Clarity Statements

[kj3880]

Did you actually think that the rest of us didn't know the word "ethnocentric???" Or that we needed a definition of "ethnic group"?

KJ

[Gmoney]

"The Program of NA is a means of influencing and indoctrinating others into a language, behavior, and belief system that is held by the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous. The vast majority of the fellowship believes in such a process of indoctrination. NA believes so strongly in the effectiveness of its program of language, behavior, and customs that it's literature (approved and non-approved) is offered to others at the opening and throughout its meetings."

LOL!!

[Gmoney]

Ethnocentrism therefore is the tendency to believe that one's own ethnic group is centrally more important or in some way superior and that all other ethnic groups are measured down in relation to one's own. An individual will then judge other groups in relative to their own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and/or religion.

The term "ethnocentrism" paints a very ugly picture, huh? Yet, I'm inclined to believe that most people (even those not in recovery) tend to believe that their own "group" is more important to them than groups they aren't a part of. Aren't Americans ethnocentric about being American? New Yorkers about being from New York? Dallas Cowboys about being a Dallas Cowboy? Okay...that might be a stretch...but I think you get my point.

To insinuate that a clarity statement promotes a belief of superiority (via ethnocentrism) in the members of NA is just plain untrue and only supported by your opinion. I can't speak for all members of NA, and neither can you. To acknowledge that I'm a New Yorker, and proud of it, doesn't automatically mean that I believe I'm "better than" a Floridian. Acknowledging and accepting differences exist isn't the same as bigotry.

This statement implies that all others adopt the same language, behaviors, and customs as the ethnocentric group which then leads us into a group sponsored defect of character defined in Step Six of It Works: How and Why known as self-righteousness.

More BS, Andy. The clarity statement suggests, asks, requests or invites others to assimilate...no different than what the NA program asks (that is...if you want what we have to offer). Your logic implies that the 12 steps and 12 Traditions are also an example of the defect of self-righteousness. The suggestions, requests, and invitations of attending meetings, doing step work, getting a sponsor, applying spiritual principles, getting involved in service, stop using drugs, and everything else associated with the "NA Way" is also what step 6 talks about, according to your logic.

Define who "WE" and "OUR" are and don’t implicate "Narcotics Anonymous" in such a statement either, THAT would satisfy nearly every little irk in my body. Groups and committees that dictate these using the word(s) WE, OUR, and Narcotics Anonymous imply in some way that they represent ME and/or NA and that simply isn’t so.

"This book is the shared experience of the Fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous...Because of the variety of addicts found within our Fellowship, we (not Andy) approach the solution contained within this book in general terms." ~ Basic Text, page xv

I often point out the above excerpt when I share with sponsees because every now and again one will point out to me that certain things written in our literature just plain old doesn't apply to them. I must admit that everything I've read in NA literature doesn't apply to me either:

"Our whole life and thinking was centered in drugs in one form or another - the getting and using and finding ways and means to get one more." ~ Basic Text, page 3

Simply put, when anything in the literature says "We" ...I don't take it personal if it doesn't apply. "Our" literature even says, "We are addicts and our problem is the disease of addiction."

If you feel that you don't fit the description, you don't have to. You can always try to find a Fellowship that caters to you. Good luck. NA cannot be all things to all people. And the example you used of:

Garry, Jane, John, Bill, Sally, and Tim (group members who voted for it) are presented with a dilemma (blah blah blah) ...

The Clarity Statment read in all of the meetings in my area says, "In NA we are presented with a dilemma..." - generally speaking...not Andy is presented with a dilemma. And for those groups that don't have an issue...let it fly. That's all...no biggie! If those 5 members make up the group...they are NA. Vote with your feet.

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

The clarity statement suggests, asks, requests or invites others to assimilate...no different than what the NA program asks (that is...if you want what we have to offer). Your logic implies that the 12 steps and 12 Traditions are also an example of the defect of self-righteousness.

I feel there are two significant flaws in your argument here.

