On another thread it is made clear court ordered AA was determined by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. However, it explained the way around this is when a choice is offered (such as either AA or secular programs). Which explains why people continue to be court ordered to AA.

Yet AA's 1st Tradition states: "Our common welfare must come first; personal recovery depends upon AA unity".

AA's big book makes clear (paraphrasing) that for us to drink is to die.

This means personal recovery depends upon AA. AA unity in this sense, but AA just the same. So if AA fell apart, or disunified, as did the Washingtonian Society and Oxford Groups preceding it, then the individual will die.

This is unmistakenly a false teaching, and I would think the basis of a cult.

(I've been involved in AA for over 21 years, "clean and sober" since 7/18/85. Having been ostracized enough times finally drove this teaching home to me quite recently otherwise might never have realized.)

AA has already been discussed in great detail on a very long thread within this message board.

See [board.culteducation.com]

AA is not a "cult."

See [www.culteducation.com]

A cult has a living leader that controls the group with no meaningful accountability. A cult is totalitarian.

AA is not organized in this way, has no abosolute living leader and is therefore not a "cult."

Whatever your argument with AA, it isn't really relevant to the subject matter at this message board and/or has been discussed already on a thread that is over twenty pages long.

I have noted that certain anti-AA sites on the Internet have encouraged supporters to come to this message board to "troll."

But trolls will be banned from this board.

Wow. A troll simply for expressing criticism of AA? AA states criticism is healthy for it. As for cult definition, it's as ambiguous as AA's generic higher power.

A few years ago, Billy Graham's website gave 5 ways to recognize a cult. I replied by citing AA's own literature as it fit all 5 points. Next time I looked, they had removed 5 ways to recognize a cult. Christianity Today (Billy Graham's magazine) is quite often pro-AA. But at least they did publish my letter on AA in Feb. of 2001.

Anyhow, it's a cult to me. Took 21 years to admit it I've been so deeply dependent (fearing I'll drink without it).

I would love to hear more on this and hope you do not ban this thread. If it's been discussed so much, why isn't it listed as a cult? There's certainly enough suspicion, and again, there is no set definition of what a cult is or is not. It depends on a multitude of variable beliefs.

This is the last round.

Anti-AA Web sites have specifically encouraged people to come here and "troll"--their choice of words not mine.

AA has been discussed enough, there is no point in going over the same arguments over and over again. And no meaningful complaints come in from families concerned anyone in AA.

All the points you raise have been discussed and rebutted on the previous thread ad nauseum.

The cult definition just doesn't fit AA.

Again, see the links previously posted regarding the thread and FAQ.

If you wish to continue your personal crusade about AA please do so elsewhere.

re " anti aa websites"...ok....BUT WHY ARE SOME SO AGAINST AA ?????