Atheist Awarded $2M in Settlement After Being Refused Secular Rehab Treatment

a reply to: Southern Guardian

This case is deeply troubling.

Two million dollars might seem like an awful lot, and of course it is an awful lot of money, but it think it is important to understand that we are not simply talking about being forced into rehab. We are literally talking about a person being forced to undergo religious indoctrination, to pray to a being in whom they have no faith.

This is the sort of thing we expect from IS, not from a western developed nation and its appendages. What they have done here, amounts to false imprisonment, that hundred day term being invalid, since the claimants refusal to engage with the rehab program was viable under the constitution, specifically the 1st amendment as it pertains to the free exercise of religion. Since his refusal was valid, his imprisonment as a result of that refusal cannot be valid, and is therefore unlawful.

Between the false imprisonment, and the violation of this claimants right to exercise his religious freedom, serious violations of this individuals rights have most certainly occurred. For either one of these, the state would have to make a pretty significant recognition and reparation, and therefore the two million dollars, while a big heap of money, is not too big of an amount when one considers the actual reality of those violations of both law, and the claimants rights under the constitution.

Should meth heads be put in rehab? Of course they should. Should they be put in faith based rehab? No, not unless they happen to share the faith involved with the treatment program. I am a Christian, and one might be forgiven for thinking that I would be biased toward faith based treatment, education, a closer relationship between church and state... Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

Rehabilitation is one of the most crucial elements of the infrastructure which deals with drug addiction, and alcoholism. Programs dealing with these things are most effective when they are tailored to the individual concerned, and based on psychological and biological data gathered from the subject before a treatment plan is even devised. A treatment plan which follows a series of pre-developed, cookie cutter steps is not an acceptable route forward, and it certainly is not if it relies on religious indoctrination to get the job done.

As a Christian, I believe in people coming to Christ by their own free will, not by way of being shanghaied when at their weakest, and brainwashed during a narcotic come down. I also believe that treatment should be based on hard science and a good understanding of the psychopathology of the individual, not a one size fits all policy with rigid edges and no adaptability.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I forgot about the serenity prayer.

One thing that irked me about the AA faithful is most would insist AA was the only way and get upset when one would mention alternatives like SMART. I am reasonably certain that some probation officers haven't even heard of that and may violate someone because the only form of 'recovery' meetings they approve is AA.

There are some dark people who attend AA and forcing those who do not want to be there to regularly attend meeting hurts those who truly wish to get sober.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Anonymous groups, for the most part, are not religious. They are spiritual. That's why it's: "the God of your understanding." I could go on about people I know whose lives were nearly destroyed until they found 'the God of their understanding,' but there are countless stories like that. But I suppose, in this religious-fearing new era anything with a hint of religion is terribly evil and needs to be abolished. As for punishment, being placed behind bars or sent to a labour camp for breaking laws is pretty cruel, but "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime." There are a lot worse things an AA group. It was intended to help after all, rather than punish!

It's absolutely absurd what people are allowed to sue for, and in some cases win!

Besides which, there are horror stories about people abused as children, harmed by an authority figure, etc. etc., and they're lucky if they ever get anything. And then there's good, honest, hard-working people who are lucky if we're able to retire at retirement age! I guess we're all suckers because we should just get high on an illegal substance, get sentenced to an AA program to help us and then sue the system for trying...

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2
It's absurd that because a group claims to be spiritual not religious that makes it okay and not a violation on the first amendment.

Let's recap here, AA opens with the Serenity Prayer, often closes with the Lord's Prayer, and in it's 12 pillars requires someone to submit themselves to a higher power in order to be successful.

As I wrote before saying we are a spiritual group, not religious to me is the same as someone saying I am.not fat, simply husky.

a reply to: Annee

First on topic I guess...

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

ya try doing that in any discussion on here when it comes to the economic conditions and the current job market......
you'll get hit with all kinds of unkind remarks and called all kinds of names by those of the right

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.

?? sounds like a religion to me, right down to spreading the good news!!!

Good.

I've just been reading up on this as well - - it kinda ties in:

I wonder if the reason this was the only option for this person is the same as the reason for what's going on with the hospitals that you are referring to.

According to ACLU, 10 of the 25 largest hospital systems in the US are Catholic-sponsored and one in nine hospital beds in the country is in a Catholic hospital.
www.christiantoday.com...

weather it's bush's faith based initiative, or just that these religious groups have more funds available than the public healthcare facitilities, they seem to be scooping up the hospitals and medical clinics when they get into trouble financially and while planned parenthood gets blasted for their ceo's "high salary" and the fact that they don't provide mammograms, one in nine hospital beds are in places could literally risk your life, make you lay in bed for hours enduring unnecessary pain trying waiting for the fetus' heartbeat to stop before you get any relief, cause you to go through second surgeries because they won't perform a tubal litigation after a c-section. Their ceo's pay is double or maybe even triple that of the ceo of planned parenthood and they get much more in federal funds than planned parenthood does!

Their policies regarding what they will and will not do as far as treatments should be clearly and concisely posted on their doors, in their advertisements, heck mailed to every household in the area, the same with every doctor who has no option but to associate with them. and, if there is no alternative care in the area, then their religious freedoms should be curtailed when needed to protect the life and well being of the mother. If they can't provide what is medically considered the safest and best medical care for their patient (during a c-section of the baby is considered to much more safe than making the women endure a second surgery at a later time) then they shouldn't be getting any of that funding that the right is working so hard to take away from planned parenthood! The money they are getting should be diverted to the non-religious affiliated hospitals in the area, or the creation of one, that can provide all the services that are needed, not just some.

