Not at all

[whatthehey]

You are simply inferring statements I never made, and ignoring ones I did make explicitly.

Let's try and put both together in one statement.

Religious fredom must be universal in that it applies to all religions, from mainstream ones to weird ones to none. That universal freedom must include free exercise of any religious belief or practise which does not cause direct harm. No contradictions, sloppy logic or shifting goalposts.

It's really that simple. If you and I are to be free to avoid church services and call prayer a waste of time, others need to be free to value those things. We'd lose and they would win if this were not so.

Religions that don't have confessional secrecy, to my knowledge, don't have a dogmatic expectation of confession (I'm assuming Orthodox priests are treated as Catholic priests are under law). A Hindu is under no obligation to tell a priest he did anything wrong, a devout Catholic is. Might as well say it's a problem with religious freedom that Catholics can eat beef. We wouldn't mandate beef eating, so why mandate an open confesion?

Who is encumbered by laws Catholics are free from? There are quite a few privileged communications apart from confession, and the guilty obviously need not incriminate himself. Because confession of mortal sins is mandatory for Catholics, you force a person to incriminate themselves by unsealing confessions, if they want to exercise that religion. Wouldn't that be encumbering Catholics with a law others are free from, ironically enough?

Could you do a quick link or precis of what youthink I've missed. It's not like you are addressing every point either, or anybody else, but if you want answers to specific points I will oblige.