legna

Perhaps these examples would help:

On June 11, 1996, the New York Court of Appeals ruled, in Griffin vs.Coughlin that the substance abuse program then in use by the New York Department of Corrections was unconstitutional because, "after a fair reading of the doctrinal literature of Alcoholics Anonymous, [the 12-step program was found to be] unequicocably religious."

In August, 1996, The U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District ruled, in Kerr v. Lind, et. al., that because AA is religious, an inmate's rights were violated when privileges and consideration for parole were withdrawn as a direct result of his refusal to participate in 12-step meetings.

In a 1994 case in federal court (O'Connor vs. Orange County and the State of California), AA was found to be "religious," and the State of California must now offer alternatives to 12-step programs in any state-funded or mandated program. Rational Recovery was identified as an acceptable alternative in that decision,

In 1994, a man in New York convicted of drunk driving was sentenced to AA as an alternative to imprisonment. In Warner vs. Orange County Department of Probation, he prevailed in a decision finding the defendant guilty of violating the First Amendment by "coercing the plaintiff to participate in religious exercises, an act which tends towards the establishment of a state religious faith."

No one needs to agree that AA is religious; everyone here can put forth the notion that AA is spiritual rather than religious if they like, but it seems that scoffing in contempt (and laughing at other peoples ideas qualifies) at the idea that many folks believe that it is, prior to investigation, is the pot calling the kettle black.

Not every religion says that all people need to believe the same. The Unity church comes to mind.