Doubtful The Ryan. I’m sure there’s an alcoholic lawyer at a few of these meetings, but you can’t hide behind work privilege as your basis for immunity. And that’s what it is: immunity from prosecution for anything you say in this meeting. Is that what members expect? I’m doubting that.
I think they expect confidentiality. They don’t want their spouse or parents to call them up the next day and say “I heard you said at the A.A. meeting that one time you were so wasted you tried to drink Pine Sol.” It’s about mutual respect and understanding the limits of your relationship and that’s all it is.
You don’t get disbarred for blabbing. You don’t get decertified or have your accreditation taken away. You don’t talk about A.A. because you give others the respect that you want them to give you.
The Honor Code does not give one blanket immunity and I would hope that no one in A.A. would expect that.
Because no AA member would come up with anything this specious.
It is true that AA has its roots in religion, and specifically, the Christian religion. There are some features common to both (the presence of a “bible”, member “testimonies” at meetings, and the concept of a “higher power” being chief among them). However, unlike a religion, there is no dogma, no liturgy, no clergy, and no hierarchy. Members are perfectly free to maintain whatever religion (or lack of same) they had when they joined.
I think that whoever insists that AA is a religion should find an open meeting and attend, if only to get a firsthand feel of what it’s really like. It sounds like these judges could certainly use that experience.
Requoting from the case Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation (emphasis mine):
Nobody here is claiming that A.A. “is a religion.” They are claiming that it behaves as a religious organization. Like the Boy Scouts, as someone else noted. Given the quoted statement from the case above, please explain how requiring a person to attend such meetings, when nonreligious treatment options are available, is not violative of their First Amendment rights.
Sheesh. Heaven forbid anyone criticize the sacred cow that is A.A.
‘Well if he is in AA should he be trying to make amends to people he has wronged?’
Ha! Don’t know if that’s a joke or not but I found it pretty funny!
Speaking as a recovering alcoholic, AA is not a religion, although I have been to meetings which had a strong religious flavor. Since I’m a born-again pagan, I tend to stay away from those types of meetings (actually, I haven’t been to any AA meetings in years).
The whole idea of a ‘higher power’ in AA is incredibly broad, thanks to one of the founders who was an agnostic (I forget his name), and objected to the religious overtones of the others. For example, my own ‘higher power’ is the concept of free will. God doesn’t enter into it.
So for this judge to rule an AA meeting as a religious meeting is wrong. AA is a support group, not confession.
Sheesh, what religion is AA pushing, if it is a “religious” group?
Are you SURE that you don’t mean spiritual?
Maybe judges are more likely to send people to AA because other treatment options have not shown the same rate of success.
MsRobyn said it very well. While components of various faiths can be found in the AA program, it is not affiliated with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution.
Does something have to advocate a single religion or denomination before it can be considered “religious” in nature or purpose? Did I wake up this morning on the Planet Where Things Mean The Opposite Of What They Really Mean? Does nobody here know the word “ecumenical”?
Here’s where it’s at. AA is not a religous treatment option, because AA offers no treatment. We are not doctors or nurses(well, some of us are in our private lives), caseworkers probation officers. An NA(I will use NA for my examples because I attend NA) meeting may be just me and my boy Jimmy, cause we were the only ones to show up. There is no record kept of who attended an NA meeting. We are a self-help group. Period.
People do get ‘sentenced’ to NA meetings, and I really don’t have a problem with it. I know a couple of people who are clean today and were reffered by the court. But get this. A lot of people who are sentenced to attend NA meetings merely sign their own cards(or have their buddies do it) and never really attend. It’s not like anybody can check up on it.(we’re anonymous, you know. If the MAN asks ‘was so-and-so at this meeting?’ I’m gonna answer ‘what the hell are you talking about?’)
If that whiny-butt doesn’t want to be ‘sentenced’ to AA meetings, then so be it. He should just do his jail time and shut up. Have we forgotten that being sentenced to 12 step groups is, for all intents and purposes, a total walk on a felony case?
OK, back to the OP. This judge has his head up his rectal canal. The ‘religous nature’ comment is horsewaggle. At meetings I attend, half of the people have felony records, prison tattoos, say ‘fuck’ every other word, chain smoke, and are looking to bed down and do the nasty with anyone who is the least bit willing. And that’s OK with us. It’s really not like a nice church group. If this guy can see priviledged communication here, he’s got X-ray specs.
