“In the
ten year period between 1996 and 2007, five high-level US courts --
three federal circuit courts and two state supreme courts -- did take
a long and hard look at AA's claim. Each of these cases involved a
person who was being forced to participate in AA meetings, either as
a condition of their parole or probation, or while actually
incarcerated. These cases reached the highest level of judiciary
scrutiny -- only one level below the US Supreme Court -- because they
involved the critical issue of separation of Church and State. This
separation is a fundamental aspect of US law, known as the
Establishment Clause, and is explicated in the first amendment to the
US Constitution, which states "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion."
The parolees, probationers and inmates in each of these cases claimed that the State was using its power to force them to participate in a religious activity. They claimed that AA meetings were religious. Thus, their required attendance was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which requires governmental neutrality with respect to religion and a wall of separation between Church and State.
In Establishment Clause cases, the high-level courts use a three-part test to determine if the wall of separation has been violated. First, has the State acted? Second, does the action amount to coercion? And third, is the object of coercion religious rather than secular? The answer to the first part of the test was quickly answered: yes, these cases clearly showed action by the State, involving the governmental branches of probation, parole and imprisonment. The second test was likewise quickly answered: yes, the probationers, parolees and inmates were being coerced into AA attendance.
Next, the high-level courts addressed the third part of the test. They took a long look at the Big Book and its 200 references to God; a look at the Twelve Steps and their unmistakable references to God; the prayers in A.A. meetings; and based on a full examination of these, ruled that AA doctrines and practices must be viewed as religious. Because multiple high-level courts have ruled uniformly on this matter, these rulings now constitute "clearly established law" in the US.
Here are links to the judicial decisions for the five US high-level court cases:
Griffin v. Coughlin (1996), Kerr v. Farrey (1996), Evans v. Tennessee Board of Paroles (1997), Warner v. Orange County Dept. of Probation (1999) and Inouye v. Kemna (2007). [see Links and downloads under Case law (US)(relating to AA)]
The parolees, probationers and inmates in each of these cases claimed that the State was using its power to force them to participate in a religious activity. They claimed that AA meetings were religious. Thus, their required attendance was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which requires governmental neutrality with respect to religion and a wall of separation between Church and State.
In Establishment Clause cases, the high-level courts use a three-part test to determine if the wall of separation has been violated. First, has the State acted? Second, does the action amount to coercion? And third, is the object of coercion religious rather than secular? The answer to the first part of the test was quickly answered: yes, these cases clearly showed action by the State, involving the governmental branches of probation, parole and imprisonment. The second test was likewise quickly answered: yes, the probationers, parolees and inmates were being coerced into AA attendance.
Next, the high-level courts addressed the third part of the test. They took a long look at the Big Book and its 200 references to God; a look at the Twelve Steps and their unmistakable references to God; the prayers in A.A. meetings; and based on a full examination of these, ruled that AA doctrines and practices must be viewed as religious. Because multiple high-level courts have ruled uniformly on this matter, these rulings now constitute "clearly established law" in the US.
Here are links to the judicial decisions for the five US high-level court cases:
Griffin v. Coughlin (1996), Kerr v. Farrey (1996), Evans v. Tennessee Board of Paroles (1997), Warner v. Orange County Dept. of Probation (1999) and Inouye v. Kemna (2007). [see Links and downloads under Case law (US)(relating to AA)]
…......
The 2007 Inouye v. Kemna was SO clear, that it suggested any agent of any state which attempted to force a person to attend AA/NA could be sued. Recently this is what happened in California, and the state of California and Westcare were each told to pay approximately $1 million dollars to Barry Hazle who brought the lawsuit.”
(our
emphasis)
Cheers
The Fellas
(Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS Our
thanks to the member who drew this article to our attention
No comments:
Post a Comment