When the source you chose as the definition of the word ‘secular’ is itself mired with controversy because of multiple interpretations, it simply ratifies my post!

None of the other communication privileges (doctor-patient, lawyer-client, etc.) have anything to do with religion. The PDF you’ve linked to is unfortunately not available (one can read it ‘as HTML’), but Wikipedia does state: “In twenty-five states, the clergyman-communicant statutory privilege does not clearly indicate who holds the privilege. In seventeen states, the penitent’s right to hold the privilege is clearly stated. In only six states, both a penitent and a member of the clergy are expressly allowed by the statute to hold the privilege.” If I was a Catholic living in the US, I would surely know which state to go for confession!

Of course, my personal view is very much in line with yours.

The “Seal of Confession” that guarantees absolute confidentiality to the Catholic priests is among several such privileged communication rights guaranteed to doctor-patient, lawyer-client, journalist-source, husband-wife etc. It is an exemption to the Establishment Clause granted under the Free Exercise of Religion Clause, both part of the First Amendment. The constitutionality of the exemption of certain religious practices, including confession, can be challenged under the Establishment Clause, and can be overturned if it did not pass the Lemon Test. To pass, the action/law (1) must have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3)must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

All fifty states in the U.S, have granted confessional privileges, but I understand that several states have infringed upon them too, for example, by compelling the clergy to report on child abuse. Here is an article that I came across on this issue: Karen Ross, “Revealing Confidential Secrets: Will It Save Our Children?”, Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 28:963. I haven’t read it thoroughly, but I thought that I’d pass it along to others more interested in this than I am.

My personal view is that the Establishment Clause should prevail under all circumstances, and no exemption to any religious practice that may involve the infringement of the rights of others should be granted under the Free Expression of Religion Clause [the Lemon Test may have accomplished this to a large extent]. Such a blanket prohibition may not have been required [Jefferson and Madison may have wanted it] in the practically mono-religious 18th century U.S.A., but it’s a must in a multi-religious society such as India, imo.

RTF: Yes, the concept of democracy is also under the same threat of epistemological confusion! While there were clear distinguishing and defining elements of Democracy in the past, they’ve been ridiculed by various countries claiming to be democracies.

Rambodoc: Thanks for clarifying, I now understand. BTW, you used a term “straw man” that I had almost used myself in the original post, before editing it!

Nita: (I think) Prerna was quoting from my post using copy-paste!

Oemar: Thanks for listing other examples of the failure of secularism — I wasn’t aware about Haj subsidy! And no, far from being off the topic — you’re bang on it. A word/concept that can be twisted to suit any person and has no clear definition, is a sure path to disaster.