As to the first part, the judge finding a religious nature to AA, he was pretty much obliged to do so. The Warner case linked by pldennison and the New York Court of Appeals case cited by Judge Brieant are binding on him (under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a federal court must rely on state law in determinations of privilege).
But minty is right, the ultimate decision is wrong. In my limited understanding of AA, no one has the formal role of leader of a meeting, much less as a clergyman, minister, or “professional capacity as spiritual adviser.” So yeah, this one should get knocked down.
AA is not a religion.
AA is not aligned with any sect, organization, or institution.
AA has no opinion on outside issues.
The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking.
Ok, there seems to be a concensus that there is no “pastoral confidentiality” privledge for information exchanged during an A.A. meeting. But what about “therapist confidentiality”? Okay, anything I say to my counselor or therapist is private and confidential. Suppose he recommends/prescribes/whatever that I take part in group therapy? Do the same confidentiality rules apply?
Damn hacker caused my cool response to disappear. Oh, well, here it is again to the best of my recollectin.
It’s patently obvioius that an AA meeting is in no way analogous to the priest:penitent relationship in a confessional.
First: The priest:penitent confession is held in private and it’s only the priest and the penitent (and God, I suppose) present in the event.
Second: The confession is not made in front of the congregation, which also includes non-members of the church. There are, after all, people just visiting.
Third: The AA also has non-members in the audience. There are, after all, people just visiting.
Methinks the judge in the case in question probably should hie down to either AA or Narcotics Anonymous. That fool must’ve been on some mind-altering substance!
People do get “sentenced” to burn a little incense on the altar of the State Gods, and I really don’t have a problem with it.
If those whiny-butt Christians don’t want to be “sentenced” to pay homage to the Caesars, then so be it. They should just go the arena and shut up.
Heck, they don’t even have to really burn any incense. Just tell the magistrate, “Caesar is the way, the truth, and the life; no one shall gain eternal life but through Caesar”, and they can beat the rap.
I don’t think anyone is objecting to people being sentenced to get treatment. (Well, we could get off into a tangent about legalization of private drug use in general, but suppose we’re talking about a habitual drunk/stoned driver, so that no one will object to judicial intervention.) But for the state to compel someone to participate in a program which amounts to a declaration of a particular kind of religious faith (“Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves…turn our will and our lives over to the care of God …Admitted to God…ready to have God…Humbly asked Him…Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God…praying only for knowledge of His will…Having had a spiritual awakening…”–yes, I know, there are several passages of weasel words in there)–even if it’s an ecumenical faith–raises serious First Amendment problems. And it’s not like there aren’t secular alternatives. For a judge simply to sentence someone to participate in a 12-Step program, with no alternatives, amounts to little more than intellectual laziness in this day and age.
That said, I don’t buy the “pastoral confidentiality” ruling either. If someone confesses to a priest in the confessional booth, or makes a statement under similar circumstances to a rabbi or a Protestant minister, there’s a legal protection for that, just like there are legal protections in some circumstances for statements made to lawyers or psychiatrists. But if I walk into a church and confess to a murder in front of 500 people during the altar call, I don’t think that’s going to be “privileged” and barred from admission into evidence.
AA offers no treatment. None. The people who come to AA are not clients or patients. They are free to leave at any time, and free to not show up. No records are kept regarding who attended. When I said ‘sentenced’, I meant ‘sentenced there instead of jail time’. When someone is ‘sentenced’ to 30 meetings, they have been given a ‘break’. They have escaped the full measure of their sentence. They got off easy. Their rights have not been trampled on.
There are referneces to God in the steps. But God is in no way defined. To you, God could be a mountain, a door knob or your family pet. The state does not compel participation, only attendence. Members are not obligated in any way to work steps or choose a higher power, but it is suggested. As an atheist member of NA(and there are a lot of us), I’m getting just a little tired of 12 step programs being equated with churches and/or cults. (get this, I became an atheist while in NA. other members know this and are still pleased as punch to see me every week)
Stated again:
Neither NA nor AA require a belief in a higher power. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using. The court really dropped the ball in Warner and Evans.(I agree that 12 step attendance should not be a condition of parole, but only because it seems to involve us in an area we don’t want to be in)
where you see the smilies.