saying it’s not religious. But what do outsiders, such as the court systems, think about AA’s claim?

In the ten year period between 1996 and 2007, five high-level US courts – three federal circuit courts and two state supreme courts – did take a long and hard look at AA’s claim. Each of these cases involved a person who was being forced to participate in AA meetings, either as a condition of their parole or probation, or while actually incarcerated. These cases reached the highest level of judiciary scrutiny – only one level below the US Supreme Court – because they involved the critical issue of separation of Church and State. This separation is a fundamental aspect of US law, known as the Establishment Clause, and is explicated in the first amendment to the US Constitution, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The parolees, probationers and inmates in each of these cases claimed that the State was using its power to force them to participate in a religious activity. They claimed that AA meetings were religious. Thus, their required attendance was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which requires governmental neutrality with respect to religion and a wall of separation between Church and State.

In Establishment Clause cases, the high-level courts use a three-part test to determine if the wall of separation has been violated. First, has the State acted? Second, does the action amount to coercion? And third, is the object of coercion religious rather than secular? The answer to the first part of the test was quickly answered: yes, these cases clearly showed action by the State, involving the governmental branches of probation, parole and imprisonment. The second test was likewise quickly answered: yes, the probationers, parolees and inmates were being coerced into AA attendance.

Next, the high-level courts addressed the third part of the test. They took a long look at the Big Book and its 200 references to God; a look at the Twelve Steps and their unmistakable references to God; the prayers in AA meetings; and based on a full examination of these, ruled that AA doctrines and practices must be viewed as religious. Because multiple high-level courts have ruled uniformly on this matter, these rulings now constitute “clearly established law” in the US. Here’s what one of these courts, the New York Court of Appeals, in the case of Griffin v. Coughlin, had to say about the matter:

A fair reading of the fundamental A.A. doctrinal writings discloses that their dominant theme is unequivocally religious.

Indeed, the A.A. basic literature most reasonably would be characterized as reflecting the traditional elements common to most theistic religions. Thus, God is named or referred to in five of the 12 steps. “Working” the 12 steps includes confessing to God the “nature of our wrongs” (Step 5), appealing to God “to remove our shortcomings” (Step 7) and seeking “through prayer and meditation” to make “contact” with God and achieve “knowledge of His Will” (Step 11).

While A.A. literature declares an openness and tolerance for each participant’s personal vision of God “as we understood Him” (Steps 3 and 11), the writings demonstrably express an aspiration that each member of the movement will ultimately commit to a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being of independent higher reality than humankind.

All of the meetings ended with the Lord’s Prayer, which is a specifically Christian prayer. In addition, those attending the meetings were strongly encouraged to pray.

The foregoing demonstrates beyond peradventure that doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-step methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization. Followers are urged to accept the existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father of Light and Spirit of the Universe. In “working” the 12 steps, participants become actively involved in seeking such a God through prayer, confessing wrongs and asking for removal of shortcomings. These expressions and practices constitute, as a matter of law, religious exercise.

Thus, while it is of course true that the primary objective of A.A. is to enable its adherents to achieve sobriety, its doctrine unmistakably urges that the path to staying sober and to becoming “happily and usefully whole,” is by wholeheartedly embracing traditional theistic belief.

Arguments were presented to the high-level courts in an attempt to persuade them that the early AA texts had implicitly been superseded by later more secular doctrines. The courts were urged to discount the religious nature of the Big Book and 12 Steps, first written in 1939, and instead to rely exclusively on the 12 Traditions portion of the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions volume published in 1952. But the court rejected those arguments. It saw a dichotomy of roles between the 12 Steps on the one hand and the 12 Traditions on the other. The courts said the 12 Traditions were “designed not to supersede the reverent doctrines and practices of the AA literature which we have already quoted, but to address the essentially secular issues the AA movement confronted as it achieved public acceptance.”