1) One is adopted as representative of our fellowship via its Conference Approved status the other was "rejected" as representative of our fellowship via its failure to achieve Conference Approved status, not once, but twice.

2) One is a suggested as a "Proven" program of recovery that leads us to a meaningful relationship with God. The other is neither proven nor in any way effective in growing spirituality or a relationship with God - actually the opposite.

Originally Posted by Gmoney

If those 5 members make up the group...they are NA.

They are a part of NA, but by NO MEANS should attempt to speak as representative of NA.

a

[Gmoney]

The reason you find flaw is because you choose to miss the point:

1) One is adopted as representative of our fellowship via its Conference Approved status the other was "rejected" as representative of our fellowship via its failure to achieve Conference Approved status, not once, but twice.

Your point was that the clarity statement suggests others adopt language, behaviors and customs - and by doing so is an example of self-righteousness. My point is that any suggestion associated with NA isn't self-righteousness. You still refuse to share "why" a clarity statement wasn't approved. From what I understand, it was not approved because a blanket statement was against group autonomy - not because a clarity statement was bad, wrong, or against or traditions (as you assert).

2) One is a suggested as a "Proven" program of recovery that leads us to a meaningful relationship with God. The other is neither proven nor in any way effective in growing spirituality or a relationship with God - actually the opposite.

Once again, what's written in our literature is written in general terms. I'm sure there are those who'll say that it isn't proven and that proof doesn't apply to them. The statement you refer to about NA being a proven program is an example of NA's self-endorsement, self-promotion and self-advocacy. One could argue that there is no "proof" other than what NA says.

They are a part of NA, but by NO MEANS should attempt to speak as representative of NA.

The same could be said of the literature committees.

[andyaddict]

You are the king of Red Herring my friend.

a

[Gmoney]

Originally Posted by andyaddict

You are the king of Red Herring my friend.

a

I was thinking the same about you! LOL!!

The real or "central" issue is that groups are autonomous and can choose whatever means they see fit to keep the focus of their meetings on recovery from the disease of addiction. The real issue is that a clarity statement doesn't violate or compromise our traditions, nor does the misdeeds of a self-righteous minority reflect the effectiveness or intent of the statement. There is no proof that clarity statements run newcomers away or "make" them feel this way or that way. You can mention all day long that a clarity statement wasn't approved by those we put into position to serve, but you conveniently side-step the reason because it would undermine your crusade. The real deal is that there are countless groups that include a clarity statement in their formats and I'm willing to bet that many of their members have as much insight and understanding (if not more) of the principles you often refer to as you do...yet they see no conflict or compromise.

Instead of red herring, I prefer to refer to you as the "Spin Doctor" because you're pretty good at spinning or twisting the real issues. You've got skills, Andy...you really do. But not everyone buys it...nor do they have to.

Be blessed,
G

[andyaddict]

Down to its core, the CS is about control, plain and simple, nothing spiritual... just political. From it all forms of righteous intent, justification, and rationalization arise to protect or promote it. Hiding bad motives beneath good ones does not make the bad motives go away my friend.

Then when someone looks at the real motives behind the need to control for language specificity - THAT'S where the true colors shine brightly, the feelings of fear and resentment manifest in the behavior of self-centered, self-righteous, control issues.

a

[Gmoney]

Originally Posted by andyaddict

Down to its core, the CS is about control, plain and simple, nothing spiritual... just political. From it all forms of righteous intent, justification, and rationalization arise to protect or promote it. Hiding bad motives beneath good ones does not make the bad motives go away my friend.

Then when someone looks at the real motives behind the need to control for language specificity - THAT'S where the true colors shine brightly, the feelings of fear and resentment manifest in the behavior of self-centered, self-righteous, control issues.

a

Yeah, yeah, yeah...you've said that before. I disagree...and I'm sure all the other members/groups that use it do too. Those who do not like it can vote with their feet. So...where are we?

