Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts

Atheism: Ready for Primetime!

It's great to see an admired, lead character in a popular prime time television program trash religion. This makes me optimistic about the future of society.

Naturally Incapable of Rigorous Honesty and Suffering From Grave Emotional and Mental Disorders

Every AA meeting opens up with this prayer:

Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. There are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest.

If you have any independent thought, you will soon grow extremely tired of its astounding degree of condescension, blaming, arrogance, and shockingly blatant effort at manipulation.

"Rarely have they seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path"

Wow. It sounds like AA is very effective! This is a lie. Even AA admits it. They qualify this statement by "thoroughly." If it doesn't work for you, it's your fault--you didn't follow their (simple) path thoroughly enough. It's your fault! You can't even follow a simple program!!

The truth is that people who quit on their own have an equal, if not higher, success rate than those that follow AA's path. The problem isn't with the person, it's with the program. AA simultaneously falsely legitimizes itself as effective when it is not, and then bashes the poor alcoholic when AA doesn't work for him/her. Charming.

"Men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates."

This is perhaps the most condescending statement I've heard anyone utter. The idea that a group of deluded, unthinking, unquestioning sheep could know myself better than I do is outrageous. They can't even accurately assess their own lives or critically assess the AA program. They unquestioningly accept what Bill W. says as the truth. If they are unable to question themselves critically, they are in no position to do so to me. But they do, and take pity on me as a hopeless case...an "unfortunate" who they turn their backs on.

People who fail are either:

"naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty"

I always snorted when someone said this. If AA members lived in a manner demanding rigorous honesty they would realize:

that AA has been repeatedly shown, using rigorous double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, to be utterly ineffective in achieving sobriety. The likelihood of success is just as high in those that stop drinking on their own. One major study showed that people who attend AA are 9-times more likely to binge drink, compared with those who do Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT). Even AA's triennial survey admitted to the ineffectiveness of its program. But AA members reject these pieces of evidence. They are in a constant state of denial, which is ironic because that's how they dismiss others (like myself) who disagree with them.
that the evidence for a Christian God, which is what AA is based on, is nonexistent. Combine this with the many suspect, self serving reasons to believe in such a god (fear of death, fear of others unlike us, fear of change, selfloathing, etc...), and all this god talk begins to sound like a type of psychosis. I heard many testimonies about personal visits and conversations from God by people in AA meetings. I was scared that such delusional people were, not just walking the streets, but approved of by society.
they are, in no way, superior to me in being capable of being honest with myself. Not only am I incapable of being rigorously honest, but I'm naturally incapable of even grasping it! I was evidently born defective mentally, and cannot operate at the high plane of mental functioning that average AA members are able. And even more, I'm so stunted intellectually and/or morally that I'm incapable of realizing it!
they were wasting half their lives at AA meetings in dark damp church basements where all anyone ever talks about is how great the program is, how close to death they were, and how they would be dead if it weren't for AA. Say it enough times, and people will believe it, maybe, is what they are shooting for. This is also called "brainwashing." Look into it.

"suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders"

I guess my doctors are all incompetent. I must be bipolar or schizophrenic and they missed it. Maybe I should trust AA instead of them, especially since they're so rigorously honest, unlike my physicians.

"many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest."

So all you have to do to succeed at AA is have the capability of being honest. I guess "honest" really in the language that AA uses means "gullible." It certainly doesn't mean believing the truth. It means believing the lies that AA tells you, and then spouting off constantly about how wonderfully it works.

This mean-spirited, "kick 'em when their down," attitude is common to christian fundamentalists. It's not the version of Christianity taught in the older, more traditional forms of Catholicism, Protestantism, or other religions. The christian "born again" fundamentalists are a sick, twisted, selfish, and hateful lot.

I don't know which is more shocking to me: that society has such a beneficent view of the AA, or that people in AA can be such gullible idiots. Society doesn't really know that much about AA. Most people only know of someone who has gone to meetings. If they had gone themselves, or have read the lunatic rantings of Bill W. in the "Big Book" that is read like scripture in every meeting and followed with blind obedience, I'm sure they would think differently.

