• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

12 Step Programs & the First Amendment

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
The discussion of 12 Step programs here got me thinking about how the courts often require them, and whether this is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

For those who are unfamiliar, I googled "12 steps," and this version is from the first site listed, 12Step.org:
Step 1 - We admitted we were powerless over our addiction - that our lives had become unmanageable
Step 2 - Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity
Step 3 - Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood God
Step 4 - Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves
Step 5 - Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs
Step 6 - Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character
Step 7 - Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings
Step 8 - Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all
Step 9 - Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others
Step 10 - Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it
Step 11 - Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood God, praying only for knowledge of God's will for us and the power to carry that out
Step 12 - Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs

Now, I must point out that this version of the steps is much more blatantly religious than many I have heard, but it serves to emphasize my point.

The courts often require that offenders attend AA or NA as part of their sentencing. Is this unconstitutional? The steps may not be specific to any one religion, but they definitely encourage some sort of belief.

Your thoughts?
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
The discussion of 12 Step programs here got me thinking about how the courts often require them, and whether this is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

...........

Now, I must point out that this version of the steps is much more blatantly religious than many I have heard, but it serves to emphasize my point.

The courts often require that offenders attend AA or NA as part of their sentencing. Is this unconstitutional? The steps may not be specific to any one religion, but they definitely encourage some sort of belief.

Your thoughts?

Yes, judicially forcing a person to attend a twelve step program as you`ve described above is a blatant violation of the establishment clause.

It`s pretty obvious if you read the steps you`ve posted along side of the first amendment that they are contradictory, not complimentary.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Yes, judicially forcing a person to attend a twelve step program as you`ve described above is a blatant violation of the establishment clause.

It`s pretty obvious if you read the steps you`ve posted along side of the first amendment that they are contradictory, not complimentary.
I can't argue with that.

However, to play devil's advocate for a moment, might it be worth it to get criminal substance abusers treatment? AA/ NA are free and widely available programs, so I can see why the courts rely on them.

Of course, I would prefer a secular alternative, but I'm not aware of any that equal AA/ NA in accessibility.
 
Last edited:

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Glad you made the thread, Storm. I was starting to wonder the same thing. I really don't see how it can't violate the first ammendment. If public schools started forcing kids who were struggling in a certain subject to pray that God would help them out, I'm sure we would hear about the firestorm that ensued. I wonder why this hasn't received the same sort of attention.

Does anyone know of any case where the offender refused to attend AA meetings on account of its religious nature?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The courts often require that offenders attend AA or NA as part of their sentencing. Is this unconstitutional? The steps may not be specific to any one religion, but they definitely encourage some sort of belief.
I think it probably is unconstitutional.

IMO, the proper thing for the courts to do would be to order an offender to go to a recognized addiction treatment program, period. I don't think any legitimate legal or public interest is served by demanding that an offender must go through religious-based treatment, especially since there are many secular alternative programs now.

As long as it's effective (though I'm not sure they're really that effective, but my opinion's only based on hearsay), I have no issue with someone choosing to go to a religious 12-step program, but people should have the option to get their treatment elsewhere.

However, in practice, my general impression is that these sorts of programs can sometimes be made specific to one religion, especially when the program is delivered by a church or other religious organization. If it helps a recovering addict to go through the program in the context of his religion, fine - I have no issue with the option being open to him, but I don't think that people should be forced by court order into programs that go against their beliefs.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
I can't argue with that.

However, to play devil's advocate for a moment, might it be worth it to get criminal substance abusers treatment? AA/ NA are free and widely available programs, so I can see why the courts rely on them.

Of course, I would prefer a secular alternative, but I'm not aware of any that equal AA/ NA in availability.

I`m not positive as it`s something I haven`t researched but I believe there are secular organizations who use the 12 step template without the god bothering.

The problem with court ordered AA is that the court isn`t qualified to ascertain who does and does not have a drug problem yet they are prescribing treatment.

Most people who go through court order twelve step programs get nothing from them.
They simply go because they have to.
They play the game, say what they know the officials want to hear and get their trouble with the system behind them.

Those who go to these programs voluntarily are the ones who actually get help.

