“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof…”
AA clearly is an establishment of religion. If it has any mention of any higher power or has prayer it has religion. It then is not legal under the alcoholic’s 1st amendment rights to send he/she there.
I know better but one more time. ::: sigh ::::
I will bold for now to keep this a bit shorter.
And the law has not been changed because? They keep doing this in obvious violation of FEDERAL law? WOW !!!
Page 59 of Alcoholics Anonymous;
“Here are the steps we (<-- first 100 or so.) took, which are suggested as a program of recovery:”
Bolding by CatBiker
Actually, yes…I attended somewhere around 20 different groups within OA, desperately seeking help with the actual problem, rather than a church service. Some of those particular groups, I attended meetings with numerous times. Some only once because I could see clearly that it wasn’t for me.
You asked for cites from the book that point out that AA is strictly a religious organization. When I gave them to you, you said they only applied to the founders. But the thing is, that book, written by the founders is the one that is used to run the organization. So…those are your cites. Love 'em or leave 'em. They still pertain to 12-step programs as they are run today.
You might want to consider that you’re not the only person who knows something about addiction and treatment of addiction. Your “come backs” are horribly obnoxious and probably belong in the pit rather than here in GD.
-L
Actually, it’s not a federal law, it’s the Constitution. I guess you didn’t recognize it.
And at least one court has found it to be unconstitutional, as you would know if you had read MEBuckner’s post and links.
It would hardly be the first time that it took a little while for someone to challenge what the government was doing as unconstitutional, especially in an area like conditions of parole. Many of the people subjected to these types of orders are way too happy not to be in jail to rock the boat, even though the court’s order is clearly wrong.
Maybe at AA’s inception in the 1930’s. However, the American Medical Association classified alcoholism as a disease over 30 years ago.
In any event, I don’t care to hang out in the “let’s bash AA” playroom, so later.
This may sound strange, especially in GD, but for people trying to understand how and why AA works, and whether or not it is a religious group, I HIGHLY recommend reading The Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. Yes, it is a novel. No, it is not a scientific study. Yes, I realize it isn’t an appropriate cite for GD. However, people who don’t “get” addiction as an illness and who can’t grasp why AA can and does save lives, and why it works for so many addicts should read this book. Be forewarned, it is a very long book and is not solely concerned with AA and addiction. Not by a long shot. But I sure learned a lot from reading it.
I don’t think that is what they are doing, this is not about finding out about AA, it’s about being mad at the courts. I think that for some reason one of the A’s did not work for them or someone they know and so it can’t be any good, or they resent having the court send them against their will just because they were breaking the law and got caught or some such. Some are just ‘dogooders’ looking for something they can force on others, kinda like the courts forcing people to go to AA. They do not have to go to AA. Just sign their sheets with fake names and real locations and go on about their business of drinking and driving. ::: sheesh :: They act like the ones who get ordered to go to AA really go to AA… Bwhahahahhaha
I like ole MEBuckner, been reading him a long time. He is cool and informed on lots of stuff. Just because a court has said this does not make it the law of the land yet. I wish they would make the courts quit, heck a few more dead DUI repeaters is good for the gene pool IMO.
I think that it will be kinda hard to pass a law that AA is a religion. Kinda like saying that the sewing circle that starts their get together with a prayer and if you don’t join in and they say you can’t stay, is a religion .
Actually I need to follow your advice…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CatBiker *
**
This is really a very simple matter, and I don’t know why you’re not understanding the objections involved in courts mandating religion-based treatment. Xan summed it up VERY well. The statement “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof…” comes from the First Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
If you’re not aware, this is the document that our founding fathers created. It is, indeed, intended as the “law of the land.” No laws may be made in this country that do not adhere to this principle.
Now, laws that go against this grain do indeed get passed on occasion. In that case, there are methods in place for changing those laws.
Are you still with me? This means that it is illegal for a judge (or anyone) to FORCE any party to attend a “treatment” plan that revolves around religion and prayer. If you have any doubts about the religion and prayer involved in 12-step programs, please read the 12 steps. Or see my quotes from the Big Book above.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that AA hasn’t helped people or is a “bad” organization. I believe we’re only suggesting that since it clearly IS an organization based in religion, those of us who gain nothing from this type of “service” should not be forced to attend such meetings. We should be given other options for secular treatment plans.
