• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheist inmate settles for $1.95 million over 12-step drug rehab

Deuce said:
How else would you describe putting someone in jail for not participating in your religious program?
Click to expand...

That isnt what happened, the inmate was given the choice of getting out early if they participated in a religious program. If they didnt want to participate thats fine they can serve their full sentence. However that isnt even what my comment was talking about. I was talking about how a state can sanction AA with such a low success rate and yet they can ban conversion therapy and call it abuse when it has a higher success rate.
 
Unrepresented said:
It's compelled speech, that's the issue. It's a violation of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

No one is compelled to seek parole, the prisoner sought parole knowing that a religious program was the requirement.
 
Crovax said:
That isnt what happened, the inmate was given the choice of getting out early if they participated in a religious program. If they didnt want to participate thats fine they can serve their full sentence. However that isnt even what my comment was talking about. I was talking about how a state can sanction AA with such a low success rate and yet they can ban conversion therapy and call it abuse when it has a higher success rate.
Click to expand...

Conversion therapy isn't successful. It's abuse. Abuse isn't therapy, so it's not successful therapy.
 
Crovax said:
No one is compelled to seek parole, the prisoner sought parole knowing that a religious program was the requirement.
Click to expand...
Because only religious people should be given the opportunity for early parole and substance abuse treatment?
 
Crovax said:
No one is compelled to seek parole, the prisoner sought parole knowing that a religious program was the requirement.
Click to expand...

And you think that's justification? You think the state gets to mandate religion because it's "voluntary?" (and by "voluntary," you mean "do this or we keep you in prison longer")

You would flip your **** so badly if the program were Islamic and you know it.
 
WCH said:
When you've lost your soul to addiction, who better to return it to you than God? Like you said, science can't do it.
Click to expand...
Gringo allstar said:
I think you're confused, this isn't a CT thread. Do have any links of said " cooked"'numbers??
Click to expand...
Gringo allstar said:
The Atlantic?..:lamo
Click to expand...
Crovax said:
No one is compelled to seek parole, the prisoner sought parole knowing that a religious program was the requirement.
Click to expand...
No experimental studies demonstrate the effectiveness of 12-Step programs. They're no different than any of the other 'rehab' industry tricks that celebrities check into like upscale hotels. It was invented in 1938 and has not changed since, which is quite unlike most other psychological, psychiatric or medical procedures. It's further compounded by those in the industry like Alcoholics Anonymous (the most famous) refusing to allow their internal statics to be released to the public or reviewed by independent researchers.

They're a scam.
Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence.
Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an international organization of recovering alcoholics that offers emotional support through self-help groups and a model of abstinence for people recovering from alcohol dependence, using a 12-step approach. Although it is the most common, AA is not the only 12-step intervention available there are other 12-step approaches (labelled Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF)).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of AA or TSF programmes compared to other psychosocial interventions in reducing alcohol intake, achieving abstinence, maintaining abstinence, improving the quality of life of affected people and their families, and reducing alcohol associated accidents and health problems.

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Specialized Register of Trials of the Cochrane Group on Drugs and Alcohol, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE from 1966, EMBASE from 1980, CINAHL from 1982, PsychINFO from 1967. Searches were updated in February 2005. We also inspected lists of references for relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies involving adults (<18) of both genders with alcohol dependence attending on a voluntary or coerced basis AA or TSF programmes comparing no treatment, other psychological interventions, 12-step variants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer (MF) assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data using a pre-defined data extraction form. Studies were evaluated for methodological quality and discussed by all reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials involving 3417 people were included. AA may help patients to accept treatment and keep patients in treatment more than alternative treatments, though the evidence for this is from one small study that combined AA with other interventions and should not be regarded as conclusive. Other studies reported similar retention rates regardless of treatment group. Three studies compared AA combined with other interventions against other treatments and found few differences in the amount of drinks and percentage of drinking days. Severity of addiction and drinking consequence did not seem to be differentially influenced by TSF versus comparison treatment interventions, and no conclusive differences in treatment drop out rates were reported. Included studies did not allow a conclusive assessment of the effect of TSF in promoting complete abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
And you think that's justification? You think the state gets to mandate religion because it's "voluntary?" (and by "voluntary," you mean "do this or we keep you in prison longer")

You would flip your **** so badly if the program were Islamic and you know it.
Click to expand...

its non denominational you can even claim your "higher power" is mother earth, im sure there are a few atheist that would admit that the earth/nature/the universe/physics is a power greater than themselves
 
Deuce said:
Conversion therapy isn't successful. It's abuse. Abuse isn't therapy, so it's not successful therapy.
Click to expand...

Since AA is less successful than conversation therapy then it must be abuse also
 
while I agree that his freedom of not being religious were violated by jailing him further for not joining a religiously based 12 step program. But the money that is now given to him is ridiculous. Unless he was almost murdered or seriously hurt in those extra 100 days of jail, there is no need for such an excessive monetary reward for this person. I personally would think that a financial compensation of between 10 and 20 thousand would have been more than enough.
 