The sad fact of the matter is that there are many people truly helpless at the hands of alcohol. They are decent people who, for some reason, cannot stop drinking. They are suckered into the scam that AA will save them, if only they are subservient enough and give up all critical reasoning ability. Why trust medical researchers and physicians, when you can trust a former drunk's uncritical, uneducated religious rantings in the basement of a church? The fact that AA preys on these, the real "unfortunates," is the worst aspect of this entire sham.

AA Refers To Atheists And Agnostics As "Those People"

Out of boredom during my last compelled AA meeting I picked up the most recent issue of my area's AA newsletter, "Pipeline." The New Hampshire Area Assembly of Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc., is Area 43.

In the June 2011 issue of Pipeline there was coverage of the 61st General Service Conference. The GSO, remember is AA. It's true (corporate name) is the General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc., a tax exempt IRS 501(c)(3) "non profit" organization that makes more than $10 million annually. The GSO, in turn, is made up of the two corporations, AA World Services, Inc., and The AA Grapevine, Inc.

So, every year the GSO has a conference. The attendees in question are 93 delegates from AA areas in the U.S. and Canada, trustees, AA World Service and Grapevine Directors, and staff from the GSO and Grapevine. This year, at the 61st General Service Conference, according the the June 2011 issue of the Grapevine newsletter, they spoke about:

"Adding the AA preamble to the Big Book."
"Unbelievable action that may just turn things around for the Grapevine" whatever that means.
Unauthorized sale of AA literature. "This is all about to stop!" it said breathlessly.
A "proposed new pamphlet on Spirituality which includes stories from Atheists and Agnostics."

Of course, as an atheist being forced by the state of New Hampshire, I raised an eyebrow upon seeing the section on the proposed pamphlet. The author of the Pipeline article writes that, "[t]he piece reminds us that AA is not exclusive; we welcome all to AA that have a desire to stop drinking, regardless of their view of or belief in "God.""

The author continues;

It was heavily debated and my interest was deeply personal. One side of the argument was that AA is a program based on spirituality and that you cannot be an Atheist or Agnostic and succeed in the program. The opposing side's position was that many come into AA with no "God" (like me), while others have their own concept of a power greater than themselves and have successfully stayed sober.

The debate raged for two hours. At that point, a Delegate referred to Atheists and Agnostics as "those people." That's when I knew where I stood. When I came into AA, I was one of "those people." I told my sponsor I did not believe in God, and he said to me, "Be glad he does not feel the same way about you!" As I worked through the steps, I believed in a power greater than myself--but not "God" in the traditional sense. I found my higher power in my AA group and in the goodness of other people. I have since found a God that is beyond my dreams, and those that know me hear me talk of his grace with great frequency--I ask for help every day.

After I left the microphone, another person shared that he, too, was one of "those people." A gay man, he came to AA a drunk and an Agnostic, yet he found his version of god in AA.

Finally, the last person shared that she was a fallen woman who was welcomed into AA. She found her sobriety, her soul, and her God--but if she had not been so unconditionally loved in AA regardless of her beliefs, she felt she never would have made it.

The vote to approve the new pamphlet passed with substantial unanimity. At that moment, I felt God in the room and knew that AA would last for my grandchildren and yours.

Let me leave you with Dr. Bob's essay, "On Cultivating Tolerance," and I hope to see you all at the post conference June 18th to hear your thoughts.

Yours in Service, Rich P. Delegate 60/43, New Hampshire

What absolute bullshit. Let's take a moment to read between the lines and see what's really being said.

Yes...We welcome Atheists and Agnostics, but they have to find God to become cured.

