IOW… 🍒 🥧

 I’m going to try to post this in one piece. The immediate context is not important here (you can guess it readily enough):

/2 The clergy-penitent privilege was familiar in common law and is protected by statute in almost all American jurisdictions. It just says that if you consult a spiritual advisor in private for religious advice they can’t be compelled to disclose what you said.

/3 Traditionally that’s a Catholic priest in confession, but it applies to other faith traditions as well.

Note that ALL THIS DOES is prevent the state from compelling the religious advisor from disclosing a specific private communication.

/4 In form it’s like the attorney-client privilege: it just allows private communications with a particular kind of advisor.

But the American sentiment is that if any potential piece of evidence of a crime exists, not allowing the state to use it PROMOTES THE CRIME.

/5 Americans would likely support using torture to compel testimony if Dick Wolf phrased it right. Americans pay some limited lip service to rights but in general are prone to treating any limitation on state power whatsoever in the criminal context as pro-crime.

/6 Note that this decision does not say “a priest can threaten a kid not to testify against a parishioner.” It doesn’t allow anyone to destroy evidence. It doesn’t allow any attack on a victim. It doesn’t immunize the conduct. It doesn’t reduce a penalty.

/7 All it does is say “this particular narrow human communication can’t be used as evidence.” But to the American mindset, that’s the same as endorsing crime. That is the thinking of a people who have embraced the totalitarian mindset.

IOW, the “totalitarian mindset” is as American as violence and cherry pie. It’s just a matter of who is protecting us from them. Because I don’t trust anyone but me and thee; and I’m not too sure about thee.