Paschendale said:
Well since there are no gods or souls, and we DO have better ways to treat addiction than religious hoodoo, that's basically the opposite of what I said. I asked why our courts and government still rely on this religious program, that works no better than no program at all, instead of using a better, scientific approach.
Click to expand...

Full disclosure, I've been to many AA meetings over many years and for me it's a useful program for lots of reasons. I don't think it should be a condition of anything - if you're there by force, e.g. as a condition of parole, the chances of it making a real difference is zero and it might very well do some harm. I'll also add that stereotypes about what AA is or isn't are likely to be wrong. In my area we have maybe 40 different meetings and they are all different with completely different personalities and focuses. More than anything, an AA meeting is a self help group and a good way to meet people going through a life threatening problem and helping each other get through it. It's not a cult or a place for religious zealotry - at least I have seen NONE of that over many years.

But I've thought about the question you pose - why AA - quite a bit and the only answer that makes sense to me is the obvious, which is it's free to the state. There is literally no cost for a judge to require "treatment" then punt that treatment to a room full of well meaning unpaid volunteers who meet at a local church or clubhouse and provide a bit of literature and some coffee. The average donation is $1 or $2 and it's not a problem for someone who contributes nothing. The space is donated, and the coffee is cheap. And everyone can feel good about trying to "help" alcoholics and addicts and then shift the blame back to the addicted when the "treatment program" didn't work for them.

Bottom line is real treatment with real medical care and qualified counselors costs HUGE money and at least in my area, there is no desire to spend even one dollar to treat low life addicts, who just need a bit of self control, goes the theory, to change their life around. So they punt to AA which isn't really intended to be a place for forced conversion to a sober life. These people, most of them, DO need real treatment, but they won't get it without a huge public investment, which is unlikely IMO.

But, yeah, it's stupid for courts to require AA as a condition of parole, and I'm happy to see them get slapped down for it.
 
JasperL said:
I'll also add that stereotypes about what AA is or isn't are likely to be wrong. In my area we have maybe 40 different meetings and they are all different with completely different personalities and focuses. More than anything, an AA meeting is a self help group and a good way to meet people going through a life threatening problem and helping each other get through it. It's not a cult or a place for religious zealotry - at least I have seen NONE of that over many years.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware that it would vary from group to group. My scout troop, for example, was definitely not anti gay.

Bottom line is real treatment with real medical care and qualified counselors costs HUGE money and at least in my area, there is no desire to spend even one dollar to treat low life addicts, who just need a bit of self control, goes the theory, to change their life around. So they punt to AA which isn't really intended to be a place for forced conversion to a sober life. These people, most of them, DO need real treatment, but they won't get it without a huge public investment, which is unlikely IMO.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. And it shows the problematic attitude that our society takes with addiction. We treat it like a moral failing, rather than a medical problem. Until society changes its position, we'll continue to fail to treat it appropriately.
 
Crovax said:
No one is compelled to seek parole, the prisoner sought parole knowing that a religious program was the requirement.
Click to expand...

This is a mixed bag. The prisoner, of course, was gaming the system in order to get early parole. On the other hand, there should be programs for those who object to religious programs on religious grounds, and nobody should be coerced into any kind of religious program.

Therefore, I believe that the decision was correct, but that the inmate was given too much of an award, due to his knowing in advance what the conditions were for his parole, and then accepting them. He should get some amount, though, because informing him that the only way he could get parole was by participating in a religious program is coercion, and a violation of the separation of church and state.
 
WCH said:
When you've lost your soul to addiction, who better to return it to you than God? Like you said, science can't do it.
Click to expand...

... At no point did he say that science can't do it. He said science surely has better treatment methods than AA. As someone who has tried AAA, AA, psychological counseling and medical treatment, I'd said that a one size fits all program simply doesn't work. Different minds need different approaches. I've met people who had no need for the religious part of AA, and yet went anyways because they enjoyed the communal aspect of it. Likewise, there are people like myself where counseling (psychological and religious) simply isn't enough and the mind needs to be occupied with other things (in my case, exercise and work). There are a third group of people who need scientific advances like methadone in conjunction with religious counseling. Overcoming addiction isn't a "let's try this and see if it works", it's a whole bunch of treatments put together to fit the individual in question.

So yes, he's right in so much as saying that people shouldn't only rely on non-scientific treatments. AAA is useless to a heroin/meth addict. Scientific treatments alone are useless for someone who drinks because of depression. In the end, it boils down to an inexact science of finding out what a person best responds to and how to benefit them using other treatments that are available.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
This is a mixed bag. The prisoner, of course, was gaming the system in order to get early parole. On the other hand, there should be programs for those who object to religious programs on religious grounds, and nobody should be coerced into any kind of religious program.

Therefore, I believe that the decision was correct, but that the inmate was given too much of an award, due to his knowing in advance what the conditions were for his parole, and then accepting them. He should get some amount, though, because informing him that the only way he could get parole was by participating in a religious program is coercion, and a violation of the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Separation of church and state is just a phrase coined by an atheist. It is not in the constitution so it can not be violated. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" AA doesnt require a religion only a higher power, you can still be an atheist and believe that something is more powerful than yourself.
 