You seem to be frustratedly spouting a lot of defense of the organization, but I don’t understand what it is you’re arguing AGAINST. Are you saying that AA is not a religion-based organization? Are you saying people should be forced to go to AA meetings because it’s the only way they can get sober? What, exactly, is your beef with the opinion that the constitution makes it illegal to “sentence” people to religious organizations, and that forced AA meetings constitute a violation of that law?
The AMA adopted a disease definition consistent with the AA position in 1952. They probably listed homosexuality as a disorder around the same time. These days the definition has advanced little though it is now a dual diagnosis as both a medical and psychological diosorder. In other words, they don’t know what the hell it is but they should try to treat it. At this level the decision to define a condition as a disease or disorder is pure semantics.
Regardless of the AMA position the nature of dependency remains a question under heated debate.
I’m frustrated?
I’m not arguing, just trying to ‘splain’ to you.
Are you saying people should be forced to go to AA meetings because it’s the only way they can get sober? <-- she said. I say --> NO. Never did, cite please, or a quote.
What, exactly, is your beef with the opinion that the constitution makes it illegal to “sentence” people to religious organizations, <-- she said, I say --> None what so ever.
and that forced AA meetings constitute a violation of that law? <-- she said, I say --> You and 500? 5000? Say that AA is a religion. 5,000,000 +/- say it is not. The courts all over the country seem to think it is not a religion and send people with some amount of DUW or DWI or APC arrests to them; or Possessions arrests or Holding arrests or what ever. They don’t even check to see that the papers that are signed are indeed indicative of attendance. Now yeah, they say to go there. You think that is wrong. Get your local congress person to back a bill to change it. Make AA into a religion against their will? Okay, that last was a bit of a dig. Sorry.
I don’t see what you are so hot about. You went to Overeaters Anonymous and they used a word spelled “GOD” and that made you ? Mad? Sad? Enraged? Or that they did not run their meeting to suit you? They did not help you the way you think you should have been helped?
I do not understand your anger.
Then you jump on AA and say that the courts are wrong to send people to them, or you agree with someone else that says that? If that is true, what are you doing in here? All you need is CNN and /or a local news hound and you have righted a bad wrong in society. You go Girl. AA will be grateful if you can get the courts to go along with you. They did not ask that these people be sent to them. AA does not get money from the government for body count or any other way. They actually refuse it.
You want a different place to go. Well, next time you are in front of the judge, tell him that. Tell him about the AA religion. Tell him you got it changed because you know the TRUE definition of what a religion is. Sounds like a plan to me.
Relax,
The World is Round,
It is not Fair,
It is just Round!!!
The resulting condition alcoholics find themselves in may be a ‘disease’. The treatment of alcoholism may be similiar to treating a disease. But alcoholism differs from most diseases in that the person involved had oh so many opportunities to avoid becoming an alcoholic. But they CHOSE to become alcoholics. ON PURPOSE. Pure and simple.
Calling the cause of alcoholism (lack of self control, stupidity) a ‘disease’ is silly.
Alcoholics actually trying to do something about their condition, and accepting the fact that THEY AND THEY ALONE are responsible for their fate (not a disease, not a higher power, not their family or job) get my 100% support.
Alcoholics simply asking for ‘understanding’ while they fight this ‘disease’ are beyond pathetic.
The biggest problem in America is that we have created a society where no one takes responsibility for themselves anymore. We raise our kids to think that ‘just trying’ is OK - no one will be responsible if we ‘all tried’. Let’s not award kids first prize or second prize. No, we give them all blue ribbons for participating, and ‘you tried so hard’. Bullshit. Kids know that simply going through the motions is not going to be reward anymore than trying your guts out – and neither will it be punished. Smoking, obesity, alcoholism - quite frankly I think the vast, vast majority of those people in those categories deserve to be where they are, because they made the choices that got them there.