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by andyaddict

Down to its core, the CS is about control, plain and simple, nothing spiritual... just political. From it all forms of righteous intent, justification, and rationalization arise to protect or promote it. Hiding bad motives beneath good ones does not make the bad motives go away my friend.

Then when someone looks at the real motives behind the need to control for language specificity - THAT'S where the true colors shine brightly, the feelings of fear and resentment manifest in the behavior of self-centered, self-righteous, control issues.

a

[tomvlll]

Originally Posted by kj3880

I do wanna play. I don't see anything wrong with a healthy debate on this topic.

As a relative newcomer, compared to Andy and Garry, I have come to a few of my own conclusions. Now that Garry has bowed out, I expect Andy will give me some feedback:

I have decided that I will adopt a policy of loving acceptance regardless of how any person identifies themself. It still strikes me as odd that someone would come into NA, and identify as a member but not as an addict, but OK. Why the Andas? Why the Specifics, like "I'm So-and-so, a crack-head." Why say you are an alcoholic and an addict (unless you are brand new and don't know that it is one disease)?

I wouldn't feel comfortable identifying as "KJ, a gamblng addict" at GA, for instance, because I truly hate gambling, just don't get the draw of it at all. But I bet I could identify as just an addict there, and fit right on in talking about obsession, compulsion, unmanageability, and the way up and out with stepwork. And then the people in that meeting might be able to listen and to identify, and to get some help if I carried the message, rather than waste time and brain cells trying to figure out if they are like me enough to benefit from my methods.

So why don't people just identify as addicts, so we can focus on the similarities between all of us and not the differences? Wouldn't it be more thereaputic for us all? For both the speaker and the listener? Wouldn't it help them to fit in rather than give their disease a way to wiggle out on a technicality?

I'm not arguing to try to get people banned from meetings, or even to get them corrected in meetings, when they identify differently. What I'm suggesting is that people learn to identify as addicts as they learn other aspects of the program. As part of their first step work with a sponsor. When they learn that they really are addicts. I just think it is helpful to know who you are, what disease you have, and that you share it with the other people in NA. At least, it helps me. JMO.

Love,
KJ

I'm an AA er , but this post makes complete sense to me. At our meetings , when somebody identifies as an alcoholic /addict I am puzzled by this. Do they not know the traditions? The thing is, it's often people with a lot of time.

I've learned to let it go, but I could see where it's much more of an issue to do the ANDA thing in NA , because it speaks to a lack of understanding of the core of the program.

[Missybuns]

you guys made me learn a new word.... "ethnocide" not that any of you used it.....however I found it whilst checking definitions.

[Lily]

Originally Posted by tomvlll

I've learned to let it go

Exactly! I now know how to properly introduce MYSELF but I have NO control over others!

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by Missybuns

you guys made me learn a new word.... "ethnocide" not that any of you used it.....however I found it whilst checking definitions.

Using your's as a springboard, how about this for a new sociological term:

Linguicide - a process that affects speech communities where the level of linguistic competence that speakers possess of a given language idiom is decreased. Total language death occurs when there are no speakers of a given language idiom remaining in a population where the idiom was previously used. Language death may affect any language idiom, including dialects and languages.

a

[Gmoney]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

The real or "central" issue is that groups are autonomous and can choose whatever means they see fit to keep the focus of their meetings on recovery from the disease of addiction. The real issue is that a clarity statement doesn't violate or compromise our traditions, nor does the misdeeds of a self-righteous minority reflect the effectiveness or intent of the statement. There is no proof that clarity statements run newcomers away or "make" them feel this way or that way. You can mention all day long that a clarity statement wasn't approved by those we put into position to serve, but you conveniently side-step the reason because it would undermine your crusade. The real deal is that there are countless groups that include a clarity statement in their formats and I'm willing to bet that many of their members have as much insight and understanding (if not more) of the principles you often refer to as you do...yet they see no conflict or compromise.