Crovax said:
Separation of church and state is just a phrase coined by an atheist. It is not in the constitution so it can not be violated. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" AA doesnt require a religion only a higher power, you can still be an atheist and believe that something is more powerful than yourself.
Click to expand...

So are you opposed to the separation of church and state? Do you think America should be a christian theocracy? Why should christians get less severe prison sentences for being christian?

Crovax said:
That isnt what happened, the inmate was given the choice of getting out early if they participated in a religious program. If they didnt want to participate thats fine they can serve their full sentence. However that isnt even what my comment was talking about. I was talking about how a state can sanction AA with such a low success rate and yet they can ban conversion therapy and call it abuse when it has a higher success rate.
Click to expand...

Holy ****, you support state-run conversion therapy. Nevermind, you don't need to answer the previous questions, it's obvious that your opinion doesn't matter.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So are you opposed to the separation of church and state?
Click to expand...

Yes, the 1st amendment does not erect a wall of separation between church and state. As long as no one is persecuted for or prohibited from exercising their religion, I dont see a problem with religion influencing govt.

Do you think America should be a christian theocracy?
Click to expand...

No, I dont know why you would ask that AA is non denominational, it has nothing to do with a "Christian theocracy"

Why should christians get less severe prison sentences for being christian?
Click to expand...

Hmm I dont recall anything about Christians. AA only requires a higher power nothing about Christianity. You are just creating a strawman around what you think my opinion is.

Holy ****, you support state-run conversion therapy. Nevermind, you don't need to answer the previous questions, it's obvious that your opinion doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I didnt say that, I said its interesting how conversion therapy can be banned altogether and AA can be state sanctioned. Your opinion doesnt matter because you just create strawmen to attack people. You arent interested in having a discussion only flinging insults the way a monkey flings feces.
 
Crovax said:
Yes, the 1st amendment does not erect a wall of separation between church and state. As long as no one is persecuted for or prohibited from exercising their religion, I dont see a problem with religion influencing govt.

No, I dont know why you would ask that AA is non denominational, it has nothing to do with a "Christian theocracy"

Hmm I dont recall anything about Christians. AA only requires a higher power nothing about Christianity. You are just creating a strawman around what you think my opinion is.

I didnt say that, I said its interesting how conversion therapy can be banned altogether and AA can be state sanctioned. Your opinion doesnt matter because you just create strawmen to attack people. You arent interested in having a discussion only flinging insults the way a monkey flings feces.
Click to expand...

You advocate longer prison sentences for people who don't share your same views on the existence of god. That is persecution for their beliefs and it's illegal, precisely why this guy got a fat 2 million dollar check. What exactly drives you to be so vindictive against atheists? Do you hate us? Maybe we should all be in jail?
 
I don't think the state should have forced him into AA. AA is secular organization not affiliated with any religion but they do mention a higher power in their steps and someone's religious freedom (which includes the right to be irreligious and not believe in God(s) or a higher power) shouldn't have a court ordered violation of that right. They can mandate a recovery program, but they shouldn't mandate AA or anything that violates the convicts constitutional right to freedom of religion.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You advocate longer prison sentences for people who don't share your same views on the existence of god. That is persecution for their beliefs and it's illegal, precisely why this guy got a fat 2 million dollar check. What exactly drives you to be so vindictive against atheists? Do you hate us? Maybe we should all be in jail?
Click to expand...

Once again that is not the case. First off its not lengthening prison sentences, parole is a shortened sentence. If you cant do the time dont do the crime. Secondly and once again AA only requires a "higher power" that doesnt have to be a god. Do you believe that physics is a power greater than yourself? That can be your higher power. You don't have to share my beliefs my beliefs to be in AA, you only have to have some
 
I also think the higher power notion of 12 steps is nonsense. There is no higher power, there is only you and you alone can change this behavior. You can admit you have lost control and have to regain that control, not think of it as a higher power but a vice that needs reigning in.
 
Paschendale said:
It's kind of insane how much special treatment AA gets when it is setup so closely to a religious cult. Surely in the 80 years since this silly program was developed, we'd have more scientific knowledge about addiction and better medicine than what is essentially a religious course. The overt endorsement of the AA program and the lack of a better, scientific, and secular option really is an unconstitutional entangling of government and religion.
Click to expand...

Religion is the best way to get the spirits out of people. :lol: Try to keep up.
 
Crovax said:
Secondly and once again AA only requires a "higher power" that doesnt have to be a god. Do you believe that physics is a power greater than yourself? That can be your higher power. You don't have to share my beliefs my beliefs to be in AA, you only have to have some
Click to expand...

That's true, but in reality AA just is a religious program. The steps refer to God, and it's common practice for meetings to close with the Lord's Prayer. And the chapter is called, We Agnostics, and it tells people that if they have an open mind, they will eventually come to believe in God. There's an example in that chapter of an atheist....who when he comes to believe in God is instantly cured of the desire to drink. It doesn't talk about an atheist who remains sober and never needed or did embrace a Higher Power.

It's true that AA in many places is extremely tolerant of pretty much anyone, including atheists, and that's one of the great things about the program. But atheists would have to accept the AA program in spite of its clear religious foundations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom