Help Save an Atheist Alternative to Alcoholics Anonymous

[rug]

March 1, 2014
By Hemant Mehta

Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS) is in trouble.

After nearly 30 years, the atheist alternative to super-spiritual Alcoholics Anonymous will no longer be funded in full by the Council for Secular Humanism (a part of Center for Inquiry) due to budget constraints. That means, in order to continue helping people achieve sobriety without resorting to the supernatural, it needs to raise quite a bit of money:

http://player.vimeo.com/video/86706090

I asked a representative for the group what the immediate future holds for SOS and this was the response:

The current future of SOS looks like meetings worldwide will continue to grow (both in the number of meetings and in the size of individual meetings); its prison outreach program, the largest of any secular recovery group, will also continue to grow, despite the loss of funding. SOS meetings are all run autonomously, but the SOS international headquarters at CFI–Los Angeles provides materials, guidance in starting and running meetings, and a weekly meeting facility for a local group.

Funding will also go toward a salary for the group’s founder and Executive Director Jim Christopher.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/01/help-save-an-atheist-alternative-to-alcoholics-anonymous/



In contrast:

6.—Problems of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our primary spiritual aim. We think, therefore, that any considerable property of genuine use to A.A. should be separately incorporated and managed, thus dividing the material from the spiritual. An A.A. group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids to A.A., such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such facilities ought not to use the A.A. name. Their management should be the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them. For clubs, A.A. managers are usually preferred. But hospitals, as well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside A.A.—and medically supervised. While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.

7.—The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own mem-
bers. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority.

http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_appendicei.cfm

Therein lies the problem.

Nevertheless, if you want to help, http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-secular-organizations-for-sobriety

[cbayer]

1. Having a founder and executive director with a salary makes them distinctly different than AA.

AA groups don't rely on outside money. Why does this group need it?

[rug]

2. The other problem is that it's ideologically aligned with an outside organiztion.

That's not a good formula.

Say what you want about AA, it's focus is entirely on daily sobriety. Its Twelve Traditions are often overlooked but they are as valuable as the Twelve Steps.

[edhopper]

5. But, but, but

aren't we suppose to ignore that the Catholic Church is behind something when it is done for for the common good? I mean how could I trust a local clinic if it is funded by the Church? See how that works?

From SOS

"All those who sincerely seek sobriety are welcome as members in any SOS group. SOS is not a spin-off of any religious or secular group. There is no hidden agenda. SOS is concerned with achieving and maintaining sobriety or abstinence. SOS seeks only to promote sobriety amongst those who suffer from addictions. "

[rug]

11. Does that have a single thing to do with getting sober?

If anyone showed up at a meeting and started up with that, the whole room would leave and shoot heroin.

[edhopper]

13. I was responded to your hypocrisy

of saying they are "affiliated" with a group with another agenda, yet so are many things affiliated with the RCC.

The quote clearly states what their

Aren't many AA meetings at Churches, should we be suspect of that as well? (I don't think so, but you seem to say we should be)

Your sorrowful attempt to insult this group is apparent in all it's transparency.

I'm done here.

[rug]

17. My hypocrisy? Well, ed, I woke up on the right side of bed but that can change real fast

if you continue with your bullshit ad hominems.

I'll assume you meant inconsistency. And that would be wrong.

Unlike charitable organizations, including religious charities, AA is not a service provider. There are no health care workers. There are no patients. All there is are alcoholics leaning on each other on the road to recovery. I've been to meetings in churches, libraries and an ethical cuture society. There is no affiliation with those buildings. There is no affiliation with those organizations. There are no financial subsidies. And there are no video pitches when those organizations yank their funding.

It's just as well you're "done here", not that I believe it for a minute. I'm in no mood for ignorant statements, biased agendas and overall general bullshit.

Oh, I forgot, Live and Let Live.

[cbayer]

6. Right, I'm beginning to get a better idea of the issues here.

I think it may be a very positive thing in the end for this group to become independent of any other organizations and solely self-funded.

[edhopper]

3. You do realize that AA

has salaried employees.

The money is used for outreach to inform about a secular sobriety alternative to AA and to help set up new groups.

[cbayer]

4. I wasn't aware of that.

I see that the expenses are funded by members and not any outside organizations.

So this may be a good thing for this group, as it is severing the tie with another organization with it's own agenda.

[edhopper]

7. If you are curious and wish to spend the time

here is the website.

http://www.sossobriety.org/home.html

[cbayer]

8. Thanks for that.

They look like they are doing it right and I hope they get the support they need.

But I do think the silver lining here is that they are becoming independent of another group.

If AA can support itself on member donations, I would suspect this group should be able to do that relatively easily if they are providing a service that is desired and working.

[edhopper]

12. I think the independent groups do as well as AA

It's the outreach org that has lost some of it's funding.

There was funding help in the beginning of AA as well, notably from the Rockefellers.

[NMDemDist2]

16. actually, the Rockefellers gave very little cash

mostly lawyers and such to set up the Foundation.

Bill Wilson was totally broke and the Rockefellers gave a small ($5000??) stipend in the very beginning but never contributed large amounts.

And by the 50's Bill had realized that AA could not and should not accept outside contributions

[edhopper]

19. Thanks

Yes but still seed money and support. Not unlike SOS.

[NMDemDist2]

9. AA has a huge publishing arm with the books and pamplets

it's a multi million $$$ a year enterprise due to the publishing

so yes, they have employees. actually a lot of them at the World Services offices in NYC. but 'AA' as a recovery outreach has NO paid employees. None.

AA service work with alcoholics getting sober is strictly volunteer and at no charge.

here's more info http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/m-24_aafactfile.pdf

[cbayer]

10. I think that's where my point of confusion can be found.

I knew that AA groups were independent and not funded, but, as it turns out, know little about the larger organization.

Thanks for the info.

[NMDemDist2]

14. the worldwide organization pays salaries to less than 100 people in NY

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/m-24_aafactfile.pdf

here's the 'press' pamphlet for more info. it really is an amazing organization, whatever you may think of the 'spiritual' aspects of AA, it has helped millions worldwide.

SOS is a good organization too as AA has never made any claims they are the only way to help drunks.

[cbayer]

15. I am a very strong supporter of AA/NA and

also have supported groups that use the 12 step process in a way that makes it more comfortable for those that do not have religion.

SOS is new to me, but they look like they are doing it right.

[pinto]

18. (side comment) I hope parole boards offer SOS as an alternative to parolees.

I worked for a bit in the state prison system (in a public health capacity). Parolees were routinely ordered to attend so many AA meetings per week / month as a condition of parole. Some were uncomfortable with the strong Higher Power focus of many groups. Random parole drug screens were a motivator to stay clean but some didn't find the traditional AA model as a social support system. SOS may have proved more useful for those parolees.

[rug]

20. Those challenges have usually been successful.

If a secular treatment program is not named they usually refer to an "approved" program.

In practice, P.O.s let parolees meet this condition with AA but they can't require it. There should be no violation of parole if the parolee chose SOS or any other peer support group. Rational Recovery is another option.

https://rational.org/index.php?id=1

Whatever works.