AA repeatedly tells this blatant lie: "AA is not exclusive; we welcome all to AA that have a desire to stop drinking, regardless of their view of or belief in "God."" Chapter 4, "We Agnostics" in the Big Book is always used to support this lie. This chapter says nothing about how agnostics and atheists are welcome to AA, or that they can succeed using the techniques of AA. This chapter clearly explains how all of the former agnostics and atheists in A.A. got converted into true believers in Bill Wilson's religion, and how all of the new skeptics must also be converted. In fact, the whole chapter is devoted to just one subject: how everyone must "abandon Reason and human intelligence" and come to believe Bill Wilson's religious beliefs.

Here the Big Book states that belief in a higher power is necessary for recovery. Atheism and Agnosticism, by definition, are both lacking in the belief of a higher power:

We needed to ask ourselves but one short question. "Do I now believe, or am I even willing to believe, that there is a Power greater than myself?" As soon as a man can say that he does believe, or is willing to believe, we emphatically assure him that he is on his way.
The Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, Page 47.

"Oh, but you can have your 'higher power' be anything you want!" AA members often lie. The author of the Grapevine article writes: "I found my higher power in my AA group and in the goodness of other people." What does this even mean?? One AA member told me that his higher power was a doorknob.

Bill W. himself was emphatically and repeatedly clear that the Higher Power was God:

We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God.
The Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, Page 46.

At the moment we are trying to put our lives in order. But this is not an end in itself. Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God and the people about us.
The Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, Chapter 6, Into Action, page 77.

And what does a religiously converted AA member do next? Like any good cult member, they go out and lure others using the "higher power" lie, ultimately converting them to religion.

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.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William G. Wilson, pages 108-109.

It apparently worked on the dupe who wrote this Grapevine article since he writes, "I have since found a God that is beyond my dreams, and those that know me hear me talk of his grace with great frequency--I ask for help everyday."

Courts don't buy this lie, either. In the case of Grandberg v. Ashland County, a 1984 Federal 7th Circuit Court ruling concerning judicially-mandated A.A. attendance, the court said:

Alcholics Anonymous materials and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
--Wisconsin's District Judge John Shabaz

So, the next time you hear some AA member say "We welcome everyone, even agnostics and atheists!" or "It's not religious, it's spiritual," you'll recognize them for the nonthinking cult members that they are.

It's always funny to me that AA members' first reaction to people who disagree with them is that they are "in denial." When I hear this, it's hard not to start laughing.

Oh, and if you fail to find God, and thereby fail to cure yourself of alcoholism, IT'S YOUR FAULT!

RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty.
The Big Book, William G. Wilson, Chapter 5, How It Works, page 58.

It's your fault because you are constitutionally incapable of being honest with yourself, you unfortunate! The real truth is that AA doesn't work. By the way, this passage is chanted to start every AA meeting.

Why, some of my best friends are gay Agnostic alcoholics!

After the ~~dupe~~ author of the Grapevine article spoke at the conference, the next person spoke.

After I left the microphone, another person shared that he, too, was one of "those people." A gay man, he came to AA a drunk and an Agnostic, yet he found his version of god in AA.

This reminds me of the hypocritical racist who says, "why, some of my best friends are black." But if you think about it, it's even worse. The author is really saying that AA is SO welcoming, why look at the immoral filth we open our arms wide for! Not only is he an Agnostic, but he's GAY!!! Look at us, everyone, we admit GAY PEOPLE!

Yes, the only thing worse than a nonbeliever, is a gay nonbeliever.

If you know anything about the founding of AA, this will not come as a surprise. Frank Buchman and his Moral Re-armament group (the founders of AA) were rabid homophobes and gay bashers. Here's a 1954 Moral Re-armament guide on how to spot gays:

There are many who wear suede shoes who are not homosexual, but in Europe and America the majority of homosexuals do. They favor green as a color in clothes and decorations. Men are given to an excessive display and use of the handkerchief. They tend to let the hair grow long, use scent and are frequently affected in speech, mincing in gait and feminine in mannerisms. They are often very gifted in the arts. They tend to exhibitionism. They can be cruel and vindictive, for sadism usually has a homosexual root. They are often given to moods.
...There is an unnecessary touching of hands, arms and shoulders. In the homosexual the elbow grip is a well-known sign.
Remaking Men, Paul Campbell, M.D. and Peter Howard, 1954, pages 60-62.