This does not mean we do not try to help those who take responsiblity for their condition and are trying to do something about it.
It does mean that I have zero sympathy for those who could do something about it and instead choose to blame everybody else.
I do not know enough about AA yet, but just based on what I have read on this thread, it sounds like AA is simply an extension of the above - don’t take personal responsibility, rely on your ‘higher power’.
Bullshit. God helps those who help themselves. What that means is that God is not in the business of digging you out of the eye-ball high crap you dropped yourself into.
CatBiker, color me confused here. First you say:
Then you say:
This is exactly what Mr. Warner did. So we should applaud him, no?
(And I really doubt SexyWriter would have ever been in a position to make a federal case out of it, since I don’t think the courts are in the habit of sentencing people to attend Overeaters Anonymous meetings. In the end, she wanted a different place to go, so she went, and fortunately, there was no judge forcing her to do otherwise.)
Tell me, just why is it that you are so hellbent on having the government compel people to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings? All anyone here seems to be arguing is that the state should not force people to choose a specific kind of treatment which conflicts with their religious beliefs. No one is questioning that, under appropriate circumstances (like DUI convictions), the state can compel someone to seek some treatment, and that treatment could even be AA, if that’s what the person chooses as his or her treatment.
“…it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.” – James Madison
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
Hi there. I put up the OP about AA and religion-- but I find some of the other things discussed lately even more interesting.
Especially-- “Is alcoholism a disease?”
IANAD but my opinion is that it is not. Mostly because any individual, can start or stop this ‘disease’ at will and this doesn’t seem to fit the disease model to me.
(yes, AT WILL. Of course, it takes some folks a whole heck of a lot more will-power than others. For some it will even seem impossible-- which is why AA can still pull people in.)
So-- I think I’ll start a new post on this rather than hijack my own thread.
CatBiker said
Was not joking, make the courts quit. Good idea…
But why not just make them quit? Why this insistence that AA is a religion? I think Martha’s sewing circle is a religion too. They start their meeting with a prayer and won’t talk to you if you don’t pray with them. At least in AA they will talk to you even if you don’t pray or say you don’t believe in an Higher Power. Heck, they won’t even make you leave.
Also, did you read all the post from the last time you were here? I did not sound like it, sounded like you read the last one before mine and then jumped. Just my opinion. You should remember that I am way ahead of you about believing those quotes of yours. I find that even though I have remembered your posts and basic stance over the years, you and MOST other people on the SDMB are like rubber duckies, new world every day and they have forgotten everything they learned the day before. So you don’t remember me, no deal I am not a GREAT like most here. Bur please do me the courtesy of at least reading what I say before you jump on me for things I did not say. :: sheesh ::: I don’t just assume that you are stupid like you do me.
I really think the courts should get out of the treatment programs. <-- please note this statement. If you can get the courts to agree that AA is a religion, they will stop sending people there. It is against the law. <-- note this statement.
I do ** not ** think they will do it on your or Sexywriter’s say so but if they will — good. <-- note this statement.
I f I can get 50 people to say you are a Catholic, and you say you are not, does that make you a Catholic? Well, if 500 people say AA is a religion and the people in AA say they are not…??? You have more rights to define who you are than the people of AA do? AA does not take Government money, do you? So, other than the word “GOD” that they use, what makes them a religion that the courts can not see? I would think the lawyers would be all over it if it was a no brainer.
AA does not ask for the courts to order the DUI case be sent to them.<—note statement.
I don’t want them their either. I do not speak for AA. No one does. <-- note statement.
You are the definer of a RELIGION? Cool, I didn’t know that.
To be honest, CatBiker, I will confess that I have been having some trouble following your line of argument in this thread from the start.
I don’t think “AA is a religion”. I do think it is a religious organization. Roman Catholicism is a religion. The Knights of Columbus is not a religion, but the government forcing someone to join the Knights of Columbus would be unconstitutional. (AA is, of course, non-sectarian and ecumenical, whereas the K. of C. is unabashedly sectarian. But the state may not establish the National Council of Churches any more than it can establish a single Church of America.)