G

...but I could see where it's much more of an issue to do the ANDA thing in NA , because it speaks to a lack of understanding of the core of the program.

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by andyaddict

Down to its core, the CS is about control, plain and simple, nothing spiritual... just political. From it all forms of righteous intent, justification, and rationalization arise to protect or promote it. Hiding bad motives beneath good ones does not make the bad motives go away my friend.

Then when someone looks at the real motives behind the need to control for language specificity - THAT'S where the true colors shine brightly, the feelings of fear and resentment manifest in the behavior of self-centered, self-righteous, control issues.

a

Your argument is political, it is about justification for control, and is void of spiritual principles such as acceptance, patience, tolerance, unconditional love, and faith.

a

[Gmoney]

Republican or Democrat? LOL!!

The real deal is that there are countless groups that include a clarity statement in their formats and I'm willing to bet that many of their members have as much insight and understanding (if not more) of the principles you often refer to as you do...yet they see no conflict or compromise.

Instead of going back & forth with the same old stuff: See post # 43 of this thread.

[Gmoney]

Originally Posted by andyaddict

Your argument is political, it is about justification for control, and is void of spiritual principles such as acceptance, patience, tolerance, unconditional love, and faith.

a

My counter to your crusade is neither about control or government. It simply illustrates that your view isn't the only view and it's pretty obvious that your view isn't universally accepted. To conclude that those who disagree with you disagree on the basis of politics or justification reveals your understanding of the principles you site are in a vacuum. You are totally free to believe whatever you wish, but to deny others that freedom is self-righteous.

A clarity statement is offered in the spirit of NA unity: not forced or enforced. Groups have a choice and so do their members. NA cannot be all things to all people. As our literature states, we are addicts and our problem is the disease of addiction. Clarity Statements, along with our 1st step, support this premise. Any further speculation regarding the intent or behavior of certain members ignores this basic fundamental.

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

A clarity statement is offered in the spirit of NA unity: not forced or enforced.

... under the guise of unity, contrived and coerced.

[Gmoney]

Originally Posted by andyaddict

... under the guise of unity, contrived and coerced.

So says you. We know what you believe Andy. Fortunately, everyone doesn't buy into the conspiracy theory. And that's just what you offer...a theory. And you know what? It reeks of the very fear mongering you claim the clarity statement is rooted in.

So tell me...who are these people that "coerce" or "contrive" whatever you imagine? Are they actual humans you've witnessed physically forcing others to do as they wish?

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

So says you. We know what you believe Andy. Fortunately, everyone doesn't buy into the conspiracy theory. And that's just what you offer...a theory. And you know what? It reeks of the very fear mongering you claim the clarity statement is rooted in.

So tell me...who are these people that "coerce" or "contrive" whatever you imagine? Are they actual humans you've witnessed physically forcing others to do as they wish?

I believe it was 1996, the Southern California Regional Convention main speaker meeting. There was a countdown from the most to the least amount of clean time. Many people think it a very energizing event.

The time came down when the person with the most clean time hands out books to those with the least clean time. Then when handed the book they go up to the mic in front of 1000+ in attendance and introduce themselves.

A newcomer faces his fears, climbs up on stage with only a couple days clean and in front of a massive crowd approaches the microphone. He meekly squeaks out "My name's J... and I'm an alcoholic."

The crowd Booo's


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

So where my friend, do you think all those NA members found justification in humiliating a newcomer because he said "alcoholic" at a convention? Could they have been indoctrinated into thinking it was inappropriate to use that word, that whom ever comes to a meeting should conform to a language standard or be penalized in some way?

Maybe, just maybe, you really haven't witnessed such atrocities, OR... perhaps you think what happened to that newcomer was acceptable, latent function of the Conformity Statement.

It may be true that some areas are never exposed to such egregious acts of hostility and aggression; however I've witnessed these acts more times than I can count in meetings and conventions across the country including online. I've seen countless newcomers and visitors admonished, shamed, or shouted down after (or even DURING) their share for using the WRONG WORDS to express their experience.

