http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 9S1AKQ.DTL

Appeals court says requirement to attend AA unconstitutional

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.

Rulings from across the nation since 1996 have established that "requiring a parolee to attend religion-based treatment programs violates the First Amendment," the court said. "While we in no way denigrate the fine work of (Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous), attendance in their programs may not be coerced by the state."

The 12 steps suggested for participants in both programs include an acknowledgment that "a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity" and a promise to "turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." They also call for prayer and meditation.

Friday's 3-0 ruling allows a Honolulu man to go to trial in a suit on behalf of his late father, Ricky Inouye, who was paroled from a drug sentence in November 2000.

A Buddhist, he objected to religiously oriented drug treatment in prison, sued state officials over the issue and told Hawaii parole authorities just before his release that he would object to any condition that included a treatment program with religious content.

When Inouye was arrested for trespassing in March 2001 and tested positive for drugs, his parole officer, Mark Nanamori, ordered him to attend a Salvation Army treatment program that included participation in Narcotics Anonymous meetings, the court said.

Inouye showed up but refused to participate, dropped out after two months, and, for that and other reasons, was sent back to prison in November 2001 for violating his parole.

After his release in 2003, he sued Nanamori and others for violating his constitutional rights. Inouye died while the suit was pending, and his son took over the case.

A federal judge dismissed the suit, saying officers are required to pay damages for violating constitutional rights only when those rights are already clearly established.

But the appeals court said Nanamori should have known in 2001 that coerced participation in a religion-based program was unconstitutional because eight state and federal courts had ruled on the issue by then and all had agreed that a parolee has a right to be assigned to a secular treatment program.

so what will this ultimately mean?

DUI school also becomes Addict Support Group for pay?

Never been to one, unfortunately it's sounding a little like a campus outreach cult moreso than a support group.

6 years too late

anyone been to these things? ive actually met alot of atheists/agnostics that attend. its interesting to see everyones spin on the "higher power"

Great news. A friend of mine was in NA and the book they give you looks, and reads, like a bible. The religious themes drove him fucking crazy but he stayed because he wanted to stay clean. It seemed like nothing more than an indirect attempt to convert people.

This must be a regional phenomenon. They are quite agnostic around Chicago (from what I've heard from many friends/relatives).

not sure how i feel about this; as in, what other options are available along the same lines...

i guess professional help? probably not the best option for people on probation/parole but i dont see any other options.

its pretty amusing seeing people offended by the word "god" though

It really has nothing to do with that.

i support this

post/username/av

Hell yeah fuck AA. If you want to attain sobriety, the last thing you need is terminal guilt (religion) shoved down your throat.

An old high school buddy of mine has been through AA. He was actually turned on to the whole "I found Jesus" thing. I honestly try not to judge this, since I think it's fine if it helps him turn his life around. Problem is, he still drinks like a fish, but now he's a sloppy drunk who always talks about religion, which is about as annoying as it gets.

what does it have to do with?

i guess it could be a regional thing

there are secular alcoholic addiction programs that work just as well as AA.

like warehouse alluded, though, i have seen agnostic and atheist folks attend these things and put their own spin on "higher power." in this case, it is just that there is too much religion for attendance to be required by law.

Didn't Penn and Teller already address this? Why is the legal system so far behind Showtime?

How are the complaints about AA here that much different from the complaints parents have when their kids are court ordered to have medical procedures that go against their religious beliefs?

The people needing AA are basically killing themselves with alcohol. Deriding what is a very effective program because it has a "higher power" component is ridiculous. If you have a problem with AA then come up with an effective, cost efficient program (like AA is) that does not have an "higher power" component. In the meantime AA is savings lives, so fuck it if the courts mandate it. Or get your principals aligned and get the courts out of the kids lives mentioned above.

regarding AA, the government was, in essence, mandating citizens to enter programs that are smothered in and promote religious belief. that is unconstitutional.

how is that in any way similar to the court ordering life-saving care for the best of the child who has no control over his or her situation? the courts have taken stances that it is not right to require citizens to enter religiously inclined programs, but it is right to protect citizens from, in this case, religious belief that would be directly harmful, even deadly. it even seems to flow, to me, logically.



there are, like i said, effective and cost efficient secular programs.

http://www.sossobriety.org/

maybe you could outline the parents' argument for me. i'd love to hear it.

after seeing cb present valid alternatives, i have no problem with this ruling. especially assuming AA is still utilized as an option, but one of a group of proven programs, not THE ONE that is mandated.

yeah, AA has never done anyone good...
Religion has never given people strength through hard times, never compelled exceptional levels of forgiveness, never enhanced a community's sense of togetherness, never helped people achieve great humanitarian and justice-related feats (such as the abolitionist movement, great work done for poverty, the civil rights movement being organized throughout churches, etc).

Never.

oh, wait