Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Thank the Higher Power for the First Amendment
Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit joined several other federal and state courts in ruling that compulsory A.A. attendance runs afoul of the Establishment Clause. The case involved Ricky Inouye, a meth addict on parole in Hawaii who was ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings and was sent back to prison because he refused, saying the program clashed with his Buddhist beliefs. "For the government to coerce someone to participate in religious activities strikes at the core of the Establishment Clause," the unanimous three-judge panel said, noting that "reverence for 'a higher power' is a substantial component of the AA/NA program." (A.A., which insists "we're not religious but spiritual," took no position on the ruling.) Not only were Inouye's rights violated, the 9th Circuit said, but his parole officer, Mark Nanamori, did not deserve qualified immunity for his role in returning Inouye to prison, since "the vastly overwhelming weight of authority on the precise question in this case held at the time of Nanamori's actions that coercing participation in programs of this kind is unconstitutional."
A PDF of the 9th Circuit decision is available here. The addiction expert (and lawyer) Stanton Peele, who discussed the First Amendment implications of coerced A.A. participation in reason back in 2001 (the same year Inouye's parole was revoked), notes that "compulsory 12-step participation is still standard practice around the country."
|9.12.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Sweet!
(Regardless of her song, Amy Winehouse should probably go to rehab,
though.)
|9.12.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Agreed. I don't think a whole lot of people are aware of AA's religious nature.
|9.12.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Well, yeah, Dan, that, and the fact that a lot of people seem to have no problem at all compelling religious practice.
|9.12.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Yeah for letting drunks and meth addicts to wonder around
without serious outpatient treamtnet!
Seriously, if this results in people being locked up longer in
institutions to "ensure" they are clean and sober in order to
placate a public that demands addicts to be "clean and sober," how
much of a victory is this?
|9.12.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Anonymouse,
How much help do you think would come from the coercion
anyway?
If the guy did his time in jail, he shouldn't have extra punishment
layered on top.
|9.12.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Not only were Inouye's rights violated, the 9th Circuit
said, but his parole officer, Mark Nanamori, did not deserve
qualified immunity for his role in returning Inouye to prison,
since "the vastly overwhelming weight of authority on the precise
question in this case held at the time of Nanamori's actions that
coercing participation in programs of this kind is
unconstitutional."
Can someone translate this into non-legalese for me? I find the
loss of immunity angle the most interesting part of the ruling.
|9.12.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Anonymouse,
People are saying "Yay" because of the nature of AA / NA and the
insistence that people submit to a "higher power." Outpatient
treatment does not need to have this component and compelling
attendence where this is a requirement is a Bad Thing (see
Establishment Clause).
Episiarch|9.12.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Compelling anything after serving your time is bullshit, like
that judge forbidding the guy who got convicted for his BSDM antics
from "viewing Internet porn".
On top of that, AA is EXPLICITLY religious. I have known alcoholics
who loved AA, claimed it was what saved them, and completely gushed
about its religious nature.
Good fucking ruling.
ed|9.12.07 @ 12:53PM|#
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.
Religion? What religion?
Ayatollah Usoe|9.12.07 @ 1:00PM|#
My ex got addicted to country line dancing. Finally I had to coerce her into joining a two-step program.
|9.12.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Today's "Freethought of the Day" seems to have a better "prayer"
for me:
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to
mankind--that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the
ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done
to clear and honest thinking.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly
useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however
virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. . .
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the
evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech . . .
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find
out what it is made of, and how it is run.
I believe in the reality of progress.
But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe
that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it
is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is
better to know than be ignorant.
-- Mencken's Creed, cited by George Seldes in Great Thoughts
http://www.ffrf.org/day/
|9.12.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Can someone translate this into non-legalese for me? I find
the loss of immunity angle the most interesting part of the
ruling.
It is interesting. Let me see if I can explain without resort to
legalese.
As you probably know, federal and state governments have sovereign
immunity from being sued by citizens (with certain exceptions).
That immunity extends to government employees when they act within
the scope of their jobs. However, this type of immunity is not as
universal--it is "qualified", in other words.