Because of the 12 Traditions, many groups in AA have grown comfortable thinking that their group is “not religious” particularly because the Traditions declare “against sectarian preference.” As if “religion” is only practiced by particular sects that self-declare themselves as religious, such as Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, or Baptists. As if ending a meeting with the Lord’s Prayer somehow doesn’t count.

While AA may not call itself a “religion,” these high court rulings clearly explain that when newcomers are told that in due course he or she should accept the existence of God as a requirement for continuous sobriety, and tell her or him to seek such a God through prayer, confessing wrongs to Him and asking Him for removal of shortcomings, and then expect the newcomer to recite the Lord’s Prayer at the end of meetings, the fellowship is in fact practicing “religion.”

Given that a major judicial system has branded the doctrines and practices of AA as religious, what does this mean for AA groups? Well, obviously one effect is that AA groups that use these doctrines and practices are now legally designated “religious.” At least in the US. In response, an AA group can illogically put its head in the sand, and not look at the facts in front of it. An AA group can cling to its own definition of “religious.” It can try to deny the long established and accepted definition of “religious” used in the world outside of AA, and used authoritatively by the US court system as the basis for designating AA doctrines and practices as “religious.”

But denial just makes an AA group look confused (at best) or dishonest (at worst) to the rest of the world. When a group adheres to religious doctrines and practices, the group shouldn’t expect the world to believe it when the group says it’s “not religious.” Repetition doesn’t make it true, even though the saying is perpetuated and reinforced among the fellowship and with the newcomers.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Aldous Huxley

When will good-hearted people stop denying the obvious? The rest of the world perceives AA’s doctrines and practices as religious. And anyone who had that impression will now feel confident that he or she was right, after reading about the rulings of the US courts. Especially the still suffering alcoholic who avoids giving AA a try because of the perception – now reinforced by the US court system – that AA doctrines and practices are religious.

How does AA extricate itself from this conundrum? If the fellowship has any hope of being a non-religious fellowship for ALL suffering alcoholics with a desire to stop drinking, and being recognized as such by the Courts and by the public at large, it lies in strengthening its commitment to the 12 Traditions. The Traditions do not require AA groups to embrace religious doctrines and practices.

And there are some groups within AA – agnostic, atheist, freethinking – that are not religious in their thinking or practice.These groups don’t recite prayers in their meetings nor do they suggest that a belief in God is required to maintain sobriety. If they use the 12 Steps, they use a secular version that has no reference to “God.” Ironically, groups that do not adhere to AA’s religious doctrines and practices are also the only groups that can truly – and legitimately, according to the US court system – claim to be “spiritual, not religious.”

AA is at a crossroads. There are already many non-religious groups in AA and there are more of these groups being formed every day. Perhaps this reflects the skyrocketing numbers of non-religious people being reported by every population survey and poll across the world. AA already has Traditions designed to service this population. But the inherent discord between the 12 Traditions (non-religious) and the 12 Steps (religious) is a threat to AA. As a result, AA risks being further marginalized as a force of recovery for the still-suffering alcoholic, as an unexpected consequence of its own inner contradictions.

Below are links to the judicial decisions for the five US high-level court cases.

For a PDF of this article, click here: The Courts, AA and Religion

The post The Courts, AA and Religion first appeared on AA Agnostica.

Jim Burwell

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Five.

Early History.

Traditional AA is god-obsessed.
But without Jim Burwell, the Big Book and traditional AA would be much more religious.

By Linda R.

Jim Burwell’s contribution to Alcoholics Anonymous is truly significant and second only to that of AA’s two co-founders, Bill Wilson and Dr. Robert Smith. Jim is credited with adoption of A.A.’s Third Tradition – “The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking” – as reported by Bill in Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions (pp. 143-145).

In addition, it was primarily Jim, along with Hank Parkhurst, who convinced Bill to change the 12 Steps to be more inclusive for those who did not believe in “God.” Bill writes about the contentious battles over the use of the word God in the 12 Steps and the Big Book during the time they were written. Bill says that in New York the AA’s split into three factions, which Bill labeled “conservative”, “liberal” and “radical.”

