Bluidkiti's Alcohol and Drug Addictions Recovery Help/Support Forums - View Single Post

honeydumplin · 05-17-2014, 07:13 AM

Further proof of this was not long in showing up. Another member started to put us into the advertising business. He had been commissioned by a life insurance company to deliver a series of twelve “lectures” on Alcoholics Anonymous over a national radio hookup. This would of course advertise life insurance and Alcoholics Anonymous—and naturally our friend himself—all in one good-looking package.

At AA Headquarters, we read the proposed lectures. They were about 50 per cent AA and 50 per cent our friend's personal religious convictions. This could create a false public view of us. Religious predudices against AA would be aroused. So we objected.

Our friend shot back a hot letter saying that he felt “inspired” to give these lectures and that we had no business to interfere with his right of free speech. Even though he was going to get a fee for his work, he had nothing in mind except the welfare of AA. And if we didn't know what was good for us, that was too bad. We and AA's Board of Trustees could go to the devil. The lectures were going on the air.

This was a poser. Just by breaking anonymity and so using the AA name for his own purposes, our friend could take over our public relations, get us into religious trouble, put us into the advertising business.

This meant that any misguided member could thus endanger our society any time or any place simply by breaking anonymity and telling himself how much good he was going to do for us. We envisioned every AA advertising man looking up a commercial sponsor, using the AA name to sell everything from pretzels to prune juice.

Something had to be done. We wrote our friend that AA had a right of free speech too. We wouldn't oppose him publicly, but we could and would guarantee that his sponsor would receive several thousand letters of objection from AA members if the program went on the radio. Our friend abandoned the project.

But our anonymity dike continued to leak. AA members began to take us into politics. They began to tell state legislative committees—publicly, of course—just what AA wanted in the way of rehabilitation, money and enlightend legislation.

Thus, by full name and often by pictures, some of us became lobbyists. Other members sat on benches with police court judges, advising which drunks in the line-up should go to AA and which to jail.

Then came money complications involving broken anonymity. By this time, most members felt we ought to stop soliciting funds publicly for AA purposes. But the educational enterprise of my university-sponsored friend had meanwhile mushroomed. She had a perfectly proper and legitimate need for money and plenty of it. Therefore, she asked the public for it, putting on a drive to this end. Since she was an AA member and continued to say so, many contributors were confused. Some thought AA was in the educational field. Others thought AA itself was raising money, when indeed it was not and did not want to. So AA's name was used to solicit funds at the very moment we were trying to tell people that AA wanted no outside money. This precedent set in motion all sorts of public solicitations by AA's for money—money for drying-out farms, Twelfth Step enterprises, AA boarding houses, clubs, and the like—powered largely by anonymity breaking.

Seeing what happened, my friend, wonderful member that she is, tried to resume her anonymity. Because she had been so thoroughly publicized, this has been a hard job. It has taken her years. But she has made the sacrifice, and I here want to give her deep thanks on behalf of us all.

05-17-2014, 07:13 AM	#4
honeydumplin Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 115	continued Further proof of this was not long in showing up. Another member started to put us into the advertising business. He had been commissioned by a life insurance company to deliver a series of twelve “lectures” on Alcoholics Anonymous over a national radio hookup. This would of course advertise life insurance and Alcoholics Anonymous—and naturally our friend himself—all in one good-looking package. At AA Headquarters, we read the proposed lectures. They were about 50 per cent AA and 50 per cent our friend's personal religious convictions. This could create a false public view of us. Religious predudices against AA would be aroused. So we objected. Our friend shot back a hot letter saying that he felt “inspired” to give these lectures and that we had no business to interfere with his right of free speech. Even though he was going to get a fee for his work, he had nothing in mind except the welfare of AA. And if we didn't know what was good for us, that was too bad. We and AA's Board of Trustees could go to the devil. The lectures were going on the air. This was a poser. Just by breaking anonymity and so using the AA name for his own purposes, our friend could take over our public relations, get us into religious trouble, put us into the advertising business. This meant that any misguided member could thus endanger our society any time or any place simply by breaking anonymity and telling himself how much good he was going to do for us. We envisioned every AA advertising man looking up a commercial sponsor, using the AA name to sell everything from pretzels to prune juice. Something had to be done. We wrote our friend that AA had a right of free speech too. We wouldn't oppose him publicly, but we could and would guarantee that his sponsor would receive several thousand letters of objection from AA members if the program went on the radio. Our friend abandoned the project. But our anonymity dike continued to leak. AA members began to take us into politics. They began to tell state legislative committees—publicly, of course—just what AA wanted in the way of rehabilitation, money and enlightend legislation. Thus, by full name and often by pictures, some of us became lobbyists. Other members sat on benches with police court judges, advising which drunks in the line-up should go to AA and which to jail. Then came money complications involving broken anonymity. By this time, most members felt we ought to stop soliciting funds publicly for AA purposes. But the educational enterprise of my university-sponsored friend had meanwhile mushroomed. She had a perfectly proper and legitimate need for money and plenty of it. Therefore, she asked the public for it, putting on a drive to this end. Since she was an AA member and continued to say so, many contributors were confused. Some thought AA was in the educational field. Others thought AA itself was raising money, when indeed it was not and did not want to. So AA's name was used to solicit funds at the very moment we were trying to tell people that AA wanted no outside money. This precedent set in motion all sorts of public solicitations by AA's for money—money for drying-out farms, Twelfth Step enterprises, AA boarding houses, clubs, and the like—powered largely by anonymity breaking. Seeing what happened, my friend, wonderful member that she is, tried to resume her anonymity. Because she had been so thoroughly publicized, this has been a hard job. It has taken her years. But she has made the sacrifice, and I here want to give her deep thanks on behalf of us all.