Two Million?
Dude had an AMAZING lawyer!!!

As pointed out there are secular treatment programs, they unfortunately are few & far between. AA is very christian based as also previously pointed out some groups do use the lords prayer ect......

As case law this one is a doozy and I'm tickled to death he won.

Back in the day the christian proponent of the program wasn't really a problem, now that so many people of diverse backgrounds are in need of these services the model re-it's spiritual component is outdated. There is no proof you need christian based model for your 90 in 90, just that you do 90 in 90.

So tickled someone mentioned the SMART program!!!

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I totally agree that there should be a choice between religious and secular rehab treatment; but, why is he entitled to 2 million dollars that he might just spend on more methamphetamine?

Settlements aren't rewarded based on what the person might do with the money. Who cares if he goes and buys meth with it? It's his life. If he wants to destroy it with drugs, then so be it.

who knows maybe he will use some of that million to go and get him a college education, and turn his life around. I mean, 2 million dollars gives you plenty more reasons to live and build a decent live than having no income, living on the streets, and enjoying an empty stomach would!

a reply to: dawnstar

Statistically, when lower income people come into a large amount of wealth, then tend to spend it all VERY quickly. Most lotto winners end up in the poor house again. I'd say it is likely that most of that money will go to partying or paying for his friends (read: hangers on because he has money now) to party.

I'll even throw in a personal anecdote for you. A friend of my friend came into a large sum of money through an inheritance. He proceeded to spend most of it by doing things going to a strip club with a bunch of friends and handing each of them a hundred dollars in ones or even just dropping $1000 a night at the bar. Heck I went to a few of his house parties where he would just throw money onto the dance floor. And that's just talking about the legal vices.

We can hope that he does the right things with the money, but don't forget that he IS a meth addict.

a reply to: stosh64
Doesn't that increase the dependency of the person? .the responsibility should bewith the person who takes the drugs/alcohol otherwise you create a "victim", not responsible for his own actions without an escape without increasing your dependency levels. It's transferring the drug dependency burden onto someone else, not a way of tackling the cognitive associations.

With such high relapse rate you think they would reevaluate the whole thing as medical advancement would surely bring about new, more effective methods.

Good, as long as religious people keep wanting special treatment, non believers should also be able to. The lack of belief is even ore engrained than claiming to believe in a special sky being.
Most atheists are not actual entities you can put a name on and suddenly put the into a group. You see, atheists like me very rarely think about religion, only when it comes up.
In the same way most people don't think about the Easter bunny or Santa.

I am just a person with extremely high personal standards for other living beings [read: mostly animals]. I am polite, accept anyone on an individual basis and basically just want to have a nice life. That some people believe in a god is completely alien to me [pun intended].

It's something that I find as strange as if someone told me they believed in Father Christmas. Therefore I could also not join any group that requires me to believe to get better or which ignores the fact that I can't take anything seriously because they are grown ups that believe in something that doesn't even feature in my life.

As long as there are exceptions made for believers [and there are hundreds of things they get away with under the guise of being religious], there has to e an equal right for sane people who don't believe in these things.

Imagine how it would feel to join a group that keeps saying "If you drink, Santa will be angry". To me that is exactly what it would feel like and I hope that secular help groups are being made available for any person that doesn't believe in the sky-daddy [see what I did here? I didn't call them atheists, they are just people].

a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol.... I'd divide it up equally among me and my sons and go far away, live a poor humble life... I've gotten so used to not having any money, I could sit on that much and be too afraid of being broke and penniless again, I wouldn't spend it unless necessary.... maybe age has something to do with it, you get more cautious as you age.

a reply to: dawnstar

I'd like to say I'd do the same thing. I feel like I'd do the same thing since I too have learned to live without modern necessities while being broke, but we can never say what will happen until it does. I'd like to say that I'd put a bunch of it into savings, invest a bunch, then keep the rest for fun, but you never know what happens. Watching what happened to my buddy, you suddenly end up with a lot of "friends".

a reply to: Krazysh0t
heck I'm broke and practically penniless now, and have plenty of those kinds of friends....they've conditioned me very well, don't answer the phone, don't answer the door....
people are irratating.

a reply to: dawnstar

Lol. Yea well it would probably get much worse if you weren't broke. You'd probably learn about family members you never knew about before too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
considering just how disconnected I am with most of my family, you are probably right.
but, well, as far as they are concerned, I passed most of the wealth onto my sons and reserved only enough to live a very humble life. ya know, still wearing second hand clothes, living in a nice but not extravagant efficiency apartment, and well, far away from, so far matter of fact, it would cost more to come visit me to beg for money they aren't sure I have.

a reply to: dawnstar

Lol. That's the way to do it. Just get away from them.

a reply to: infolurker

You know... I held the same position as you in the last thread about this, but I learned that AA has changed a LOT and today, it is VERY MUCH a religious program.

I don't have any problem with this settlement. The government forcing him into religious counseling? No, not acceptable.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Southern Guardian

It was wrong but 2 million is ridiculous. Even if he was literally dragged by the feet into the program 2 million is absurd.

The figure was likely intended to be punitive. The higher the punishment the less likely they are to do it to someone else. Besides, his attorneys probably took 20% to 40%.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: infolurker

You know... I held the same position as you in the last thread about this, but I learned that AA has changed a LOT and today, it is VERY MUCH a religious program.

I don't have any problem with this settlement. The government forcing him into religious counseling? No, not acceptable.

Me too. I needed to read and research the history of AA.

I do see how it could be secular, but it is definitely based in religion - - - and like the Boy Scouts - - - religion especially has taken AA upon themselves.

I am very, very impressed with the correct decision in this case.