PinPonPun

Overcoming addiction is no easy feat; it can be both physically and mentally taxing on a person. Fortunately there are rehab programs out there, organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous and other twelve step programs exist to help recovering addicts battle their past.

Unless, of course, you’re an atheist.

In most of these programs, god is a required part of many of the twelve steps; religion is completely intertwined in the process. For example, amongst AA’s twelve steps are:

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

Obviously, an atheist would have difficulty completing such a program as several of the steps would rely entirely on a being the atheist has no belief in; they would have to seek out less-well-known, secular rehabilitation programs if and where possible.

Sometimes, however, that is not possible; this is a problem in its own right but it is excaberated when a recovering addict is compelled to attend a rehabilitation program. It would be a violation of the First Amendment to force someone into such an organization as it would certainly prohibit their ability to practice (or not practice) religion as they see fit.

In 1996, the New York Supreme Court ruled that an inmate could not be compelled to participate in a twelve step program as “[a]dherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization.”

Enter Barry A. Hazle, Jr., 40 of Redding, CA. As part of his probation for a drug-possession charge, Hazle was required to participate in a 90 day rehab program in California but found that all such available programs, statewide, were based on the religious-themed twelve step model. He filed an appeal stating as much but, three days later, was arrested and thrown back in jail.

He is now suing the Department of Corrections and claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated; as per the NY judgment, he is correct in claiming so.

What might be the most disturbing element of the case, to me at least, is that it seems that Hazle was complying with the court order to the best of his ability; he was thrown back in jail for violation of his parole but note the details here:

Three days later [after submitting his appeal], “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 Crofoot [his parole officer] was leading him out of class, he told Hazle he was going to make an example of him.

Hazle was removed from one of the program’s classes and thrown back in prison; he was attending the program despite the fact that it was in direct opposition to his religious beliefs.

So what was the arrestable offense? The fact that he complained and appealed the mandatory rehabilitation program in light of the lack of secular options?

In suing, he seeks both damages and the creation of secular rehabilitation programs for non-theist addicts.