So just to clarify....
UK courts made an exceptional change to the law so that AA might be considered as a Charity...not that it behaves like a normal charity but solely because the courts felt AA should not be an entity expected to pay tax on voluntarily collected contributions. The law was twisted to achieve the correct outcome in principle.
Your friend in his article argues that people say very personal things to each other in AA and that confidentiality is important. Existing law does not allow for complete anonymity with regards to criminal activity so he argues AA COULD be classed as a religion...and this conferred the same confidentiality allowances as a clergy-parishioner relationship. So the right outcome is achieved in PRINCIPLE by twisting of the law.
That's what lawyers do. Just like they reclassify cakes to save on tax duty
Or financial advisors do to sabe their wealthy clients a little dough
I don't have to let any of these quirks redefine or invalidate my own hard fought experience
P