The son of one of Frank Buchman's early disciplines has said that it was an open secret that Buchman was gay himself. Gosh, doesn't this sound familar? (Larry Craig, Ted Haggart, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Glen Murphy, Jr.)

Why, even women are welcome!

AA even welcomes women, imagine that. Here's what AA thinks of women.

In Chapter 8 "To Wives" in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, a woman is instructed how she should react to news her alcoholic husband is cheating:

Sometimes there were other women. How heart breaking was this discovery; how cruel to be told they understood our men as we did not (Big Book, 2001).

In other words, how can you blame the husband? He was just seeking out someone who could understand him.

Here is what AA tells a wife to do with regard to her abusive alcoholic husband;

Don't condemn your alcoholic husband no matter what he says or does. He is just another very sick, unreasonable person. Treat him, when you can, as though he had pneumonia. When he angers you, remember that he is very ill (Big Book, 2001).

The book goes on to tell women exactly how to handle their alcoholic husband;

Your husband has begun to abuse alcohol. The first principle of success is that you should never be angry. Even though your husband becomes unbearable, and you have to leave him temporarily, you should, if you can, go without rancor. Patience and good temper are vitally necessary.

The next rule is that you should never tell him what to do about his drinking. If he gets the idea that you are a nag or a killjoy, your chance of accomplishing anything useful will be zero. He will use that as an excuse to drink some more. He will tell you he is misunderstood. This may lead to lonely evenings for you. He may seek someone to console him - not always another man (Big Book, 2001).

A woman should never get mad if her drunk husband drinks his paycheck or sleeps with other women. And, when the situation becomes intolerable, you should leave without making any waves. Why is this? To not disturb your husband or his drinking!

If this was not enough, the book tells a woman that she should not tell the husband what to do about his drinking, because it might backfire and cause him to have an affair
.

Read the June 2011 Issue of AA's The Pipeline

The June 2011 Issue of the Pipeline is available here. Gosh, why that's strange. Of all the issues for the last ten years, this is the only one not available. They removed it for some reason. Why would they do that?

Well, I have a scanned PDF version here.

AA: What The Science Says

AA is the opposite of evidence-based treatment.

Here are the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous:

We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
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.

Surrendering power (becoming powerless) is irrational. Psychology and Psychiatry are areas of science from which we have empowered ourselves to cure our illnesses. To dismiss all these resources and instead state that we are powerless is plain stupid. To place that power in God, an imaginary being for whose existence there is zero evidence, and our motives in believing (fear of death, our reason for existence, etc...) are completely suspect and self-serving, is irresponsible. AA is the opposite of evidence-based treatment.

AA: What the Science Says.

The low success rate of AA's religiously-based "treatment" reflects this stupidity. There have been only two scientifically valid studies done on the efficacy of AA.

The Ditman Study

The first study, the Ditman Study, was done in San Diego in 1964. The subjects were 301 "chronic drunk offenders" who where defined as having had two DUIs in the last three months or three DUIs in the last year. The subjects were randomly divided into three groups: an untreated group, an AA treatment group, and a clinical treatment (type not specified) group. After a year, there was no statistical differences between the three groups in terms of recidivism rate, rearrests, or in time elapsed prior to arrest. AA was no more effective than no treatment at all.

Ditman, K.S., Crawford, G.C., Forgy, E.W., Moskowitz, H., & MacAndrew, C. (1967). A controlled experiment on the use of court probation for drunk arrests. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124(2), 64-67.

The Brandsma Study

The second study, the NIAAA-funded "Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism," randomly assigned subjects to five groups: untreated, A.A., lay-led Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT), professionally-led one-on-one REBT, and one-on-one Freudian-based insight therapy. In terms of retention rate, AA was the worst with a 68% drop out rate. All the other groups had 40-46% drop out rates.

