How can the government force a citizen to take part in a religious based program such as NA or AA? Many times a drunk driver or substance abuser is court ordered to partake in the 12 steps. All 12 step programs say that you must give admit that you are powerless and you have to turn yourself over to a higher power. What if you don't believe in God? How can they force you?

The 12 steps are:


1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.


I don't see how a government can force this upon someone who doesn't have a higher power, prays or believes in God. How can they do this? Since when is a religious based program acceptable for a court ordered treatment plan? This just doesn't seem right.

Hi Clarebear:

The last thing I would want to do is to make an alcoholic or a druggie change their behavior.

I'd much rather see them get back out on the highway, while fully loaded or stoned out of their mind,and watch them wipe out about a half dozen or more innocent people.

That's much more important than asking them to consider changing their selfish,non- caring behavior.

Ever notice when these terrible accidents occur,it's never the alcoholic or the druggie who gets hurt???

No,let's just let them go ,with a slap on the wrist ,and let the slaughter on the highways continue full bore.

hippolips

My guess, Clare, is the the participation is chosen by the guilty party rather than accepting a jail sentence and a large(r) fine. The court may also be taking the viewpoint that driving is not a right, but a privilege, and that the state can withdraw privileges when it chooses to. (This last one is unlikely, although possible.)

Hippo, regardless of one's actions, the state does not, nor has it ever, to my knowledge, required someone to change their beliefs. Frankly, doing so is impossible. Pretending to do so makes as much sense as the reasoning behind putting "under God" in the Pledge. (Did they think the Evil Pinko Commies would suffer burning throats when trying to say those words?)

Wow! Not the response I expected from you hippolips. You obviously missed the point of my post.

I really am wondering how the state can make you take a religion class. There has to be some treatment other than believing God that can help you. It just seems illegal. It is my understanding that AA doesn't keep records so they really can't say if their program works or not. My post is based on the government forcing religion on others. I obviously hit on a nerve with you and for that I am sorry. I've never been in AA, but I certainly am for changing behavior. I have heard of the courts forcing people to participate in 12 step programs. I just don't see how forcing religion on someone is legal.

"Ever notice when these terrible accidents occur,it's never the alcoholic or the druggie who gets hurt???"


By the way, that statement is simply untrue. I've had several friend killed, and more injured because they were driving while impaired, and I think that many of us could make similar statements

It is difficult for us, who are alcoholics but not religious, to accept some of the twelve step programme.

AA in Britain does its best to play down or remove the 'God'/ 'Higher Power' element, as you'd expect them to do in a country where religion or faith has little or no place in the lives of the people.Nonetheless, the programme is founded on sound psychology and an understanding of the mind and of the experience of alcoholics.

For myself, I skipped that bit Non-believers may say to themselves, as I did,that this 'God' or 'Higher Power' had been useless in stopping the faithful from being drunks so there was 'fat chance', as we say here,of 'His' stopping them now. Their prayers, and those of their family, had not saved them then and wouldn't, logically, save them now. They might be comforted or believe that God had helped them or saved them. Strangely, He hadn't done it without the rest of the Steps

My approach was to say that I had got into this mess and I had to and would keep faith with the belief that, applying the rest of the steps, I would get out of it. That, if you will, was my equivalent of the 'higher power'.

It ought to be possible to write a programme which has no reference to 'higher power' or 'God as you understand Him to be'. However, AA was created in a more religious age than now and in a more religious country than here, by two Christian men.It was then, and is now in the States,obvious, simpler and more appealing to use their method than mine (above) to calm the mind and quell the cynicism of the practising alcoholic who was desperate for help.

(We'd rather that newcomers adopted my, or their own, approach on this than not take the programme and stay helpless and die from alcohol)

PS Nobody who goes to AA under coercion or a court order accepted to avoid a sentence, will do much good on the programme. You have to go in of your own free will, because you think 'I cannot go on like this, I've hit my "brick wall".

