As an agnostic that has had success at a meditation/zen style AA with my "higher power" being AA itself, it definitely is bullshit that AA is required in court. Therapy and the Sinclair Method should be on the table. Only large cities like Austin, Texas have Atheist, Agnostic, LGBTQ+, and Zen style meetings.
AA definitely has a spiritual bias. While the founder of AA suggested several times to non-religious people to make AA itself their higher power, the literature is riddled with God. A lot of groups, especially outside of major cities, take the liberty of making it a Christian program.
Step 1 doesn't scapegoat responsibility. It recognizes that for some people, taking the first few sips causes a virtually uncontrollable impulse response to binge drink alcohol regardless of how much planning there was to stick to 1-2 drinks. That's the powerlessness. Step 1 is surrendering that an alcoholic cannot control drinking after the first drink. A lot of alcoholics spend dozens if not hundreds of nights thinking this time is different. This is the "restore to sanity" of step 2-3.
Steps 4-6 are about itemizing resentments, harm to others, fears, etc and then in step 9-10 making amends to those that you harmed so long as that amend doesn't harm others. Basically it removes the baggage of resentments that often causes struggling alcoholics to pick up that 1st drink.
One of the reasons why I think AA sometimes is more effective than therapy is because when alcoholics share the insane shit they've done, it breaks the ice for newcomers to share. When I went to therapy, I held everything back because it's insane especially to a non-alcoholic.
