WoW! Nice thread, interesting topic, lot’s of input.
As for me... first and foremost I share my experience, strength and hope. However I will not "edit" my experience to fit any other member's or group's intolerance or exclusive interpretation of the Twelve Traditions.
Furthermore, I believe that making AA an extension of the group's collective fears and intolerance is just plain wrong. AA ought never be organized, at no time do any of us govern, and the only requirement for membership is a quality that no other member or group can judge. Sometimes the best message that can be carried is that of which we do not approve - teaching acceptance, patience, and tolerance to the rest of the group.
Could we then foresee that troublesome people were to become our principal teachers of patience and tolerance? Could any then imagine a society which would include every conceivable kind of character, and cut across every barrier of race, creed, politics, and language with ease?
Why did A.A. finally drop all its membership regulations? Why did we leave it to each newcomer to decide himself whether he was an alcoholic and whether he should join us?
"Please confine your discussion to your problems and solutions with alcohol..." That card came from the WSO in New York, did it not? They must be the authority in this matter… or are they?
You might think A.A.'s headquarters in New York would be an exception. Surely, the people there would have to have some authority. But long ago, trustees and staff members alike found they could do no more than make suggestions, and very mild ones at that. They even had to coin a couple of sentences which still go into half the letters they write: "Of course, you are at perfect liberty to handle this matter any way you please. But the majority experience in A.A. does seem to suggest . . . " Now, that attitude is far removed from central government, isn't it? We recognize that alcoholics can't be dictated to--individually or collectively.
As for the confound in that statement: alcohol is not, nor was it ever a "problem" with me - merely a symptom of my problem.
Bottles were only a symbol. Our liquor was but a symptom. We HAD TO get down to causes and conditions. After all, our problems were of our own making.
Besides, who feels they have the authority to “dictate” my thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors in a meeting – from the position of “my servant?”
Why did we dare to say, contrary to the experience of society and government everywhere, that we would neither punish nor deprive any A.A. of membership, that we must never compel anyone to pay anything, believe anything, or conform to anything?
You've noticed my name... andyaddict... would any of you let me join your group even though I am afflicted with another addiction even worse stigmatized than alcoholism?
Hmmm, what would the Master do?
a