Continue reading “Jim Burwell”

Father of We Agnostics Dies

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Four.

History. And an Historical Character.

Charlie Polacheck was the co-founder – in Los Angeles, California in 1980 – of the first AA meeting ever to be called “We Agnostics”. He achieved another first when, in 2001, he launched a “We Agnostics” meeting in Austin, Texas.

By Shawn M.

I learned tonight that my AA sponsor, Charlie P, passed away in Austin, Texas at the age of 98.

Within recovery communities, one hears much about sponsors. Charlie was both a son of a gun and a saint. Also, the most spiritual man I have ever encountered. That is really saying something about a guy who claimed to be a raging atheist (more on that later).

Many years ago I was “meeting shopping” and in the Los Angeles AA Directory I noticed a meeting called “We Agnostics.” There is a chapter in the AA Big Book titled “We Agnostics.” In essence, the chapter emphasizes that all drunks come into AA as agnostics and godless but, over time, they rid themselves of that ridiculous concept and see the path towards a Higher Power (code speak for the more commonly used word – God). I thought this “We Agnostics” meeting was either one of two things, a Big Book thumpers meeting or – just maybe – something more interesting. It was indeed more interesting and was located on Barrington Avenue in a big old wood home which was part of the Unitarian Fellowship.

My first meeting there truly made me see the unique, complex components that make up the AA fellowship. This was a group of people that did not subscribe to any notion of canned theology or cultish adherence to anything besides this: “no matter what” one does not put alcohol anywhere near the lips or nostrils. Also, if craving or life itself made you feel like jumping out of your skin, you must pick up the phone and talk with another meeting member. We help each other “no matter what.” That was the guiding principle of the LA We Agnostics AA group. Simple concept.

At the end of this meeting an old guy, obviously from NYC, asked me if I was a real alcoholic. I answered in the affirmative. He handed me a piece of paper that looked like one of the slips from a fortune cookie. This guy, Charlie, told me to call him sometime and we’d chat about the Higher Power stuff or anything else about being an alcoholic in the rooms of AA. By the way, the piece of fortune cookie paper he handed me simply said “Charlie” and had a seven digit phone number (he assumed, even then, everyone still lived in the 213 area code). Charlie had brought the AA We Agnostics format to California.

I still have that little slip of paper.

I called Charlie. It was a journey speaking with Charlie. After a month I asked Charlie to sponsor me and he laid out his ground rules. The criteria were, for me, stern and disciplined. This man was not into holding my hand.

The younger Charlie.

He was not an easy sponsor. Doing the Steps with Charlie was hardly a warm, pleasant experience. Brutal in fact. Much better than almost any shrink I had ever encountered and overwhelmingly wise. That was my first Steps go around. Subsequent redoing of the Steps work proved simply enlightening with Charlie. It helped keep me sober then and still does now.

As the years passed, I watched Charlie perform countless acts of real kindness – without an audience. For example: I was at meeting when a deeply disturbed schizophrenic whose personal hygiene was lacking raised his hand and asked for a meal and a ride to a shelter. Charlie quietly took the man and led him out the door – and then into his car. Nobody noticed but me. Not a word was spoken about it. The personal hygiene deficient man kept coming around and the same routine continued for well over a year. Once he (the lacking-hygiene man) showed up clean shaven with clean clothes and looking nourished and healthy. Charlie’s doing. This is but one small example. Charlie gave again and again – without looking for attention. To him, having acts of kindness witnessed or acknowledged somehow cheapened the act.

He was not merely about the 12th Step but adhering to a life of giving of oneself – always with unconditional love.

Charlie claimed to be a staunch atheist. His heritage was Jewish but unlike many atheistic Jews, Charlie did not observe the holidays or traditions. That would have been a treasonous act to Charlie. Yet, in later years, after endless hours discussing the definitions of God from the perspective of many belief systems and the nature of the universe from a philosophical stance, Charlie said to me that he had discovered a definition of “God” that he could tolerate. That power greater than himself was the “E” in the equation “E=mc2.”