In terms of drinking behavior all treatments worked: professional REBT 80%; lay REBT 100%; insight, 92%; A.A. 67%; untreated, 50%; reported decreased drinking. Significantly, A.A. treated subjects were over four times more likely to binge drink compared with the control group, and nine times more likely than the lay-REBT group.

The authors of the study concluded:

AA seems to have definite limitations of social class, ideology, flexibility of adopting new techniques, and the type of personality it appeals to. Our study suggests further conformation of this in our severe dropout rate from this form of treatment. It is probably, as Ditman et al.'s (1967) work suggests and ours confirms, that AA is just not effective as a coerced treatment with municipal court offenders.

(Brandsma et al., 1980, p. 84, emphasis added)

Brandsma, J.M., Maultsby, M.C., & Welsh, R.J. (1980). Outpatient treatment of alcoholism: A review and comparative study. Baltimore: University Park Press.

AA's Triennial Surveys

The AA monograph, Comments on AA's Triennial Surveys, while not a controlled survey, is worthy of attention. The Triennial surveys are large surveys of several thousand AA members.

The Comments document indicates only a 5% retention rate after one year. This "5% success rate" often mentioned, therefore, is only a measurement of continued attendance. Anyone who has gone to AA meetings can attest to the fact that not all members remain abstinent. The success rate, therefore is less than 5%. Given that the spontaneous remission rate is between 3.7% to 7.4%, AA recovery rate may be even lower than doing nothing at all. AA could very well be preventing remission.

Alcoholics Anonymous. (n.d., presumably 1990). Comments on AA.s triennial surveys. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.

So Why Have States Chosen AA as a Mandatory Rehabilitative Treatment Program?

The science clearly shows A.A. is ineffective, while REBT/insight therapies have been shown to be effective. So why is the State mandating AA when other, more effective, alternatives are available? (I was told here in NH that only AA would be accepted--SMART Recovery, a from of REBT, would not.)

The answer should be obvious after examining AA's Twelve Steps (above) and noting the main difference between AA "therapy" and REBT/insight therapies. It all comes down to God and religion. Look at how many times the word "God" or "Him" appears in the twelve steps! AA members always argue, "it's not religious, it's spiritual"--which is complete nonsense. The Lord's Prayer is said, while holding hands, at the end of every single meeting I've been to. That is religious. It is not spiritual. In fact, it's cultish.

Christian fundamentalists, whose mission it is is to proselytize and convert the "unfortunates," are using influential lobbying groups to convince State Legislatures that AA is an effective and nonreligious treatment for alcoholism. It's a stealthy way of powerfully imposing their religious beliefs on a demonized segment of society, all with the State's blessings.

The Founding Fathers, particularly Adams and Jefferson, would be disgusted. As am I.

"We're All Powerless"

From Season 9, Episode 14, of South Park:

Bloody Mary
Tags: SOUTH
PARK more...

This Is Not A Form Of Brainwashing--The Pledge of Allegiance

"If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me."

—Sarah Palin, as quoted in a 2006 Alaska gubernatorial race questionnaire after being asked whether the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is offensive. Just days after she was selected as John McCain's running mate, the old questionnaire surfaced on political blogs across the U.S., with pundits pointing out that the Alaska Governor doesn't seem to know her American history. The pledge of allegiance wasn't written until 1892, and the phrase "under God" wasn't added until the 1950s.

The ideals represented in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights written by the founding fathers constitute one of the noblest endeavors at self governance ever attempted. I have nothing but the highest regard for them. People (especially Glenn Beck and his ilk) should take the time and effort to learn them.

The original pledge of allegiance, which first appeared in the September 8, 1892 issue of "The Youth's Companion," and a month later recited in schools across the nation read:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

In was in the beginning of the Cold War anti-communism movement in the U.S. that the words "under God" were added to the Pledge. On June 14, 1954, then U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill into law adding the phrase, declaring "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty" (Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249).

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

Under California law, “every public elementary school” must begin each day with “appropriate patriotic exercises.” Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that “[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy” this requirement.