I`ve been court ordered to attend AA sessions and trust me when I tell you I`m the farthest thing from a drug addicted you`d ever meet.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Does anyone know of any case where the offender refused to attend AA meetings on account of its religious nature?
I remember an article on a case last year (IIRC) where a Catholic man who was going through a court-ordered alcohol addiction program run by a Protestant church refused to go along with certain aspects of the church's version of the program, like declaring acceptance of certain points of faith that conflicted with Catholic doctrine. I don't know if he refused to go to meetings, but he did refuse to do all the parts of the program as the church demanded of him.

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble digging up the article, but if I find it, I'll post a link.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Apparently if you want to fight it it can be beaten.
I suppose if you get enough people to fight it it would gain more attention.

Alcoholics Anonymous, the renowned 12-step program that directs problem drinkers to seek help from a higher power, says it's not a religion and is open to nonbelievers. But it has enough religious overtones that a parolee can't be ordered to attend its meetings as a condition of staying out of prison, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
In fact, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the constitutional dividing line between church and state in such cases is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts.

Appeals court says requirement to attend AA unconstitutional
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Glad you made the thread, Storm. I was starting to wonder the same thing. I really don't see how it can't violate the first ammendment. If public schools started forcing kids who were struggling in a certain subject to pray that God would help them out, I'm sure we would hear about the firestorm that ensued. I wonder why this hasn't received the same sort of attention.

Does anyone know of any case where the offender refused to attend AA meetings on account of its religious nature?

firstamendmentcenter.org: news

"[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]A federal appeals court has ruled that parolees cannot be ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings because religious content in the 12-step program violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion." [/FONT][/FONT]
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
I thought it was attend a program such as 12 steps, not thou shalt attend 12 steps. Is this not the case? Is there no choice in the matter? I'm against not letting the person choose a program that fits their religious and moral compass. Although I understand the courts requirement that it be a legitimate program that is accepted by the industry.

How to Stop Drinking, Addiction Recovery, Treatment for Drugs & Alcohol
SMART Recovery® | Help with Alcohol, Drug, and Other Addictions
Alcohol Treatment For Abuse and Addiction- Alcohol Addiction Recovery
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I`m not positive as it`s something I haven`t researched but I believe there are secular organizations who use the 12 step template without the god bothering.
Well, there certainly are in most cities, but what about small towns? And there's the issue of cost, as well.

I haven't really done my homework, either, so maybe it's simply a case of AA/NA being more widely known.

The problem with court ordered AA is that the court isn`t qualified to ascertain who does and does not have a drug problem yet they are prescribing treatment.
Well, I'd rather someone who gets busted for pot be sent to NA than prison, whither or not they get anything out of it.

Most people who go through court order twelve step programs get nothing from them.
They simply go because they have to.
They play the game, say what they know the officials want to hear and get their trouble with the system behind them.

Those who go to these programs voluntarily are the ones who actually get help.
A fair point, but rather tangential.

I`ve been court ordered to attend AA sessions and trust me when I tell you I`m the farthest thing from a drug addicted you`d ever meet.
My sympathies. I was required to attend daily meetings by one of the shelters I stayed at when homeless, despite the fact that I border on outright phobia regarding intoxication. I can't even stand to be drunk. Yet I not only had to attend to keep a roof over my head, they made me fill out a form for every meeting asking how it helped in my recovery, and got royally pissy when I answered "I'm not in recovery." Apparently, I was expected to just lie. [/rant]
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Apparently if you want to fight it it can be beaten.
I suppose if you get enough people to fight it it would gain more attention.

firstamendmentcenter.org: news

"[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]A federal appeals court has ruled that parolees cannot be ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings because religious content in the 12-step program violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion." [/FONT][/FONT]
Glad to hear it! I was unaware of these rulings, thank you both for the info.

I thought it was attend a program such as 12 steps, not thou shalt attend 12 steps. Is this not the case? Is there no choice in the matter? I'm against not letting the person choose a program that fits their religious and moral compass. Although I understand the courts requirement that it be a legitimate program that is accepted by the industry.

How to Stop Drinking, Addiction Recovery, Treatment for Drugs & Alcohol
SMART Recovery® | Help with Alcohol, Drug, and Other Addictions
Alcohol Treatment For Abuse and Addiction- Alcohol Addiction Recovery
Um... I'm really not sure, sorry. I THOUGHT they required AA/ NA attendance, but the above quotes seem to contradict that. Maybe they used to, before the rulings? :shrug:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I can't argue with that.

However, to play devil's advocate for a moment, might it be worth it to get criminal substance abusers treatment? AA/ NA are free and widely available programs, so I can see why the courts rely on them.