I have met a few people who I believe have not experienced these hazings, yet they are usually those within their first couple years with little global NA exposure. Therefore I'll offer you latitude and even though difficult, will try hard to believe you haven't witnessed (or participated in) such behavior for it would explain why you argue so fiercely. However, please don't call my crusade to check this unnecessary violence I’ve witnessed all these years in NA "fear mongering.”

a

[Gmoney]

I believe it was 1996, the Southern California Regional Convention main speaker meeting. There was a countdown from the most to the least amount of clean time....

A newcomer faces his fears, climbs up on stage with only a couple days clean and in front of a massive crowd approaches the microphone. He meekly squeaks out "My name's J... and I'm an alcoholic."

The crowd Booo's

Wow. A person with a couple of days clean? What did they expect s/he to say? Although I do not condone the reaction of those who booed, pardon me for not believing that the entire "1000+" joined in. I also tend to take what you've shared in the context of where it happened and when.

So where my friend, do you think all those NA members found justification in humiliating a newcomer because he said "alcoholic" at a convention?

I believe those that booed did so as a result of the Purist Movement...a movement that was dying out when I got clean. From my limited knowledge of that phase of NA's development I'd also conclude that many of the teachings passed on regarding the separation and distinctions between NA and AA were based on AA's rejection of addicts. I was taught as a child that "two wrongs never make a right," but I can try to understand how the thinking back in 96' was. And, apparently there wasn't a lot of love for AA at that convention.

Maybe, just maybe, you really haven't witnessed such atrocities, OR... perhaps you think what happened to that newcomer was acceptable, latent function of the Conformity Statement.

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head! I haven't seen anything like that in the 11 years I've been clean and attending conventions. And as I've already said, the behavior of those at the event you refer to could've been the result of much more than a clarity statement. If I'm not mistaken, you've posted about how your own sponsor had similar beliefs. I wouldn't blame it on a clarity statement...that's to easy. Of course I don't view what happened in 96' as acceptable, but that newcomer isn't every newcomer.

Therefore I'll offer you latitude and even though difficult, will try hard to believe you haven't witnessed (or participated in) such behavior for it would explain why you argue so fiercely.

Duh!

And while you're at it...try to open your mind a lttle bit more and consider that I'm not the only one who has NEVER seen or been involved in the stuff you crusade against. It might make it easier for you to understand why so many groups do not have a problem with reading a clarity statement in their meetings (ya think?).

However, please don't call my crusade to check this unnecessary violence I’ve witnessed all these years in NA "fear mongering.”

It's your choice of words that lead me to form my opinion - "violence?" - and just as you continue to crusade against something that happened in 1996 (I've heard you refer to this event more than once), I realize that your experience (although larger than my own) is limited and not a reflection of what goes on in NA everywhere. To insinuate that it does is promoting fear and I'll call it as I see it. I'm sure you'll continue to do what your heart tells you is right...and I don't knock you for that. I simply believe that it is a major stretch to conclude that any group that implements a clarity statement in their format is involved in some sort of self-righteous political conspiracy to control or dictate how people introduce themselves. Putting forth this type of logic certainly qualifies for fear mongering, especially when considering that there are many who aren't (and won't be) exposed to the inappropriate behavior of days gone by.

For me, it isn't a stretch to conclude that a newcomer may read your words and become tainted or biased and not give NA a chance because "Andy said" they'd be forced or controlled in some fashion. And that just plain isn't true. Yet..I tend to give newcomers more credit than that. You see...I was a newcomer once and I understood that the abuses and criticizing I withstood during active addiction wouldn't stop just because I got clean and joined NA. Anywhere there are people, there will be injustice...I expect it. There will always be people who will flip something good into something bad (and visa-versa), that's a no-brainer.

