Right. No matter what I’d encourage the person to given himself/herself up.
In the long run, that’s what’s best.
I was pleased (surprized actually) when I first read this - but then I realized it was only a state court, and means nothing against the 5-4 bias of the US Supreme COurt.
THen ialso realized that the ruling was AGAINST religious right of the confessional, but it was a Protestant minister, not a Catholic priest.
BUT - similar process, what are “they” the US “spremes” going to say when the “inevitable” Muslim Sharia law case comes up in front of them? \
I can see it two ways:
Rule against “Right’s of the Religion” (rule down confessional privacy) in favor of the “State’s rights” to persecute (er, prosecute) their enemies. Particularly since that rules against the Catholic religion - which liberals hate and despise. Protestant religions get a “by” since they don’t carry that confessional privacy. Maybe. (Like you point out, there can be “grey” areas since the confessional boundaries are not as specific in different conversations.)
Besides, “some” protestant religions are “friendly” to the liberal dogma, and some are enemies. Who the Dept of Injustice decides to persecute will depend of which church is being sued/convicted for the confessional privacy. And who is Attorney General. But, more important, what the liberal religion decides they want their Supreme Court to rule.
Regardless, 4 of the Supremes will do EXACTLY what they are told every time.
Second: If (when!) Sharia Law comes up, 4 of those Supremes will do what they are told to do: Rule FOR the Muslims in power in Washington.
(PS. My uncle was 30 year Army Chaplin, retired back to priest duty into Bastrop-Austin TX as a traveling priest. We always kidded him that he couldn’t pickup a steady parish job because he had too many Masses served on the hood of jeep in the 50’s and 60’s in Vietnam, Germany, Hawaii, and Turkey.)