UPDATED: Shasta County atheist to get $2 million for First Amendment violation

[rug]

Posted: 10:07 AM, Oct 14, 2014
Updated: 8 mins ago

The California government and a nonprofit will pay a Shasta County atheist nearly $2 million for violating his civil rights when he was sent back to prison for refusing to participate in a religious drug-treatment program while on parole.

Barry Hazle Jr. and his attorney, John G. Heller, announced the settlement this morning at a press conference in San Francisco.

Hazle was imprisoned for just over 100 days after refusing the drug-treatment program that centered on submitting one’s fate to a “higher power.” Heller said the program also included prayer and references to God.

But when Hazle asked for another treatment program, he was told Westcare’s 12-step program was the only one available.

http://www.redding.com/news/local-news/shasta-county-atheist-to-get-2-million-for-first-amendment-violation

[BlueJazz]

1. I have to admire him: To thine own self be true

[cbayer]

2. While I think this is the right decision, I remain baffled as to why there wasn't a

non-religious program available somewhere.

Granted, this is in the middle of nowhere.

[Fumesucker]

3. There probably was a non-religious program but they just didn't let him use it

A prisoner who doesn't love Jesus and God?

Nobody needs the 12 step higher power program more... (channeling their thinking)

You have to realize that there are virtually zero atheists in prison, getting Jesus is one of the only ways to convince the authorities that you have changed your ways and are ready to straighten up and fly right. An old neighbor of mine was a prison psychologist and we talked about this sort thing from time to time.

[cbayer]

5. They claimed that there was not program, and he wasn't a prisoner at the time.

I am familiar with the prison population and there is a high degree of religiosity within that population. Some of it is legitimate and some manipulative.

But I do think there should be non-religious recovery programs.

[edhopper]

4. I would guess it has something to do

with the strong religious beliefs of those in charge.

But i must be wrong, because religion is never the reason.

[cbayer]

6. Sarcasm is not very effective in this context, edhopper.

Religious beliefs of those in charge clearly played a role. That's why they reincarcerated him, I would bet.

[edhopper]

7. I thought you didn't think beliefs matter

Why speculate if only it's their actions that matter.

[cbayer]

11. Exactly, and in this case I think that their religious beliefs caused actions

which were wrong and for which they are going to pay.

Must you try to find something wrong with what I say when we actually agree?

[edhopper]

14. I realize I am

Being particularly snarly today.

[cbayer]

15. Actually, I am finding you unusually engaging today.

I was going to tell you that earlier, but wasn't sure how to put it.

At any rate, I have truly enjoyed talking with you today and hope we will continue to have discussions in the future.

[edhopper]

17. Of course

[Goblinmonger]

8. Thank you for admitting that.

No sarcasm intended. Sometimes it seems like you do everything you can to not say religion was/is the problem. Appreciated.

Somewhat related side note: my sister-in-law is part of a crazy-ass conservative literalist church (never said that to her--don't worry). Her husband has had substance abuse problems at various points in his life. HE (also a member of said church) thinks AA is too religious. And, their son married a woman from a church that my sister-in-law called "whack-a-doodle" (which, when the far right thinks something is too far right--well, I don't know what means but it sounds like the apocalypse) and my nephew, though marrying there, wasn't allowed to become a member there because he, too, had been to AA and the preacher there felt you needed to let God take the dependency from you and not rely on something Godless like AA. So that was kind of rambly, I know, but it baffles me what is out there for religion sometimes.

[cbayer]

10. I do object when I don't think religion is the issue

but I post articles and make comments frequently that challenge and attack religious beliefs that cause harm.

It is a myth that I do not.

This family story is so complex I feel like I need a diagram, lol!

AA and religion have a complex relationship, don't they. "Bill" was clearly very much influenced by religion and the Big Book reflects that.

And while some meetings are very religious, others are not at all and give lots of leeway when it comes to an individuals definition of "higher power".

In addition, there are programs that don't use the higher power concept at all, like Rational Recovery.

For people in recovery, what they need and want from a program can vary dramatically, and, frankly, it really shouldn't be anybody else's business what they do as long as it is working for them.

I think you and I most likely agree that the need to condemn someone else's religion when yours is clearly not perfect is a repulsive approach. But like people in recovery, everyone has to find their own road and if it's working for you, that is what is most important, imo.

[edhopper]

9. Somehow I think this will just

Make the "good Christians" in charge think they are being persecuted.

[cbayer]

12. Doesn't matter what they think, they still have to pay up

and I doubt they will make this mistake again.

[edhopper]

13. It matters what they think

Because they will work to find a easy around it.
You see what they believe does matter.

[cbayer]

16. I don't disagree. Their beliefs led them to actions

and those actions have been found illegal. There will be no easy way around this, I don't think.

[edhopper]

18. That's why

I think beliefs should be challenged and countered when need be.

[cbayer]

19. And it's why I believe they should be challenged and countered when they lead

to objectionable actions.

Otherwise, I pretty much think we should leave people alone and not judge them for their private beliefs.

[edhopper]

20. Do you include

publicly talking about their beliefs as actions?

I think this came up once before, and there was a differentiation between private and public beliefs.

[cbayer]

21. Not sure what you mean by "publicly talking".

I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to engage in discussions about their beliefs, but there are times when it really is an action. Examples might include members of the legislature who talk about their personal beliefs in order to get a piece of legislation passed or a minister who is telling his congregation not to get vaccinations.

But it's not always a clear line and as a strong advocate of free speech rights, I think one has to be very careful when decided when that line is crossed.