IMO, it isn't clarity statements that need to be abolished - NA is a separate and distinct Fellowship and program in it's own right - it is the immature ways in which this message is/was delivered. As you shared in another thread, the "two-way street" of sponsorship helped your own sponsor develop a different point of view, and it is through sponsorship that change will come - not crusades that over-generalize and point the finger at members who are loving and caring or groups with good intentions. You often mention that NA is "self-correcting." If so...allow the process to happen. Andy's crusade is not required, and as you questioned yourself in another thread...you may just run off more than you help.

A clarity statement is offered in the spirit of NA unity: not forced or enforced. Groups have a choice and so do their members. NA cannot be all things to all people. As our literature states, we are addicts and our problem is the disease of addiction. Clarity Statements, along with our 1st step, support this premise. Any further speculation regarding the intent or behavior of certain members ignores this basic fundamental.

G

[Missybuns]

Something I heard during the convention today

"unity means I don't have to struggle with the fellowship"

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

Wow. A person with a couple of days clean? What did they expect s/he to say? Although I do not condone the reaction of those who booed, pardon me for not believing that the entire "1000+" joined in. I also tend to take what you've shared in the context of where it happened and when.

Please don't strawman me, you're better than that. It wouldn't matter if it were 10, that fact was that a significant number of addicts showed disrespect for one who many trumpet as the "most important person" in a meeting.

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I believe those that booed did so as a result of the Purist Movement...a movement that was dying out when I got clean. From my limited knowledge of that phase of NA's development I'd also conclude that many of the teachings passed on regarding the separation and distinctions between NA and AA were based on AA's rejection of addicts. I was taught as a child that "two wrongs never make a right," but I can try to understand how the thinking back in 96' was. And, apparently there wasn't a lot of love for AA at that convention.

Where do you think the pressure came from that prompted the anti-AA sentiment from the board, to the bulletin, and gave birth to the Conformity Statement? Here you nearly make my case that the motives for its inception were neither pure nor spiritual but a “wrong” whereas another wrong cannot make right.

Originally Posted by Gmoney

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head! I haven't seen anything like that in the 11 years I've been clean and attending conventions. And as I've already said, the behavior of those at the event you refer to could've been the result of much more than a clarity statement. If I'm not mistaken, you've posted about how your own sponsor had similar beliefs. I wouldn't blame it on a clarity statement...that's to easy. Of course I don't view what happened in 96' as acceptable, but that newcomer isn't every newcomer.

It's not just at conventions, but meetings, or self-righteously "pulling them aside" that this mentality and/or behavior is propagated. This behavior may not be as a result of the Conformity Statement; however the CS is often cited as a reason for anti-AA retaliation by those I've confronted.

Originally Posted by Gmoney

And while you're at it...try to open your mind a little bit more and consider that I'm not the only one who has NEVER seen or been involved in the stuff you crusade against. It might make it easier for you to understand why so many groups do not have a problem with reading a clarity statement in their meetings (ya think?).

You insinuate my mind isn't open enough, that my experience of these abuses over and over and over does not constitute a need for change? However, you can't necessarily have it both ways, either you support each and every member to do, think, and speak as they see fit or you support implied teaching tools to guide them into a group think and away from individual autonomy.

Originally Posted by Gmoney

It's your choice of words that lead me to form my opinion - "violence?" - and just as you continue to crusade against something that happened in 1996 (I've heard you refer to this event more than once), I realize that your experience (although larger than my own) is limited and not a reflection of what goes on in NA everywhere. To insinuate that it does is promoting fear and I'll call it as I see it. I'm sure you'll continue to do what your heart tells you is right...and I don't knock you for that. I simply believe that it is a major stretch to conclude that any group that implements a clarity statement in their format is involved in some sort of self-righteous political conspiracy to control or dictate how people introduce themselves. Putting forth this type of logic certainly qualifies for fear mongering, especially when considering that there are many who aren't (and won't be) exposed to the inappropriate behavior of days gone by.

