DD
You are a very funny dude ( I do not mean it sarcastically ) I enjoy your posts. I took no offense at your post directed at me. But you are not thinking, chum.
Just try to take off your wt bigotry eyeglasses that you view the world with and look at this case just a little differently.
Any religious term such as clergy, penitence, priest, absolution, etc. that legislation chooses to use must fit into a generic equation that applies to all religions or the law is unconstitutional.
For example, although the JW do not use the term clergy or churches same as Christendom, they still benefit from laws that use the term clergy and church and confession and penance, etc. same as Jews and Moslems or any other religion does.
The JW have their own version or understating of how confession and Penance and Absolution should be applied, and to JW confidentiality does not mean privacy in a confession booth between 2 people, more is involved for them. My opinion is that it is unconstitutional if the JW cannot enjoy the immunity from reporting to the police laws solely because JW do not have a Catholic Church style confession privacy setting between 2 people only. I think that the immunity laws do apply to JW in their style of confession. The purpose of church immunity laws is not to establish that church confessions must be in a private setting between 2 people, but to guarantee the freedom of speech and communication to those seeking spiritual help (whatever that help should be and however the church handles the sinner religiously) from their church without fear of having to be turned over to the secular authorities by the church.