That worked for Charlie and I can embrace his logic.

Charlie’s higher purpose and power was the act of loving and all the Energy (the “E” in “E=mc2” equation) contained throughout the universe (both known and unknown). Charlie gave unselfishly and saved countless lives. He did not care to keep score. He was a very devoted loving husband, father, grandfather and great-great-grandfather. Charlie was significant contributor. He saved lives and reinstalled the ability to experience joy into many hearts. He was a holy man.

Charlie had a good run. A life worth living and I am forever grateful to have known this man.

In honor of Charlie, let’s never forget the “no matter what” principle of the Los Angeles We Agnostics. My salute and love to Charlie P.

Charlie Polacheck, AA founder of “We Agnostics” in Los Angeles, California in 1980 and in Austin, Texas in 2001, passed away on February 27, 2012, after a year of failing health. He was 98 years old and had 41 years of sobriety in AA.

He had many sponsees and affected the lives of many people in AA. In response to Shawn’s post, others have shared their knowledge of Charlie:

An elder statesman (by Richard N): As an “elder statesman” of the fellowship, he was never demanding, always accepting. He got all teary-eyed when I told him about my estranged daughter’s phone call, after several years of not speaking to me, and then more years of my successful sobriety. She said, “I feel like I’ve got my Daddy back.” As a loving father himself, he really identified with that. Charlie was a Jew and definitely an atheist, so I don’t think the Vatican will canonize him any time soon. But in my loving memory he will always be Saint Charlie.

Candles and Charlie (by Sandra B.): I remember Charlie from my early days in sobriety and I knew he was an atheist. Started We Agnostics group and was one of the best AA members to ever have graced the earth. I call myself a Christian and I can’t hold a candle to Charlie. RIP Charlie P.

He made a difference (by Bruce K.): My life is infinitely richer having known and loved Charlie P. He made a huge difference in my life, and the lives of countless others. He taught us the true meaning of living rigorously honest, consistently responsible, and unconditionally loving lives. And this very public atheist was truly one of the happiest and most spiritual people I’ve ever known. Those of us fortunate enough to have known him will carry little bits of Charlie’s message and love with us, and we’ll pass it on to others so that they also can also benefit from Charlie’s experience, strength and hope. Thank you Charlie P.

He was legit (by kkash): Charlie. My friend. He lived the richest life of anyone I have ever known. He was brilliant, always cheerful, adored by his family, admired by his friends. Charlie shared his secret to living well often and it was this: “To live well, practice these principles – rigorous honesty, unconditional love, and consistent responsibility.” He was legit.

His legacy continues to help (Nick H.): I met Charlie when he moved to Austin in 2000. He also handed me one of his pieces of paper with his name and phone number. During his last 12 years in Austin he became an icon (as it were) of the AA community in Austin and was loved by many all along the belief continuum. Through his influence the number of freethinkers meetings in Austin went from 0 to 6 per week. He has directly and indirectly helped and his legacy continues to help many people who would normally have walked away from a less tolerant AA.

Charlie remained active in the program, holding AA meetings at his bedside and receiving AA visitors up to the last week of his life. Two memorial services were held for him, one in Austin, Texas and a second in Los Angeles, California.

Here is an article on AA Agnostica by the other co-founder of the “We Agnostics” meeting: Megan D.

The post Father of We Agnostics Dies first appeared on AA Agnostica.

The “Don’t Tell” Policy in AA

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Three.

This was the first article posted in 2012 – the eighteenth on AA Agnostica.

It’s about not being able to be honest at a traditional AA meeting if you don’t believe in a God. You have to keep your mouth shut.

The reality of all of this led to the publication of two books by AA Agnostica. The first is Don’t Tell, published in 2014, which contains 64 stories and essays posted in the first three years of AA Agnostica. And the second, published a year later, is Do Tell, which contains 30 stories, an equal number by men and women, all about their recovery without a male Christian deity.