Thanx for respecting my following my heart, I appreciate that. And no, I don't conclude that every group's conscious is corrupt, some are just following what they see from their "higher ups" (misnomer) thinking that a top-down hierarchical approach is the best approach. And it isn't behavior of "days gone by" if people are still practicing it.

Originally Posted by Gmoney

For me, it isn't a stretch to conclude that a newcomer may read your words and become tainted or biased and not give NA a chance because "Andy said" they'd be forced or controlled in some fashion. And that just plain isn't true. Yet..I tend to give newcomers more credit than that. You see...I was a newcomer once and I understood that the abuses and criticizing I withstood during active addiction wouldn't stop just because I got clean and joined NA. Anywhere there are people, there will be injustice...I expect it. There will always be people who will flip something good into something bad (and visa-versa), that's a no-brainer.

Our job, as experienced members, it to create an "atmosphere of recovery" it is warm, welcoming, and accepting of others where they are, as they are, even if it includes AA speak, with no pressure to conform or comply. We need adopt no opinion of AA, neither pro nor con, just as we need adopt no opinion on white flour, nicotine, methadone, or the health care public option. We simply lay a kit of spiritual tools at their feet and share our OWN experience, strength and hope at how WE found a new life through the Twelve Steps of Narcotics Anonymous.

Originally Posted by Gmoney

IMO, it isn't clarity statements that need to be abolished - NA is a separate and distinct Fellowship and program in it's own right - it is the immature ways in which this message is/was delivered. As you shared in another thread, the "two-way street" of sponsorship helped your own sponsor develop a different point of view, and it is through sponsorship that change will come - not crusades that over-generalize and point the finger at members who are loving and caring or groups with good intentions. You often mention that NA is "self-correcting." If so...allow the process to happen. Andy's crusade is not required, and as you questioned yourself in another thread...you may just run off more than you help.

I do allow NA to self-correct, however it does not relieve me of my obligation to share my experience. I do not participate in illegitimate processes of running around to groups with a posse of converts to "vote out" conformity statements as I've witnessed them "voted in." I usually vote with my feet.

So now I ask... Why not abolish Conformity Statements? What function do they perform or what is their intent?

a

[Gmoney]

Please don't strawman me, you're better than that. It wouldn't matter if it were 10, that fact was that a significant number of addicts showed disrespect for one who many trumpet as the "most important person" in a meeting.

I'm not familiar with the term "strawman," but you said the "crowd" booed and I interpreted you as saying the crowd of 1000+. I can't speak for anyone else, and I won't defend something I see as wrong. Yet, I also won't jump on the bandwagon of someone else's interpretation of an event when I wasn't there to witness it myself. For me, a convention countdown isn't the same as an NA meeting. Most conventions (I've attended) are viewed as a "celebration of recovery." I won't touch that "most important person" stuff.

Where do you think the pressure came from that prompted the anti-AA sentiment from the board, to the bulletin, and gave birth to the Conformity Statement? Here you nearly make my case that the motives for its inception were neither pure nor spiritual but a “wrong” whereas another wrong cannot make right.

"Pressure?" Those are your words, not mine...and it is also your opinion about what "gave birth" to the Clarity Statement. And, no, I'm certainly not trying to assist you make any points because it is my view that being Pro-NA isn't the same as being Anti-AA. I believe that's what you're insinuating and I disagree. As I said, I can't speak for others, but I've been told by many who were around during the Purist Movement that it was AA's rejection of addicts that fostered their attitudes and beliefs regarding AA. As I've mentioned before, NA's program is full of self-promotion and that could be one of the reasons the Clarity Statement came about. I just don't buy that "We hate AA and will do anything we can to prove it!" theory. Sorry.

It's not just at conventions, but meetings, or self-righteously "pulling them aside" that this mentality and/or behavior is propagated. This behavior may not be as a result of the Conformity Statement; however the CS is often cited as a reason for anti-AA retaliation by those I've confronted.

So glad you can admit that!! And those who have shared their reasoning (with you) behind anti-AA behavior may just be a very small minority. This is a point I've been making all along.