If the Ladies Sewing Circle adopts a twelve-point statement on the Essentials of Proper Sewing, seven points of which stress the need for belief in God or the necessity of having a spiritual awakening, then I would be opposed to a court ordering juvenile delinquents to attend meetings of the Ladies Sewing Circle on the grounds that it will be a good alternative to street gangs and will make them better people.
Since we apparently agree that the courts have no business forcing people to attend AA meetings, I’m not sure what we’re arguing about.
I understand that for some people, alcohol causes significant changes in body chemistery. What I do not understand is how those changes eliminate free will.
I never said that telling someone to quit drinking is enough; I said that actually stopping drinking is enough.
Fear Itself
All I’m doing is pointing out common sense: people who drink do so becauses they chose to. The AA on the other hand, makes numerous claims against common sense and I have not seen them ever present scientific studies in support of those claims. Doubt all you want that people have free will, but I’m not going to be convinced unless you have proof.
Sophie
Science did not “prove” that it is a disorder; it is defined as a disorder. I do not see how the matter of how something is defined effects whether or not free will is involved.
CatBiker
The way you imply that anyone that disagrees with you must want AA “stamped out” makes you seem like a fanatic. Furthermore, the way most of your sentences are either sarcastic, are of poor grammer, and/or end in question marks makes me rather unsympathetic to your complaint that people are not understanding you. How about actually making declarative statements that you actually mean?
DoctorJ
No, I’m saying that he should be able to stop drinking on his own. The OP was about courts requiring people to attend AA meetings. What is the purpose of this: to get them to stop drinking, or to stop them from thinking about drinking? I rather doubt that courts care whether someone spends the day thinking about drinking, as long as he doesn’t actually drink. I think that this is the central cause of the debate regarding whether alcoholism is a matter of free will. Those that say “yes” take “alcoholism” to be the use of alcohol in an unhealthy manner. Those that say “no” take it to be the desire to use alcohol in an unhealthy manner. To my mind, someone who is constantly thinking about alcohol has a problem, but it isn’t alcoholism.
You’ve heard the word ‘compulsion’, right? There are many compulsive disorders that do not involve chemical substanses. Well, it’s similar to those.
My opinion(and I am a recovering addict) is this. No one should be ‘sentenced’ to 12 step groups. Those who don’t want recovery are unlikely to find it. I don’t want us to be seen as an arm of the justice system. And I, personally, am offended at NA(or AA) being considered a punishment.
Look, if you’re not an addict, it doesn’t concern you and it’s none of your business. It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand it or believe it. It’s not for you. It’s for people like me. People who look like the living dead cause were more intersted in dope than food or shelter or clothes. It’s the last stop, the last grasp before I ingest enough dope to kill me or I go to prison for the rest of my life. I didn’t want to come here, but I’m glad it was here for me.
And the ‘Higher Power’? It doesn’t have to mean a god. It means something more powerful than yourself that you believe can and will help you. For me, the HP is the group. It’s the theraputic value of one addict helping another. When I reach out to another addict in recovery, that addict is there for me and willing to help because he understands, and because it is in his best interest to help.
CatBiker, are you being intentionally obtuse?
No one here wants to stamp out AA. Several of us think it is inappropriate for AA to be a mandatory part of a court sentence. Several of us think that AA is not for us, but that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
The reason religion comes into it is because the law of the land says that you cannot require someone to join a religious group, and this argument was used by a person who did not want to join AA. “Religious” is given an extremely broad meaning in constitutional law. As a matter of law, AA is a religious group. This does not mean that we think AA is a religion, it means that we think there is sufficient religious content in the meetings to make it inappropriate for the government to require attendance.
The Warner decision is binding in the 2d Circuit (the New York-Pennsylvania area), and advisory elsewhere. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to overturn the decision and elected not to hear the case (528 U.S. 1003, 120 S. Ct. 495 (1999)), a fact that courts elsewhere will take into account. As a legal matter, the statement that AA is a religious group within the meaning of the 1st Amendment is adequately supported by case law and cites have been provided to that effect. It’s not just because MEBuckner and Sexywriter said so.