By Roger C.

There often seems to be an unofficial policy in Alcoholics Anonymous especially for nonbelievers at AA meetings: “Don’t Tell.”

It is a policy imposed by just a few but rarely challenged.

If you are an atheist, agnostic, humanist or secularist you had best keep your lack of belief in a deity to yourself. (And yet, according to Bill W., AA is officially for everyone “regardless of their belief or lack of belief”).

Here’s an example of the problem: John M tells about how easily everyone accepts it when an AA speaker says, “I owe this to my Higher Power whom I choose to call God.”

“No problem here!” John writes, and he continues:

However, a long standing sober member of my home group once told me that when she was sharing at a closed meeting she spoke of her higher power “whom I choose not to call God.” The looks she got, the raised eyebrows, the shuffling of fannies in the chairs indicated to her that her declaration was a problem for many in the room. At that moment, it felt to her as if she had uttered a blasphemy.

“Don’t Tell.” That’s the policy for nonbelievers in AA.

There are three main ways to be “outed” as an agnostic in Alcoholics Anonymous:

By sharing, as John’s friend did.
By removing the word “God” from the 12 Step program of recovery. In 1939 the words “as we understood Him” were added to “God” in the suggested 12 Steps. Today, for many nonbelievers, that compromise is not enough. The word “God” is removed while the intent of the Step is maintained.
By declining to recite the Lord’s Prayer at the end of an AA meeting.

Some readers will be familiar with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy which was for some time the official United States policy on homosexuals serving in the military. The policy prohibited discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members, while barring openly gay or lesbian persons from military service.

The “Don’t Tell” part of the policy meant that if you didn’t let on that you were a gay or a lesbian then you could still be a member in good standing of the armed forces. If you admitted you were a homosexual, however, then you were kicked out.

The “Don’t Ask” part meant that nobody could ask you if you were a gay or a lesbian. Or even a bi-sexual. And the top brass couldn’t investigate to find out; they couldn’t go to your home, ask your friends or follow you to bars or meetings.

There doesn’t appear to be a “Don’t Ask” part in this policy in AA.

A rumour circulated in the Toronto area that there was a new AA group in Richmond Hill which, although it read the traditional 12 Steps of AA, also shared an interpretation of some of the steps without the “God” word.

Four self-appointed AA police officers decided to investigate and showed up at a Widening Our Gateway meeting on Sunday, November 20, 2011, and sure enough, they concluded, there was evidence of tampered Steps.

A month later, on December 20, one of these detectives presented a motion at Intergroup that Widening Our Gateway be suspended from Intergroup membership for changing the Steps.

The motion will be voted on at the next Intergroup meeting.

Marissa Gaeta and Citalic Snell: The kiss that marked the end of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Meanwhile back in the United States military, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy finally came to an end on September 20, 2011. It took a while for the new rules to take effect but on December 21, in an article headlined “Gay Navy Couple Torpedo Don’t Ask Don’t Tell with First Kiss,” the San Diego News reported on an historic moment. Petty Officer Marissa Gaeta and her partner Citalic Snell became the first gay couple in Navy history to share the “first kiss” moment when the navy ship USS Oak Hill returned from Central America.

The News further reported that Gaeta told a gaggle of reporters: “It’s something new, that’s for sure. It’s nice to be able to be myself. It’s been a long time coming.”

Will the “Don’t Tell” policy at AA meetings ever come to an end?

Of course.

AA as a fellowship will meet this new challenge or, as Joe, a founding member of an agnostic AA group put it: “My bold prediction is that if AA doesn’t accommodate change and diversify, our 100th anniversary will be a fellowship of men and women with the same stature and relevance as the Mennonites; charming, harmless and irrelevant.”

Remember, everything is always impossible until, well, it turns out to be both possible and normal. Look at the picture of Marissa and Citalic again.

It’s been a long time coming but nonbelievers will yet have a place in the rooms of AA.