The doctrine of qualified immunity is kinda complicated, but
basically it boils down to this: a government official loses his
immunity if he knowingly violates your constitutional rights, but
not if he reasonably thought he was acting in a constitutional
manner. These cases turn on whether the constitutional right at
issue is "clearly established." There's a whole body of case law on
the subject that I won't get into.
Here, the Ninth Circuit is saying that compulsory AA attendance was
such a clear violation of the First Amendment, that any reasonable
parole officer would have known about it and not required such
attendance. While I obviously agree with the underlying
interpretation of the First Amendment, I didn't know that there was
such a body of case law on AA that it would be a "clearly
established right." But there you go.
x,y|9.12.07 @ 1:21PM|#
I second ChrisO's analysis.
But I don't think the case law necessarily has to be on point,
i.e., specifically dealing with AA. It's been clear for a very long
time that the state cannot force or coerce people into
religiously-affiliated programs.
The 9th Circuit gets one right ... for a change.
addiction|9.12.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Here's a website you may find useful. http://www.addicted.com is a site for friends, families, and those who suffer from various addictions.
|9.12.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Put the religion aside for a moment and consider the
effectiveness of AA programs.
The facts (as I recall them) are that folks who enter AA programs
or no more (or less) likely to stop drinking than an someone who
receives no assistance whatsoever.
I couldn't find any recent stats to back this up but if anyone can
post some...
|9.12.07 @ 1:42PM|#
I had to go to AA as part of an underage drinking ticket (long
story, but basically got railroaded by Hanover County courts for
what should have been a $75 ticket).
I told them strait up that I was coerced to attend (nudge from the
judge, as they called it), and I said to leave me alone, which they
did for the most part.
Every once of the thing was Christian... and very boring. I had
almost considered speaking and just making up some really fucked up
alcoholic story.
Point of interest: one meeting did seem like the Exorcist, because
some guy started foaming at the mouth right in the middle of step 6
or something. That was pretty sweet.
|9.12.07 @ 1:45PM|#
ed | September 12, 2007, 12:53pm | #
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Ayn Rand once said that, stripped of the invocation of god, the
Boethius [sp?] prayer was a good way of looking at life.
|9.12.07 @ 1:46PM|#
I wonder how much of the fact that he was protesting because he was Buddhist and not atheist had to do with this ruling. I wouldn't be surprise to see that it's because AA's doctrine favors Monotheism over Buddhism that this was struck down, and not because of its inherent spiritual/religious content. It's still a long way from having the 10 commandments posted in the courthouse, but it's still not an abdication of religion altogether.
|9.12.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Correction: Every ounce of the thing ...
Also, I clicked on the addiction.com link above, and saw a picture
of a guy who claimed to be a sex addict.
I would just like to ask... WHAT THE FUCK defines one as a sex
addict?
I am a 25-year-old male, and if I could find some way to get by not
working, I would like to have sex 24 hours a day.
Does that make me a sex addict or a rational human following my
evolutionary instinct?
bill|9.12.07 @ 1:47PM|#
I disagree. It was a condition of his parole. When you are on parole you are still under the control of the state. If he had said at his parole hearing that he would not attend the meetings the parole board could have said "Fine, enjoy the rest of your stay in jail".
wsdave|9.12.07 @ 1:59PM|#
bill,
The problem then is that the state is saying "If you'll go and do
our God thing, we'll let you out of jail early.".
|9.12.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"""The facts (as I recall them) are that folks who enter AA
programs or no more (or less) likely to stop drinking than an
someone who receives no assistance whatsoever. ""
I do know people who went (NA in this case) and are now sober. I
give NA, limited credit. The guy was really ready to quit, NA got
him started but it was his will that carried him the rest of the
way.
