Jump to content
BANGKOK 14 November 2018 00:47
MrPatrickThai

Small AA Group - Tradition 3

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Rugon said:

We can't kick ANY alcoholic out, but we can kick non-alcoholics out, obviously.

You sound like a beacon of happiness. Read the text, its an inward journey, the problem is not outside! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can't kick ANY alcoholic out, but we can kick non-alcoholics out, obviously.


Yes obviously, if the anointed one(s) determine someone is not a REAL alcoholic they are free (and perhaps duty-bound) to kick these intruders out!!!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wilson Smith said:

You sound like a beacon of happiness. Read the text, its an inward journey, the problem is not outside! 

It sounds like the problem of the OP is certainly outside. I agree with what he says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


Yes obviously, if the anointed one(s) determine someone is not a REAL alcoholic they are free (and perhaps duty-bound) to kick these intruders out!!!

 

Quite right. What do you mean by REAL alcoholic? You either are or aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rugon said:

Quite right. What do you mean by REAL alcoholic? You either are or aren't.

The point is, which step talks about "kicking" someone out?

 

Ok so let me guess that you are referring  "we" in tradition 2, the group conscience. Lets read the complete tradition 

 

For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

 

Some how to do not envision a loving God expressing the word "kick out" Sounds like your personal fear issue. Read tradition 3 in the 12x12.

Plus there all ready 14 pages discussed here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is, which step talks about "kicking" someone out?
 
Ok so let me guess that you are referring  "we" in tradition 2, the group conscience. Lets read the complete tradition 
 
For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
 
Some how to do not envision a loving God expressing the word "kick out" Sounds like your personal fear issue. Read tradition 3 in the 12x12.
Plus there all ready 14 pages discussed here.
 


In some groups, God chooses to work through an anointed leader or leaders to make such determinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilson Smith said:

The point is, which step talks about "kicking" someone out?

 

Ok so let me guess that you are referring  "we" in tradition 2, the group conscience. Lets read the complete tradition 

 

For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

 

Some how to do not envision a loving God expressing the word "kick out" Sounds like your personal fear issue. Read tradition 3 in the 12x12.

Plus there all ready 14 pages discussed here.

 

No tradition says that. But one tradition(3) says there is a requirement for membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Rugon said:

No tradition says that. But one tradition(3) says there is a requirement for membership.

Here we go again, only knowing half of the truth is worse then not knowing at all. 

 

Attempting to use "parts" of the literature. Why don't you quote the full writing. Tradition 3 has a very painful history and in the end it was settled.

 

" We were resolved to admit nobody to A.A. but that hypothetical class of people we termed pure alcoholics." So beggars, tramps, asylum inmates, prisoners, queers ( old skool useage) plain crackpots, and fallen women were definitely out." 

The next paragraph delves into the fear - "isn't fear the true basis of intolerance? Yes, we were intolerant."

The modern outcome is " You are an AA member if you say so. You can declare yourself in; nobody can keep you out." 

Later in the chapter we read " Who dared to be judge, jury and executioner of his own sick brother?" 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rugon said:

No tradition says that. But one tradition(3) says there is a requirement for membership.

If you read the whole thread, you'll see that some think that anyone can join Alcoholics Anonymous, even if they don't have a drink problem, and some follow the tradition 3 and common sense that of course you have to have the disease of  alcoholism.

 

Of course new people might not be willing to admit they have an alcohol problem and should be made welcome,  but after a year or so,  and working with an experienced member, they should be able to decide if they are an alcoholic or not. If not, they shouldn't be there, AA is not a social club.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Wilson Smith said:

Attempting to use "parts" of the literature. Why don't you quote the full writing. Tradition 3 has a very painful history and in the end it was settled.

 

" We were resolved to admit nobody to A.A. but that hypothetical class of people we termed pure alcoholics." So beggars, tramps, asylum inmates, prisoners, queers ( old skool useage) plain crackpots, and fallen women were definitely out." 

What you've quoted is not tradition 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Neeranam said:

If you read the whole thread, you'll see that some think that anyone can join Alcoholics Anonymous, even if they don't have a drink problem

 

I don't want to be misunderstood here. I'm simply against kicking people out. I really don't want the responsibility for someone's death or harm if I tell them they are not an alky and that it is therefore by implication ok for them to imbibe. I think AA's essential character would change dramatically if challenging people became a feature of meetings. But of course it doesn't work this way in the real world. People drift away usually if meetings have no meaning to them. I've yet to meet anybody who was at an AA meeting by accident or in error. Once I was at a meeting where a journo declared they were there for research purposes and a trusted servant took them outside and explained how and why it worked and that because of this, no, they couldn't sit in, even for research. I rather fancy this is the big problem in our meetings in Thailand - our groups lack trusted servants who are grounded in the fellowship and its traditions, members that know how to deal with the range of folks and situations that can crop up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sponsors
×