In the meantime, for God’s sake:

“Don’t Tell.”

For a PDF of this article, click here: The “Don’t Tell” Policy in AA.

The post The “Don’t Tell” Policy in AA first appeared on AA Agnostica.

The “Don’t Tell” Policy in AA

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Three.

This was the first article posted in 2012 – the eighteenth on AA Agnostica.

It’s about not being able to be honest at a traditional AA meeting if you don’t believe in a God. You have to keep your mouth shut.

By Roger C.

There often seems to be an unofficial policy in Alcoholics Anonymous especially for nonbelievers at AA meetings: “Don’t Tell.”

It is a policy imposed by just a few but rarely challenged.

Here’s an example of the problem: John M tells about how easily everyone accepts it when an AA speaker says, “I owe this to my Higher Power whom I choose to call God.”

“No problem here!” John writes, and he continues:

However, a long standing sober member of my home group once told me that when she was sharing at a closed meeting she spoke of her higher power “whom I choose not to call God.” The looks she got, the raised eyebrows, the shuffling of fannies in the chairs indicated to her that her declaration was a problem for many in the room. At that moment, it felt to her as if she had uttered a blasphemy.

“Don’t Tell.” That’s the policy for nonbelievers in AA.

There are three main ways to be “outed” as an agnostic in Alcoholics Anonymous:

By sharing, as John’s friend did.
By removing the word “God” from the 12 Step program of recovery. In 1939 the words “as we understood Him” were added to “God” in the suggested 12 Steps. Today, for many nonbelievers, that compromise is not enough. The word “God” is removed while the intent of the Step is maintained.
By declining to recite the Lord’s Prayer at the end of an AA meeting.

There doesn’t appear to be a “Don’t Ask” part in this policy in AA.

A month later, on December 20, one of these detectives presented a motion at Intergroup that Widening Our Gateway be suspended from Intergroup membership for changing the Steps.

The motion will be voted on at the next Intergroup meeting.

Marissa Gaeta and Citalic Snell: The kiss that marked the end of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

The News further reported that Gaeta told a gaggle of reporters: “It’s something new, that’s for sure. It’s nice to be able to be myself. It’s been a long time coming.”

Will the “Don’t Tell” policy at AA meetings ever come to an end?

Of course.

Remember, everything is always impossible until, well, it turns out to be both possible and normal. Look at the picture of Marissa and Citalic again.

It’s been a long time coming but nonbelievers will yet have a place in the rooms of AA.

In the meantime, for God’s sake:

“Don’t Tell.”

For a PDF of this article, click here: The “Don’t Tell” Policy in AA.

The post The “Don’t Tell” Policy in AA first appeared on AA Agnostica.

Faye’s Story

Fifty Chosen Articles:
Number Two.

This is the first article posted on AA Agnostica which was written by a woman in recovery (posted in November 2011, the twelfth article).

Faye was the co-founder of a “We Agnostics” meeting, launched in Toronto in September 2010. It was the second secular AA meeting in all of Canada. She has also been a board member of the International Conference of Secular AA (ICSAA).

By Faye P.

My name is Faye and I am an alcoholic. Like everyone else who has made this admission, it was not supposed to be this way…

I began drinking at the age of 14 and from my first planned drink with friends, my only purpose was to get as drunk as I possibly could. I grew up with a lot of alcohol around me and it seemed like it was my birthright to continue the tradition. From my warped understanding, alcohol made you happier, stronger and prettier. It was only when people like my dad were dry, that they were miserable and sad. Aggressive, abusive behavior seemed to be flare up at any time, whether alcohol was involved or not. At least if I was drunk, stoned or caught up in a fantasy, I was less likely to get hurt.

I drank and did drugs throughout high school, skipping class whenever possible. If I thought that I already knew what the teacher was teaching or if I found the material difficult, I was “out of there.” I loved to learn, but since it didn’t seem to be cool, I pretended that it didn’t matter. Somehow, I finished high school and got accepted at a university music program, studying piano.

