Your examples are ridiculous. First of all those are religious oriented laws. And in countries where religion IS the law of the land, those things are enforced.
Absolutely. Because the majority founding fathers were deists and didn't believe that God interfered in the affairs of men, and didn't believe the laws of this land should favor any religious institution.
The examples were meant to be ridiculous. And I don't understand how you failed to see the implications of them. Or that only a "theocracy" would commit such crimes. Just look up the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Enver Hoxha, Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung. And not just against the religious either, just anybody they didn't fit into their vision for their countries. That's not a justification, in case you attempt to interpret it that way, I'm simply rejecting the notion that such crimes are limited to religious groups, past or present.
So yes, the "law of the land" is just that slippery. It hasn't happened in US because our Founding Fathers decided not to establish a state religion AND did not think the "law of the land" should control what or how the people practice their faith.
Which is exactly why in the US, a priest shouldn't be protected from consequences of hiding a knowledge of a crime under the 'seal of confession.' And why I think they should be able to do it in Ireland either.
Men are ruled by laws of men. Not invisible fantasy people.
The 1st Amendment has be interpreted by many judges in the complete opposite of what you just wrote. I'm not a scholar on Ireland's civil rights, so I can't answer intelligently on that.
And I also like to know how these laws will be enforced. If a child molestor is found in a parish, whether it is a priest or simply a parishoner, will all the priest in the general vicinity be thrown in jail? It's catch-22 since a priest can neither confirm or deny what was said in confession.
If I were a benevolent diety I would permit my servents to take actions to protect the innocent from those who are clearly not penitent and are a threat to the mental and physical well being of others. (as in turn them into the proper authorities if they are a clear and present threat).
I'm not a diety, so I don't know. Strictly speaking from a religious point of view, people that commit such sins never "get away" with it.
It should, however, be noted that if a client confesses a crime to his attorney, said attorney is required to report it, and is not allowed to defend the client with a not-guilty plea (ethically, they can't even continue to represent the client). Similarly, someone who confesses to a violent assault, murder, manslaughter, or nonconsensual sex act in the confessional setting would NOT be protected under the law, and the one granting confession would be under a legal mandate to report the claims from the confession to the authorities. It would no longer fall under the doctrine of privileged communications. This mandate to report child molestation definitely falls under that standard.
Jurisdictional matters come into play here and one rule cannot be applied universially throughout the United States. In my experience with applicable case law, disclosure under those terms applies when a client attempts to commission the aid of a attorney to commit or cover up a crime. If a crime has already been commited and a client seeks legal advice, that is still priviledged information (in most jurisdictions). In which case, an attorney has about as much leeway as a priest: tell his client to remand himself to the proper authorities. That's strictly a confession to a crime after a fact. Not asking an attorney to help get ride of evidence or asking how to get away with a crime, just admitting to a crime. Different jurisdictions might have different rules but it generally falls into those guidelines. And only 5 states have sexual abuse of a child as one of their exceptions.
Here in Ohio, attorneys and clergyman are not required to report crimes confessed to them. It might be different where you are at.