California Forcing Atheists to Attend Religious Programs
The Redding computer technician says he objected several times to being compelled to participate in a program based on the 12-step recovery method originally developed by Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, according to the lawsuit filed in Sacramento federal court. He aksed to be reassigned to a secular recovery program.
The 12-step program required "acknowledgment of the existence of a supernatural God,....deference to a monotheistic 'higher power,' and participation in prayer," the suit alleges. He was subsequently arrested for violating parole and sent back to prison for four months, the suit alleges.
"The First Amendment....guarantees that the state cannot require anyone to participate in these types of religious activities, nor penalize those that resist," said Hazle's lawyer, John Heller of Chapman, Popik & White in San Francisco. "Courts across the nation have recognized that the 12-step method is religious in nature," Heller added.
Source: Sacramento Bee
The comments from John Heller, Hazle's lawyer, are very important here: every court that has ruled on this issue (that I know of, at least) has consistently held that these 12-step programs are religious in nature and, therefore, that it is unconstitutional for the government to force people to attend them. The program at the Empire Recovery Center in Redding was religious and, therefore, it was unconstitutional for government officials to force Hazle to attend.
Sadly, it sounds like officials might not have cared:
Empire officials told him he needed to take up his complaint with his parole officer, Mitch Crofut, Hazle said.
Hazle complained to Crofut, who told Hazle to fill out a state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation complaint form after he found no secular drug treatment program was offered locally. Hazle filled out the form, asking to be placed in a secular treatment program, Hazle said.
Three days later, “I was taken out of class and taken back to prison,” Hazle said. He had already served a year and a half in prison, a sentence that later was overturned on appeal.
Hazle said as Crofut was leading him out of class, he told Hazle he was going to make an example of him. On the way out, Hazle said he told Crofut he’d withdraw his complaint if it meant he could avoid going back to prison. He said Crofut told him it was too late.
Source: Redding Record-Searchlight
Obviously I have no idea if the claims about Mitch Crofut's behavior is true or not. I don't know Barry A. Hazle so I can't evaluate his credibility, generally or in matters like this. However, I can say that if this allegation were true about someone, then I really don't think that they would be fit to serve as a parole officer. I don't think that a person who acts in what is arguably a petty and unconstitutional manner should have any authority whatsoever over any citizens, much less this kind of power over parolees.
Just as bad is the fact that many people are ignorant of or in denial about our constitutional rights when it comes to such matters. In comments on the above news article, Tipsy offered the following:
The dude was on parole, doesn't mean he is free to do as he pleases. 1st A. doesn't apply. As far as I knew, there are all kinds of terms of parole that dictate what you can legally have in your possession that non-parolees are totally within their rights to possess. Parole is an option. You can still stay in prison and serve your time. It doesn't change the fact that you broke the law, no matter how inane. He wasn't forced to be set free, and therefore not forced to partake in religious mumbo jumbo.
This is sheer nonsense. A person on parole doesn't lose all of their constitutional rights. The crucial distinction is between rights that may need to be restricted in order to protect others or prevent further criminal behavior (forbidding association with certain people would normally violate your right to free association, but is permitted as a condition of parole) and those rights which have absolutely no connection whatsoever to legitimate government ends.
In this case, for example, we are talking about whether it's a violation of one's rights for the government to give them a choice between jail or attending religious meetings. Tipsy thinks that such a choice is entirely legal, but if that were true then the government could force people on parole to choose between jail and: becoming baptized as Methodist, attending weekly services at a Pentecostal church, converting to Catholicism, converting to Islam, participating in Satanic rituals, etc.
Does any of that sound even remotely constitutional? Of course not, and that's why courts have consistently ruled that arguments like Tipsy's are wrong. Forcing a person to choose between incarceration and participating in unwanted religious activities is about as strong and unambiguous of a violation of the First Amendment as you can find. Then again, Tipsy also imagines that the absence of the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Constitution is meaningful.
Another atheist who was put in a situation like this is commenting on the Ed Brayton's site about this and reacts to the claim that the 12-step program requirement that you rely on a "higher power" doesn't have to include gods:
This is a crock. We were told this very same thing in rehab, but it doesn't make sense. The 'group' being referred to is made up of addicts and alcoholics in various stages of recovery. The absolute worst 'higher power' an addict can rely on is another addict. If my 'group' fails, there is a very high probability that I will fail too.
At the NA I attend, it is frowned upon to use the group as a 'higher power'. Instead, you're told that if you don't have a religion to 'fire God and get a new one' .. or 'Don't have a God? Use mine!' Huh?
All of these slogans are simply ploys to sucker people in the lowest point of their lives into a Christian-based religion. We have nothing to lose and are desperate for anything/anyone that offers a better life. What better place for the religious nuts to pick up new members than rehab?
My favorite moment in rehab was when I was having a very heated conversation with the counselor during a group meeting. I was sick of being told that the 12 step program was not religious in nature, that it was simply a 'spiritual' path to recovery. At the end of the meeting, she ends by insisting that the group make their own decisions and take what I said with a grain of salt. As she finished speaking, the group rose to their feet and ended the meeting like always ... they formed a hand-holding circle, and prayed to God.