The day that I arrived at university, I realized that I didn’t belong and that I was not like everyone else. They were talented and could play instruments because they had practiced. I had to keep my inability to perform to myself and the only way that I could look and act normal, was to secretly binge drink whenever possible. No one, except me, knew how I craved alcohol. It was the only thing that I needed to keep going. I had absolutely no self confidence.

Fast forward to a family and career life which on the outside seemed pretty wonderful. I had a remarkable career, a beautiful son and a successful husband. From all outside appearances, life was great. It wasn’t enough for me so I continued to drink whenever possible. Since the time that I was eighteen, I was a daily drinker. I drank to get drunk at least two days of seven. Looking back, I realize that I was pretty miserable, but I had stopped feeling since I was about sixteen.

During my forties and leading into what seems to be the longest mid-life crisis on record, things started to fall apart. My marriage broke up and I was going through an incredibly stressful time at work. I started to run marathons because I figured that no marathon runner could be an alcoholic. I also needed a way to burn the excess calories. After about three weeks of training, I created my ‘run and drink’ schedule, which now proves to me that alcoholics can be marathon runners. We can do anything.

At the end of my forties I lost my job and I crumbled. I wanted to kill myself because I did not want to go through the pain of getting to know myself. For someone who had blocked all feeling, the desire to die was pretty compelling. The only purpose for me to go outside was to look for a bridge from which to jump. I figured that I would keep drinking until I had the courage to end it all. My greatest fear was waking up in a hospital where someone might try to help me. I had to do it without fail.

As I was preparing my finances for my son and preparing lists for him, I kept thinking that these thoughts and actions were ridiculous. How could this happen to me? I kept trying to drink it away, but nothing was working. The only person who I was talking to on the outside was my landlord and he was starting to ask about all the bottles.

The morning when it seemed like it was time to take action, I decided that I would check out AA. I walked into a meeting that night and I felt like I was home. There was a 21 year old kid who was telling my story. I somehow managed to keep the facade going for a much longer time than him. My only hope was that he would find happiness before I did.

At first, I didn’t care about all the references to God in the program because in Brooklyn we were a very diverse mix of religions and cultures. Then I moved to Fort Erie, where the references to God were much more traditional and pronounced. AA was still the only thing that I could count on so I tried to let the God references slide. With my strong Unitarian Universalist beliefs, this was a great challenge. While I seek worship and ritual ceremonies, I do not believe in praying to God or to a Higher Power. I don’t feel like I am a chosen one and I don’t believe that any power sends me anywhere. While I love the lessons from my Christian faith and Christian friends, being open to nature and meditating works better for me at this point in my recovery. I like the idea of being connected to nature without something in between.

I am now the town agnostic and I try to learn from my Christian friends. Some are becoming interested in a non-theist approach and it is not negatively affecting their sobriety. I am trying to stay true to myself by sharing what is working for me in an honest and compassionate way. I have to remember that I go to AA meetings to stay sober and to live a more meaningful life. It doesn’t matter what I or anyone else believes. It is how one is humbled and practices the steps, which is important.

AA is extremely important to me and sharing the gift with others is crucial. It’s not easy. I am grateful to my sponsors and my fellow members for showing me how to live a life that I never thought was possible. I don’t know as much now as I did when I was drinking, but now the journey is actually interesting and for the most part it is fun. After a period of not wanting to face all of those who I assumed were more capable than me, I am back working in the industry that I love. I used to hate many of them, but now I like almost everyone, even those who are more successful than me. I am passionate about what I do and I can show that I care. Learning new things and accepting that I do not know everything has brought me incredible joy. I used to think that sobriety would be horrible and that it was only for losers. I now know differently and I am glad that I have come out an isolated shell which made me miserable and nearly killed me. I want to share this gift with everyone, without barriers and rules.

For a PDF of this article, click here: Faye’s Story.

The post Faye’s Story first appeared on AA Agnostica.