Newdow I-IV: Does The Pledge of Allegiance Violate The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses?

On June 26, 2002, an atheist father in California objected to the Pledge being taught in his daughter's school and sued the School District, arguing that the addition of under God was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The complaint sought a declaration that the 1954 Act’s addition of the words “under God” violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, as well as an injunction against the School District’s policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge. This court found that the pledge did not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses.

Newdow then appealed. In June 2002 a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "(1) the 1954 Act adding the words ‘under God’ to the Pledge, and (2) [the Elk Grove School District's] policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause [of the Constitution]". Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002) (Newdow I).

The Elk Grove School District appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in June 2004, refused to hear the case stating that Michael Newdow "[lacked] standing to bring this suit in federal court."

On September 14, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton again denied Dr. Newdow's standing. However, he affirmed the standing of the new plaintiffs who were represented by Dr. Newdow. Bound by the 9th Circuit's previous ruling, Judge Karlton once again held "that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God. . .. [T]he school districts' policies violate the Establishment Clause." The opinion continues;"

"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.

"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism," the court continued. "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god.'"

Newdow's estranged partner, now a fundamentalist, appealed, and argued that their daughter was a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God. Newdow v. United States Congress, 313 F.3d 500, 502 (9thCir. 2002) (“Newdow II”). The court affirmed it's original holding.

The reaction was strong. President George W. Bush said that the court's decision was "ridiculous." Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle described it as just nuts." House Majority Whip Tom DeLay called it "sad" and "absurd." Senator Robert Byrd labeled the judges "stupid." The Senate unanimously approved a resolution in support of the Pledge. Members of the House of Representatives gathered on the front steps of the Capitol recite the Pledge en masse. After the 9th Circuit rejected a petition to review the decision en banc the following February, the panel stood by its holding but issued an amended opinion. Newdow v. United States Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir.2003) (“Newdow III”).

In the months following the court's decision, Attorney Generals from all 50 states filed papers asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, 49 of which joined a legal brief sponsored by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden. California filed a separate brief, also urging the Supreme Court to hear the case.

In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, (2004), an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation.

(Justice Thomas in his dissent wrote that "[t]he text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments." For Justice Thomas, an official State religion would apparently be constitutional.)

Almost immediately the Becket Fund, a religious group, led a group of plaintiffs and appealed the 9th Circuit's original ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Newdow v. United States Congress, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (“Newdow IV”). On Mar. 11, 2010, the court published its opinion upholding the constitutionality of the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students in public schools. The 2–1 majority found that the recitation did not constitute an establishment of religion prohibited by the United States Constitution.

So, we are back to where we started. However, I'm sure we haven't see the end of this. Of course my opinion, as an atheist, is that any law that espouses any religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause. To have my government force me to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being for which there is zero evidence seems crazy and, certainly, deeply offensive. But then again, the government is also forcing me to go to A.A. meetings where I'm coerced into holding hands and saying the Lord's prayer, too.

The Purpose of this Blog

I'm writing this blog for several reasons.

The first, and most important, is to voice my outrage at being forced by the State of New Hampshire to practice a religion I don't believe in. I was arrested and pleaded guilty to a DUI. in 2010. It was wrong, I am very sorry, and I am willing to go through a reasonable punitive and rehabilitative process. However, as a U.S. citizen, I should not be subject to a process run by evangelicals or forced to practice religion. I, like thousands of other New Hampshire residents found guilty of DUI, am being forced to complete State-sponsored Impaired Driver Intervention Programs (IDIPs), see Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselors (LADCs), and attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings for up to a year. Everyone I've encountered in this process is a former alcoholic and true believer in AA. Because the people in charge of making the determination of whether or not I've been rehabilitated are AA evangelicals, I have to pretend that I'm "with the program" in order to get my driving license back. This involves repenting and praying at AA meetings, and lying about my religious beliefs to my LADC who I must report to weekly for "therapy." For any State to do this is a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and abhorrent to the values on which this country was founded. Moreover, as a citizen, I resent my tax money being used to line the pockets of these organizations.