It’s a pity, that people can’t just quit for quittings’ sake or for their spouses’ sake or their childrens’ sake or their own sake, and have to surrender themselves to a higher power.

To me, this is similar to swearing to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God, before taking the stand. At least in that case you can simply leave out the “so help me God” part, or take an affirmation instead.
I suspect that non-believers who attend AA simply ignore the religious parts and mumble through the steps just to get it over and done with. As Fred said, if you’re forced to participate, it’s not going to do you any good anyway.

But I agree with you, Clare, I think it is inappropriate to require someone to attend a program that is steeped in religion of any sort. It is also inappropriate if the only help available to those wishing to conquer their addictions on their own is religious in nature. I’m sure that if the defendant feels strongly about it, a suitable non-religious alternative may be found, though it may require more of an effort on the defendant’s part to get to these meetings as they’re probably few and far between. As for people who want to attend meetings of their own free will, I imagine they might have to go well out of their way to be saved from their demons without having their souls saved as well.

I suspect that most judges are only familiar with the one organization for treating alcoholism, and don't think any defendant can refuse to accept the alternative to a harsher sentence. I also have a hunch that the same sort of people as our own president are susceptible to a bit of the old time religion as a cure for almost anything. The only other program for alcoholics I'm aware of is also church sponsored.

quote:

The only other program for alcoholics I'm aware of is also church sponsored.

There must be clinics all over the country: Betty Ford, Hazeltine, to name just two.

quote:

Originally posted by juanruiz:

quote:

The only other program for alcoholics I'm aware of is also church sponsored.

There must be clinics all over the country: Betty Ford, Hazeltine, to name just two.

Thanks, JR. That's good to know in case I'm ever confronted with a similar choice.

Because I have been affected by family members who abuse drugs and alcohol, I attend an Al-Anon family support group (shhh ... don't tell anyone, it's anonymous!).

A number of people join AA and Al-Anon who are atheists or agnostics. A full understanding of would let you know that there is no requirement to believe in God. People find their higher power, whatever that may be.

It is not allied with any sect, denomination, political entity, organization, or institution. It does not endorse any particular religion or religious belief (or lack of religion), but members are encouraged to use their faith in a Higher Power as a tool of recovery.

My own personal opinion is that a spiritual element is a strong component of recovery. Education and non-spiritual attempts at behavioral change are necessary, but most often not enough by themselves.

quote:

that there is no requirement to believe in God.

This is my understanding. A friend of mine was a member of AA for decades, and an atheist. His view of a higher power was gravity. It kept him off the sauce for 30 years. And he still is.

The programme is but part of AA.It's the basic ideas in print. The 'big book' features more in practice. It's a book written by one of the founders. Enthusiasts go to 'big book' meetings where it is read and discussed. It is quite helpful, with stories of personal experiences of others and helpful insights, but a bit dull as a read.Most AA members are not 'big book' enthusiasts.

The meetings, where the newcomer meets others who are recovering are key.(AA language:In AA terms nobody ever 'recovers' from alcoholism, all are 'recovering'). Nobody is ever required or expected to say anything or talk to anyone. The exposure to other alcoholics, hearing what they volunteer, hearing the alcoholic who gives a short address to the meeting are very important.The alcoholic is a lonely figure who cannot imagine that anyone is like him or her.Going every week to a room full of them is a relief and an education.

So to is the sponsor system. Everyone may have a sponsor, someone of the same sex who has been sober for a few years, who is always a phone call away, who meets the member regularly and who helps them.The sponsor is a great help and sticks with the member for years, if that helps. Members who have sponsors often keep contact for many years.

Cultures vary, but I've rarely heard 'God' referred to in any AA meeting in Britain.Alcoholics here progress without prayer (or God).Like JR's friend (and FredPuli ), they can manage without either.

Two of the strengths of AA are that it is anonymous and that it is not coercive. A court order requiring AA would seem to disrupt those advantages.