You insinuate my mind isn't open enough, that my experience of these abuses over and over and over does not constitute a need for change? However, you can't necessarily have it both ways, either you support each and every member to do, think, and speak as they see fit or you support implied teaching tools to guide them into a group think and away from individual autonomy.

WRONG. What I am suggesting is that your crusade will probably not bring about any change. I asked you to open your mind "more" so you can (possibly) see that your experience may not be as "vast" as you believe it is. That's part of your justification, and as long as you believe that there's some type of rampant dysfinction permeating NA you'll probably stay stuck in the crusade. And I can have it any way I want...thank you very much. You can't put words in my mouth or trap me into saying whatever you want. I've already shared my counter to your claims and my views on how a Clarity Statement can be useful. By the way...we already have tools that create a "group think"...they're called the 12 steps & 12 traditions. You seem to want it both ways yourself, eh?

And no, I don't conclude that every group's conscious is corrupt, some are just following what they see from their "higher ups" (misnomer) thinking that a top-down hierarchical approach is the best approach. And it isn't behavior of "days gone by" if people are still practicing it.

I know you don't claim to know what other groups are thinking, are you? I noticed that you didn't include the groups that come to their conclusions as a result of guidance from a loving and caring HP. You know...the ones that are doing the right thing for the right reason...not swayed by "higher ups?" Like I said before, there are plenty of members who can think for themselves and have just as much (if not more) understanding and experience of our traditions. Just something to consider...

And it isn't behavior of "days gone by" if people are still practicing it.

So...the Purist Movement is still going on? Not in my neck of the woods it isn't.

Our job, as experienced members, it to create an "atmosphere of recovery" it is warm, welcoming, and accepting of others where they are, as they are, even if it includes AA speak, with no pressure to conform or comply. We need adopt no opinion of AA, neither pro nor con, just as we need adopt no opinion on white flour, nicotine, methadone, or the health care public option. We simply lay a kit of spiritual tools at their feet and share our OWN experience, strength and hope at how WE found a new life through the Twelve Steps of Narcotics Anonymous.

Sounds real sugary, but not totally in touch with reality. What YOU SAY our job is can be debated. The literature tells us that our primary purpose is to carry the message of NA recovery to the "addict" who still suffers. I could easily say that the "message" of NA is not the same message of other programs or fellowships and "conforming" our message to be generic (one size fits all) is basically what you imply. Creating and supporting an atmosphere of recovery doesn't mean we should indirectly endorse fellowships or programs other than our own. The so-called "AA speak" you refer to, left unchecked, can turn NA into something other than NA. Doesn't our 6th tradition instruct us about not endorsing another organization's primary purpose? Of course it does.

And we certainly aren't "accepting" of using addicts using drugs in our meetings, are we? As I've stated, NA cannot be all things to all people. A Dallas Cowboy can't play for the New York Giants wearing a cowboy uniform. I can't go to Italy and expect everyone there to speak English (why don't they accept me? wahhh!). The entire program of NA (or any other "program") is about assimilation, and you can accept it or leave - you have a choice ("If you want what we have to offer...). The program of NA is how WE found a new way to live, but that "new way" meant we had to give up our old way and conform.

I do allow NA to self-correct, however it does not relieve me of my obligation to share my experience. I do not participate in illegitimate processes of running around to groups with a posse of converts to "vote out" conformity statements as I've witnessed them "voted in." I usually vote with my feet.

I beg to differ. I mean, isn't that what being on a "crusade" is about? You may have an obligation to share your experience, but your crusade is tainted with personal opinion, accusations and finger pointing...and that is a self-imposed/self-will thing. Your aim is to reform, plain and simple. And you call me the Red Herring! LOL!!

Why not abolish Conformity Statements? What function do they perform or what is their intent?

Ya want me to reprint my entire counter? Or maybe you could go back and re-read most of my posts on this thread. The answer is all through them...maybe you missed it.

G