A second reason is to reveal the ineffectiveness and the religious/cult-ish nature of the twelve-step recovery movement, Alcoholics Anonymous. These recovery programs have been repeatedly and unanimously adjudged by the courts to be religious in nature. They have been proven by repeated, rigorous scientific studies to be ineffective, or worse. Real alcoholics need to be properly diagnosed and treated. Our current court-mandated programs see everyone as an alcoholic and prescribe treatment that is ineffective.

A third reason is to criticize the irrationality of religion in general, and to write about religious groups constant attempts to violate our First Amendment guarantees of being free from "the establishment of any law respecting religion." I don't care what idiotic God you worship (Xenu, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jehovah, Jesus) just don't force me to, okay? That's not too much to ask, is it?

A fourth reason is to tell my story and provide others with realistic expectations of the consequences of a DUI arrest and conviction. Roughly 5,000 people a year are arrested for DUI in New Hampshire, whose total population is only 1.3 million. If you drink and drive, or legally take medication and drive, it is highly probable that you will be arrested for DUI. In addition, New Hampshire has some of the harshest penalties. You or someone you know will likely be arrested for DUI I want you to know what you are in for in you've been arrested, or scare you if you haven't yet been arrested and drink and drive.

I was unaware of the full consequences of a DUI conviction. I entered into this process largely blind. My experience has been a series of one surprise after another. I still haven't gotten my license back, and I'm not sure when I will. This has been a long, frustrating, expensive and cryptic experience. Though the law is unambiguous, the administrative procedure is riddled with hidden traps. The administrative portion of the DUI requires subjective determinations of your progress through the rehabilitation process. Christian fundamentalist AA true-believers will be making these determinations. You will need to know what they want to hear.

A fifth reason is to chronicle the abuse of authority I and others have witnessed by the administrators of the Impaired Driver Intervention Programs. Administrators, working through very profitable organizations like Amethyst Foundation, Inc., routinely punish DUI offenders for vagaries such as "complaining" and "noncompliance" by withholding their driving privileges for over a year or more, while forcing them to attend AA meetings and LADC counseling sessions. These administrators feel compelled to inflict as much pain as possible, and are virtually unaccountable to anyone.

There is very little information on the web about this. The laws, administrative rules and regulations are there, but there is nothing about what you will actually go through. I wish there had been something there for me when I needed it. I hope this blog helps someone in a similar situation. Good luck.

A final reason for my creating this blog is to maintain my sanity. I'm being forced to attend AA meetings where people pray, chant in unison, make undignified public confessions, deny reality and reason, talk about their religious conversion and salvation, and pressure others to behave similarly. The duration of my license suspension depends upon whether I am deemed "rehabilitated." The people who make this determination are former drunks who are now gung-ho AA members: Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselors (LADCs), LADC-in-training, and others involved in the New Hampshire recovery system. They believe one drink makes you an "alcoholic"--someone with a life-long, incurable, progressive disease that only lifelong AA attendance and religious conversion will prevent you from dying from. They are spiteful, bitter, stupid people, who, now given some power and acknowledgement for probably the first time in their life, now desire to force their will on others and hurt them. My privilege to drive--to work, to mandated AA and counseling sessions, to the grocery store, to the drug store, to medical providers, etc...--in a rural area with no public transportation or affordable private transportation, is at the mercy of fervent, religious fundamentalists who want to repeatedly destroy my dignity to bolster their own damaged self-esteem.

(A standard, boilerplate, legal disclaimer up front. None of what I write in this blog should be construed as legal advice. I make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained here. The law changes very rapidly and, accordingly, I do not guarantee that any information on this blog or is accurate and up to date. Additionally, the law differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is subject to interpretation of courts located in each county. Legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case and the tools and information provided to you may not be an appropriate fit in your case. Nothing that you read or is provided on this web site should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.)