--- "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I understand it, the requirements of AA
> attendance have
> generally been struck down on Establishment Clause
> grounds. The theory
> there isn't "establishing as a religion for the
> state" as such, but
> rather violation of the "no coercion" rule of
> Establishment Clause
> caselaw. The claimant hasn't been required to show
> any religious
> objection to the behavior (as he would be under the
> Free Exercise
> Clause); as with the graduates in Lee v. Weisman, it
> has been enough
> that he show that he was being coerced into engaging
> in a religious
> practice. And giving someone the option of
> participating in a religious
> practice or going to jail (or staying longer in
> jail) has been treated
> as coercion. Am I mistaken about those cases? Do
> people think those
> cases are mistaken? Do they think the cases are
> inapplicable here?
>
> Eugene
>
----------------
The cases concerning government coercion to
participate in AA/NA -- there have been several, in
both the 2nd and the 7th appellate districts, all of
which have been decided in favor of the plaintiffs --
are not at all inapplicable. Forcing someone (under
threat of jail) to sit in a room where religious
exercises are conducted and religious conversion is
the expected and intended purpose (which is what
12-step meetings and treatments do) is clearly an
Establishment Clause violation. The other side of the
coin, as demonstrated in many of the 12-step coercion
cases, is giving special privileges to people who
demonstrate ostensible compliance with, or acceptance
of, particular religious teachings.
One of the foremost such cases was Griffin v.
Coughlin, referenced and excerpted below.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I96_0137.htm
<< " A.A.'s Twelve Steps/Twelve Traditions volume,
describing the spiritual evolution of atheists and
agnostics through working the 12 steps, states:
'Consequently, in Step Three, we turned our will
and our lives over to the care of God as we understood
Him. For the time being, we who were atheists or
agnostics discovered that our own group, or A.A. as a
whole, would suffice as a higher power. Beginning with
Step Four, we commenced to search out the things in
ourselves which had brought us to physical, moral, and
spiritual bankruptcy' (A.A. Twelve Steps/Twelve
Traditions, at 107)
* * *
'So, practicing these Steps, we had spiritual
awakening about which finally there was no question.
Looking at those who were only beginning and still
doubted themselves, the rest of us were able to see
the change setting in. From great numbers of such
experiences, we could predict that the doubter who
still claimed that he hadn't got the "spiritual
angle," and who still considered his well-loved A.A.
group the higher power, would presently love God and
call Him by name' (id., at 109 [emphasis supplied]).
The foregoing demonstrates beyond peradventure that
doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-step
methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails
engagement in religious activity and religious
proselytization. Followers are urged to accept the
existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father
of Light and Spirit of the Universe. In "working" the
12 steps, participants become actively involved in
seeking such a God through prayer, confessing wrongs
and asking for removal of shortcomings. These
expressions and practices constitute, as a matter of
law, religious exercise for Establishment Clause
purposes, no less than the nondenominational prayer in
Engel v Vitale (370 US 421), that is, "a solemn avowal
of divine faith and a supplication for the blessings
of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has
always been religious" (id., at 424 [emphasis
supplied]; see also, Lee v Weisman, 505 US __, __, 112
S Ct 2649, 2664 [Blackmun, J., concurring]). " >>
Similarly, no matter how much a judge might feel
it would be "rehabilitative" to sentence a white
racist to spend time in a black environment, any such
sentence cannot include ordering the defendant to sit
in a church service.
~Rita
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