I don't think that many people ever gave much thought to just how religious these programs could be until atheists started complaining. Why? Christian privilege: because the religiosity reflected some of the basic beliefs of most or all Christians, it just disappeared into the background as if it didn't exist. It was accepted as a natural and necessary part of life generally, never mind a natural and necessary part of getting over problems like addiction. It took people who didn't take for granted any of those religious assumptions to notice, object, and raise a fuss until the courts did their duty.
Comments
Northern California resident Jack Trimpey, a licensed clinical social worker, founded Rational Recovery (www.rational.org) as a secular alternative to Alcoholics Anonymous. While it eschews the popular “group” model, there is a Rational Recovery Monitor Program in lieu of recovery group participation. He acknowledges the difficulty in breaking free of the monopoly that religious-based 12-step programs have on court imposed penalties. I stumbled onto his program quite by accident, well after I had achieved 10 years of recovery from alcohol. While I would acknowledge that AA helped me gain some distance and support to stay away from drinking, I gave up on AA after it became clear to me that it was just another addiction to replace drinking. At the same time, I was questioning my faith as I was coming to accept my sexual orientation. All these things came together when I came across Rational Recovery. It’s now been over 20 years, and I’m free of alcohol, religious superstition, and controlling groups.
I quite agree with Mr.Hazle in being uncomfortable with the religious mandate he was given. IF indeed he was offered a program, and if doing so was done in good faith on the part of the courts, then a secular one should have been offered him. If the 12 step gotta believe in a greater being approach works for someone, more pow’r to ‘em. But never should that be the only option. I suspect that Mr. Hazle would have gone to wherever one was located, as an option to serving out his time.
I find it very sad that this is the one of the few if not the only option offered to those in desperate need of a kick-the-habit program. I know people that just might partake in a program and would like help, but cannot manage the religious nature of the 12 step approach. I do believe that the Probation officer in this case was behaving unethically, and that he should have referred a respectful request back to the courts on behalf of Mr. Hazle. Courts, and all branches and arms of our gov’t must realize that there are secular approaches to many problems.
Further, I would not mind my tax dollars going toward supporting a secular recovery program, but I very much resent any tax dollars being spent in religious based programs.
I stopped using and drinking eight years ago because I did not think it was doing me any good, and I finally got rid of a bad wife. I had people tell me that I really needed a 12 step program, but I did not think so. I studied the program in a college course. I thought it was pure proselytizing. People in the course argued with me that atheists could be helped too. I told them that I could not get past the higher power nonsense, and if I went to such a program, I would just end up arguing with everyone constantly about religion and it would detract away from the main point of addiction. Some people’s ideas on drugs and alcohol are mired in rhetoric about punishment and reward.
I just got this article today (10/10), yet I look and see people’s comments dated 10/5. Why are some people getting these postings five days earlier? Anybody?
And, oh, any attempt to force beliefs on anyone is always, at best, very, very, very suspect. And almost certainly dead wrong.
Not that anyone will actually see my posting, as, at five days old, this is already old news and everyone’s moved on.
Sigh.
Just under the article title you’ll see the original posting date: October 5. What you received today was one of two weekly newsletters; the Friday newsletter contains all the “newsy” articles from the previous Friday through Thursday. The Tuesday newsletter contains a combination of community-oriented pieces and “evergreen” articles.
Every newsletter has one or two links to pieces that might up to a week old. Some comments may appear from people who visit the site daily and saw the articles when they first appeared. Occasionally, comments might be a lot older because “evergreen” articles do get cycled around every few years.
No, not necessarily. People who simply watch the newsletter instead of visiting every day or two are seeing this for the first time in the same way you are. And, if anyone makes an interesting enough comment, that may appear in a week or two as the “Comment of the Week,” drawing people back again. Finally, people who find this via search might show up tomorrow, next week, or next month. It’s never too late to make your opinion known.
Unfortunately, people convinced that they have The Truth sometimes disagree. That’s why it can be helpful to describe the freedom of speech or freedom of expression as a right to be wrong — even if you think you are absolutely right, you have to allow others the freedom to be completely wrong.
Actually, in California parole is not optional, unless the prisoner wants to serve his full sentence. Further, the prisoner must sign the agreement, or he won’t be released.
Thanks for the clarification regarding the posting times, Austin. I didn’t realize that the newsletters we receive are an aggregate of articles which might’ve been posted at any time in the past week, or even before.
“Unfortunately, people convinced that they have The Truth sometimes disagree.”
I’m of the persuasion that the really dangerous types are the ones who are, in fact, not quite convinced they have the truth. It’s often their gnawing insecurity about their cherished beliefs or world views which impels them to attack any perceived threat to them. I think those truly secure in their beliefs would be more likely to meet disagreement with calm and tolerance.
I don’t think there are very many in the latter category.
You’re probably in the majority there. This sort of schedule isn’t posted or discussed anywhere (well, except here, now) but keeping to a schedule like that makes it easier for me to do as much as I do. The schedule and the amounts have changed over the years, but there’s always been a schedule about what appears when.