Of course, I would prefer a secular alternative, but I'm not aware of any that equal AA/ NA in accessibility.

I imagine that in many places, AA and NA might be the only game in town. However, I think there's a difference between a judge ordering someone specifically into a religious-based treatment program and ordering him to take any program that fits some criteria, even if all the programs that are locally available are religiously-based. If an atheist decides to go to the local AA program in the church basement instead of drive 3 hours to the SOS Sobriety program in the city, so be it, but I think any sort of court order should allow for a secular program, even if practical limitations mean that one isn't available.

BTW - when I Googled SOS Sobriety, I also found this article:

Appeals court says requirement to attend AA unconstitutional

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Alcoholics Anonymous, the renowned 12-step program that directs problem drinkers to seek help from a higher power, says it's not a religion and is open to nonbelievers. But it has enough religious overtones that a parolee can't be ordered to attend its meetings as a condition of staying out of prison, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

In fact, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the constitutional dividing line between church and state in such cases is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
I haven't really done my homework, either, so maybe it's simply a case of AA/NA being more widely known.

Yes I agree that`s probably the case.
AA was the very first of the Twelve step programs and they do have a decent success rate.

Well, I'd rather someone who gets busted for pot be sent to NA than prison, whither or not they get anything out of it.

Agreed but in the big picture it`s entirely worthless.
The rational productive thing to do would be to simply legalize pot.

My sympathies. I was required to attend daily meetings by one of the shelters I stayed at when homeless, despite the fact that I border on outright phobia regarding intoxication. I can't even stand to be drunk. Yet I not only had to attend to keep a roof over my head, they made me fill out a form for every meeting asking how it helped in my recovery, and got royally pissy when I answered "I'm not in recovery." Apparently, I was expected to just lie. [/rant]

Yes, you were expected to lie.
They don`t care if you actually get help they simply have to go through their system step by step and then wash their hands of you.

It quite honestly helps no one and ignores the actual problems.

The court and recovery systems are dogmatic cults in and of themselves.
Dogma never helped anyone.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Um... I'm really not sure, sorry. I THOUGHT they required AA/ NA attendance, but the above quotes seem to contradict that. Maybe they used to, before the rulings? :shrug:

I don't know either. If it was, then I'm glad to see it being overturned. I can see it being suggested the most as it is the most famous but I would have guessed that if you asked the judge to go to a different program they would have agreed, not really caring one way or another as long as you were in an accredited program.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I imagine that in many places, AA and NA might be the only game in town. However, I think there's a difference between a judge ordering someone specifically into a religious-based treatment program and ordering him to take any program that fits some criteria, even if all the programs that are locally available are religiously-based. If an atheist decides to go to the local AA program in the church basement instead of drive 3 hours to the SOS Sobriety program in the city, so be it, but I think any sort of court order should allow for a secular program, even if practical limitations mean that one isn't available.
Yeah, that sounds fair to me.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Just FYI:

"Atheists and agnostics are, in fact, able to benefit from 12 Step recovery programs. The only requirement for membership in a 12 Step program is the desire for the person to stop using their drug of choice (including alcohol). It is not required that a person believe in God; however it suggested that a person be able to believe in a power greater than themselves. That power, usually referred to as a Higher Power, may be the collective members of a 12 Step group or the fellowship, one's own understanding or belief system in some form of divine entity, the power of nature, and so on. Many addicts, while actively using and/or abusing drugs or alcohol certainly behaved as if these same drugs and/or alcohol were powers greater than themselves."

Twelve Step Programs for Atheists and Agnostics - Living Sober Network Addiction Article
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Just FYI:

"Atheists and agnostics are, in fact, able to benefit from 12 Step recovery programs. The only requirement for membership in a 12 Step program is the desire for the person to stop using their drug of choice (including alcohol). It is not required that a person believe in God; however it suggested that a person be able to believe in a power greater than themselves. That power, usually referred to as a Higher Power, may be the collective members of a 12 Step group or the fellowship, one's own understanding or belief system in some form of divine entity, the power of nature, and so on. Many addicts, while actively using and/or abusing drugs or alcohol certainly behaved as if these same drugs and/or alcohol were powers greater than themselves."

Twelve Step Programs for Atheists and Agnostics - Living Sober Network Addiction Article
2255581637_a59a956bfe.jpg


Not a criticism of YOU, Scott, but that's how it strikes me.
 
Top