Originally Posted by
kj3880 
Although my thinking has done a 180 in NA about the need for a lot of the suggested "rules" that our very strong-willed secretary trys to impose on the group (and is usually voted down), this one about time-sharing still brings up some questions:
Fr'instance, sometimes people come into NA, who through no fault of their own, are afflicted with mental disorders that make them ramble on for the whole meeting, oblivious to the needs or discomfort of others, about any old thing that pops into their disturbed mind. If that was allowed to continue, week after week, taking up the entire time alloted for sharing each meeting, would the meeting ultimately survive, or would it fold due to increased non-attendance? I think it would fold.
Should we allow one person's personality or schizophrenic disorder to outweigh the needs of the group? How would the people possessing experience, strength and hope about recovery from addiction pass any of that on in the above described meeting? I don't think anyone can have any type of gathering without some rules, guidelines, or whatever you want to call them, "social strictures, if you must.
If you say, "no rules at all in NA", then should we allow physical threats to members, or even violence? What about breaking up the borrowed chairs in the church basement you meet at? Would you allow that in the spirit of group process? If we don't allow that, isn't that a rule? I'm not for over-governing. I also can't agree that "anything goes."
For example, at one meeting I used to attend, pets started being brought in for the duration. Some are allergic to pets, so they stopped going. For me, I can't be in a room full of smoke without being ill the next day, so I'm glad that smoking is now usually relegated to the outside the meeting. These are examples of rules that I think are necessary to keep us together, to meet all of our needs for safety.
I like the saying "Your rights end where my nose begins." In other words, if your habits and behavior aren't messing up the meeting for others, then we shouldn't try to make rules about it. I'm totally against people getting involved in telling members not to get up, or to text during meetings. How does that disturb anyone but the texter (and that's their decision/problem if they miss the message)?
I also now disagree with rules against bringing children to open meetings. As long as they don't disturb the meeting, they should be free, and welcomed, to come along.
NA meetings are autonomous. They can make their own guidelines based on their own conscience. Nowhere in the literature does it say "anything goes" unless I missed something.
Just something to consider, just my opinion, not meant to offend, but merely to provoke thought and hopefully, intelligent discussion.
Love,
KJ
Very good points, I love it when the discussion gets into critical thinking rather than defensive attacks.
I've been through almost all of these before and too was confused in the interim. I went back to the books and this is what I found:
First off, there's no need to recertify the laws of the land through the group conscience. Hence physical violence, smoking, pets, property damage that are already included in the laws or mores of the community or facility usually need not be reemphasized - these are not issues governed by NA but ones upheld in trust by the servants as a member of the community if need be.
Secondly, though a group conscience is bound by the spiritual nature of our traditions a group opinion is not. Any individual is welcomed to hint that the person sharing has gone on too long - i.e. cut them off or point at the clock. If it were to bother you, share about it and continue to make it a topic at each meeting until the behavior stops or people get right with it.
And finally, an introspective view might also be in order as was suggested in my earlier posts. Maybe the message that needs to be carried is that this is a group that espouses the spirit of love and tolerance of all members no matter what issues they come with, not merely that of the person sharing, but that of how we REACT to the person's share.
I have found that in almost every meeting I attend regularly and continue to share these principles that there is little to no problems rising rooted in impatience and intolerance. I refer to one of the most irreverent old-timer members in one of these groups as our "principle teacher of patience and tolerance" ... he turns red and grins and the rest of the group roars in laughter. See, it's all in how we address the problems.
I hope this helps.
a