The purpose of the religious element is to get people to accept
that they are too weak to do it alone and that they need a higher
power to help them. I imagine a prison guard could provide that
function, or a sober friend, if they have any. Having said that, I
believe AA is fine for people who wish to join, but I fully agree
with the 9th court's ruling. No one should ever have the power to
force you to acknowledge any God. What's the difference if it's our
government or OBL trying force religion on you with a gun? Both
want to destroy your life if you do not comply.
wsdave|9.12.07 @ 2:04PM|#
As for the partial immunity thing, the parole officer is told by
the court that if this guy doesn't do AA, he has to go back to
jail. The parole officer, knowing that the ruling goes against the
constitution, but also knowing that he has a family to support,
fulfills his job description (which in this case happens to be
illegal).
Is the officer at fault, the person who wrote the job description,
the judge who could have the officer put in jail for obstruction of
justice (or whatever), all of the above, or none of the above? Or
something else altogether?
|9.12.07 @ 2:07PM|#
I had a friend tell her PO that she would not attend the AA meetings due to their religious nature, and the PO was fine with that.
Russ 2000|9.12.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Yogi's right. I can't believe no atheists have been compelled by
the court system to go to AA/NA without putting up a constitutional
fight.
This is why I am agnostic but if hardpressed will admit to
monotheism - the hardpressers never go any further to find that I
am only admitting to the possibility of satan as the one true
god.
|9.12.07 @ 2:16PM|#
bill,
His parole condition was that he was required to attend a drug
treatment program.
He made clear his objection to religious based programs prior to
his parole in a letter submitted to the parole board that included
citations from previous cases where it was determined that
compelled attendence to religious based programs was
unconstitutional.
His parole officer was aware of his objection and should have
clearly understood that his parole condition was for drug treatment
not a certain "brand" of treatment.
It helps to read the ruling.
|9.12.07 @ 2:19PM|#
But I don't think the case law necessarily has to be on
point, i.e., specifically dealing with AA. It's been clear for a
very long time that the state cannot force or coerce people into
religiously-affiliated programs.
The case law doesn't have to be an exact match, but courts are less
likely to find a "clearly established right" from previous case law
based on widely differing facts. It's all about determining whether
a government official could figure out from case law if his
intended action would be unconstitutional. And that can obviously
differ from case to case. I mostly deal with this issue in the
context of government whistleblowers attempting to sue the
supervisors who fired them or treated them like shit based on the
content of their speech. It gets complicated.
The parole officer, knowing that the ruling goes against the
constitution, but also knowing that he has a family to support,
fulfills his job description (which in this case happens to be
illegal).
If the parole officer was fired for refusing to engage in a clearly
illegal or unconstitutional act, he could bring a big 'ol slam-dunk
lawsuit against his agency and supervisors, with no immunity
problems whatsoever.
wsdave|9.12.07 @ 2:20PM|#
de stijl,
Aahh, I should have RTFA. The parole officer WAS solely responisble
for putting the guy back in vs. AA. Sue his ass into next week.
bill|9.12.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Well then the AA attendance wasn't "compulsory". In other words the "State" wasn't forcing him to go to AA. The PO stepped beyond the bounds of the terms of the parole. Some higher authority in the prison system should have stepped in and fixed the situation.
|9.12.07 @ 2:32PM|#
bill,
The state was compelling him to attend an outpatient drug program
as a condition of his parole. The parole officer insisted that the
program be of the AA / NA variety.
|9.12.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Agreed. I don't think a whole lot of people are aware of AA's religious nature.
Well, the fact that courts and agents of the courts feel that they
need to micromanage people's lives leads to situations where they
are going to inevitably infringe on people's rights.
There is no way for a judge or parole officer to know the religious
implication of every random action that they force someone into
doing, as there is just too many people who need their lives
controlled by government in too many ways. Sometime, somewhere,
somehow, a judge is going to order someone to do something
religious. That is just collateral damage of the police state.
|9.12.07 @ 2:49PM|#
I had to attend 3 months of "abstinence based group sessions"
(code for AA) and "prove it". The only secular meeting was a 40
minute drive away. And it was doubtful the court would approve of
it. So I turned it into a research project and attended AA meetings
in 12 different locations. Some observations:
-Its a Christian religious ceremony complete with the lords
prayer
-Its a cult like atmosphere
-Due to the lowering of the DUI limits to .8 AA meetings are being
flooded with new people and long time "participants" are non to
happy about it
-you never graduate - I met people who have attended weekly
meetings over 30 years
-most have other issues that they are not getting help for (the
comment "dude - you are drinking all the time because you are gay
and won't acknowledge it - so here is the address to three gays
bars" got me in a little bit of trouble)
-the meetings don't work
-there are no statistics kept on whether or not it works because
-ya know- their "anonymous"
-they are not really "anonymous"
bill|9.12.07 @ 3:05PM|#
de stijl,
UH, can you read what I wrote? I said the "AA" program wasn't
compulsory and that it was the PO who said it was.
My point being why was this matter not handled administratively (
the parole board telling the PO he's wrong and to let the man go)
instead of it having to go to the appeals court.
Additionally the parole board wasn't "compelling" him to do
anything. He would have AGREED to go to treatment to get the hell
out of jail. He could have refused the condition and finished out
his sentence. Again, the caveat being he shouldn't have been in
jail anyway.
|9.12.07 @ 3:10PM|#
My girlfriend is attending a self-help group for compulsive talkers. It's called on-and-on-anon.
|9.12.07 @ 3:13PM|#
bill,
Sorry. The way I read what you wrote was that you were conflating
AA with all treatment program. My apoloies.
M|9.12.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Behold, a libertarian alternative
to AA:
We do not believe that members of AA are helped because their program does not explain how to actually quit drinking or using. Instead, they promote a passive, dependent approach in which sobriety is an indirect result of self-improvements and divine intervention. We believe that there is too much at stake to depend on others, including God, for that which we can do ourselves. To seek God while in the grip of addiction is absurd; addicted people cannot conceive of a power higher than their own addiction.
[snip]
In AA doctrine, free will is just an illusion of a mysterious disease....
Rational Recovery's founder, Jack Trimpey, runs a campaign in
opposition to court-mandated AA "treatment" on the grounds of its
violation of the Establishment clause, apart from his belief that
12-Step programs are counterproductive. I have no first-hand
experience of drug-addiction, but I've heard him speak and find his
method more credible than faith-based, let alone compulsory
faith-based approaches (I write as a Christian).
|9.12.07 @ 3:22PM|#
One important aspect is to remember the quote from AA "We're spiritual, not religious." The great patriarch of the scientific study of religion JZ Smith told me that to him there is absolutely no difference between those two terms, for the academic they are all still "religion" people are just fooling themselves.
|9.12.07 @ 3:23PM|#
In Florida all the treatment programs recognized by the state
are 12-step or AA type programs.
I wonder if it's the same in HI.
|9.12.07 @ 3:26PM|#
I am a 25-year-old male, and if I could find some way to get
by not working, I would like to have sex 24 hours a day.
Enjoy it while you can, Tactix. Another couple of decades and that
24 hours a day thing ain't happening.
|9.12.07 @ 3:28PM|#
That might have been clearer if i had written:
...the only treatment programs recognized by the
state...
I have never heard of anyone contesting them on First Amendment
grounds.
I suspect most people just keep low and coast thru 'til the "course
of treatment" is finished.
Anonymous|9.12.07 @ 3:37PM|#
"-Its a Christian religious ceremony complete with the lords
prayer"
The lords prayer doesn't specifically mention Jesus or any specific
deity which is why AA approves of it's use.
"-Its a cult like atmosphere"
I'm not really sure how you define that. I don't think it's any
more of a cult atmosphere than a comic book convention or a
political meetup.
"-Due to the lowering of the DUI limits to .8 AA meetings are being
flooded with new people and long time "participants" are non to
happy about it"
This is true although AA's official position is to have no
position. I generally don't like people in our meetings who don't
want to be there. When I would lead meetings I always signed the
court cards at the beginning of the meetings instead of the end. I
also told those guys that they didn't have to stay if they didn't
want to. Some left and most stuck around to listen.
"-you never graduate - I met people who have attended weekly
meetings over 30 years"
People who go to AA for an extended period of time go because they
want to, not because they have to. It is not school. Meetings are a
social network where people help each other stay away from
alcohol.
"-most have other issues that they are not getting help for (the
comment "dude - you are drinking all the time because you are gay
and won't acknowledge it - so here is the address to three gays
bars" got me in a little bit of trouble)"
As opposed to all the perfectly healthy and sane people walking
around with no "issues" in their life.
"-the meetings don't work"
My 13 years of sobriety disagrees with you.
"-there are no statistics kept on whether or not it works because
-ya know- their "anonymous""
Would you prefer a state sponsored program funded by tax dollars
that audits results and then decides it needs more tax dollars
every year?
"-they are not really "anonymous""
Explain what this means.
AA is a private organization that is completely not for profit and
has absolutely no opinion on anything. It doesn't take any
government money and certainly doesn't make an kind of "deals" with
the court system. AA puts up with court cards because that's what
the courts want. That's all there is to it. It's not like AA is
making any sort of effort to recruit members by using the court
system.
The reason AA puts up with court card attendees is because it can't
object to them. That is it's policy on everything. I would think
libertarians would appreciate an organization like this as opposed
to state sponsored rehab facilities or "drug court"
boondoggles.
|9.12.07 @ 3:48PM|#
The lords prayer doesn't specifically mention Jesus or any
specific deity which is why AA approves of it's use.
GFGIAT
It is called the Lord's Prayer [note caps and
apostrophe] because it is spoken by Christ. See Matthew 6:9-13 and
Luke 11:2-4.
I don't think you can get more explicitly Christian than that.
Anonymous|9.12.07 @ 3:56PM|#
"It is called the Lord's Prayer [note caps and apostrophe]
because it is spoken by Christ. See Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke
11:2-4.
I don't think you can get more explicitly Christian than
that."
I'm not arguing that it isn't a Christian prayer. I'm just saying
that nowhere in the prayer does it mention Christ specifically.
It's ambiguous. People who don't know better wouldn't know that it
was Christian simply by hearing it, you'd have to know the context,
which isn't discussed in the meetings.
It's distinctly different than say for example the Nicene Creed.
Which would not be appropriate to use in an AA meeting according to
AA rules.
|9.12.07 @ 4:02PM|#
"I'm not arguing that it isn't a Christian prayer. I'm just
saying that nowhere in the prayer does it mention Christ
specifically. It's ambiguous."
Oh, well, as long as the intent is to deceive people who don't know
any better into reciting a Christian prayer, it's okay to force it
on those who do know better. Yeah, you're right, how could
there possibly be any libertarian objection?
Anonymous|9.12.07 @ 4:07PM|#
"Oh, well, as long as the intent is to deceive people who don't
know any better into reciting a Christian prayer, it's okay to
force it on those who do know better. Yeah, you're right, how could
there possibly be any libertarian objection?"
I agree with the court ruling. I don't like the idea of court cards
and don't think anyone should be forced to go to AA meetings.
However, as I explained before AA can't have an opinion either way
on the issue. It's not AA's fault that courts send DUI offenders to
meetings.
AA is not "forcing" anything on anyone. It's saying a prayer at
their private meetings which aside from court cards are completely
100% voluntary.
So why the hate?
|9.12.07 @ 4:15PM|#
I'm just saying that nowhere in the prayer does it mention
Christ specifically. It's ambiguous.
Right. So why not:
"in the name of God, the compassionate, the
merciful"?*
Answer: Because they invoke a deity. In other words, they are
explicitly religious. I don't care whether it is invoking Zeus, you
may not force people to participate in a religious observances,
assuming the Constitution means anything.
*Note: Rhetorical question, JIC it needs explaining.
VM|9.12.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Why is this Mr. Good fucking Mr. God? More important, are they wearing costumes, and what kind of lube do they prefer?
Anonyomous|9.12.07 @ 4:30PM|#
"Because they invoke a deity. In other words, they are
explicitly religious. I don't care whether it is invoking Zeus, you
may not force people to participate in a religious observances,
assuming the Constitution means anything."
Explicitly "religious" but not explicitly Christian. We've moved
the goalposts now. I'd argue that "God" not tied to a particular
deity name (Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Christ) is actually "Spiritual"
as opposed to "Religious".
Regardless I agree with your point that no one should be forced by
a court to attend AA meetings to participate in "spiritual"
observances.
My bit on the Lord's Prayer was to explain how AA isn't
specifically "Christian" even though it essentially ripped off a
Christian prayer for their own use. Why they did this I don't know,
maybe the guy who thought of it had an agenda, but either way it
doesn't break AA rules that basically state that sharing about
Jesus in an AA meeting is not allowed. You won't find any mention
of Jesus in any official AA literature either.
|9.12.07 @ 4:41PM|#
I think anonymous defended AA quite well. Give the AA guys and gals the freedom of association thing and get on the governments ass.
|9.12.07 @ 4:52PM|#
VM
Mr Good was wearing a Royal Doulton pattern teapot, while Mr. God
was wearing a Tiffany pattern.
The lube was Procto-gel.
M|9.12.07 @ 5:24PM|#
God In A Teapot
Ah, so that would be Typhon-Seth.
Many mansions, I guess. Thank you.
|9.12.07 @ 5:49PM|#
@anonymous
I let my original comments stand but I would state congrats and
good luck. AA worked for you. But the limited stats that are
available say that AA works no more or no less than other methods
including 'cold-turkey' (like in my case). Between 5 and 15%
depending on who you ask. Think about that for a moment - we are
mandating religious programs for people that have at least an 85%
failure rate.
|9.12.07 @ 6:34PM|#
Think about that for a moment - we are mandating religious
programs for people that have at least an 85% failure
rate.
Yoshi, what's the failure rate for incarceration. Just asking.
DannyK|9.12.07 @ 7:04PM|#
I don't think AA is a religious group (the "higher power" can be anything), but I'd be happy if they stopped ordering people to AA. AA is a great example of a "voluntary association" that works spectacularly well -- for some people. Throwing a lot of resentful DUI offenders into the mix doesn't help.
|9.12.07 @ 7:48PM|#
Also don't forget that one AA group may differ dramatically from
another AA group in the same area (or even change itself over
time.) I remember reading an article (I think Washington Post)
which was talking about a "take-over" by one of the local AA groups
by a group of individuals who were very different--I seem to
remember it ended up with accusations of turning the AA group into
something with a much harsher, "cult-like" atmosphere.
Oh, and spirituality may or may not have anything to do with one or
plural deities. Just sayin'.
decimaldame|9.12.07 @ 7:53PM|#
Okay, puleeeeze, people....It's .08, not .8! You'd be dead with a BAC of .8...
x,y|9.12.07 @ 9:07PM|#
I'm not sure who said it, but the effectiveness of the program is not the issue; and I don't think arguing about it one way or the other is productive. Taxes are great (at the right point on the Laffer curve) at raising revenue. Doesn't make them moral, though.
Tom|9.13.07 @ 5:43AM|#
I am a 25-year-old male, and if I could find some way to get by not working, I would like to have sex 24 hours a day.
Does that make me a sex addict or a rational human following my evolutionary instinct?
You're probably fine. The guy who skips work, masturbates until
chafed, and despairs about it has a problem.
Tom|9.13.07 @ 5:47AM|#
I'd argue that "God" not tied to a particular deity name (Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Christ) is actually "Spiritual" as opposed to "Religious".
"God" refers to a deity. Capitalized, it means a supreme deity, usually a sole deity. Even out of context, the Lord's Prayer addresses a Lord/Father/King deity in heaven who has plans for earth and forgives sin.
|9.13.07 @ 12:27PM|#
You're probably fine. The guy who skips work, masturbates
until chafed, and despairs about it has a problem.
But probably less of a problem than the guy who does that AT
work.
|9.23.07 @ 5:14PM|#
As a nurse on probation for substance abuse, The california board of nursing forces all probationary nurses to attend this 12 step crap! I am clean today but its not due to a "higher power"..its due to random drug testing! I hope all licensing boards stop this abuse of power now!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245