The Cascadia Subduction Zone

(Graphic from oregon.gov)

The San Andreas fault, which is responsible for the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906, is less destructive than the Cascadia Subduction zone. The Cascadia has triggered most of the San Andreas' earthquakes in the past 3,000 years (but not in 1906), which will make a future Cascadia/San Andreas combined quake the most destructive natural disaster in American history by far.

A megaquake in the Pacific Northwest could trigger a large earthquake along California’s San Andreas Fault, creating an unprecedented catastrophe up and down the Pacific Coast, a new study has found.

The study suggests that the fearsome Cascadia subduction zone, a fault line running offshore from Northern California to British Columbia that is capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 9 or higher, has triggered large quakes in San Francisco and elsewhere along the northern part of the San Andreas Fault. In some cases, it’s possible that quakes on the San Andreas followed the first quake within minutes or hours, according to the study, which was published Sept. 29.

For example, researchers found evidence that the last magnitude 9 earthquake in the Cascadia subduction zone — in 1700 and so large that it caused a tsunami in Japan — also produced a major earthquake on the northern San Andreas Fault. That part of the fault extends from the Mendocino Junction offshore of Humboldt County, where it meets the Cascadia, to Hollister (San Benito County). That earthquake could have been as large as the magnitude 7.9 earthquake in 1906 San Francisco, said Jason Patton, a co-author of the study and engineering geologist at the California Department of Conservation.

According to lead author Chris Goldfinger of Oregon State University

We could expect that an earthquake on one of the faults alone would draw down the resources of the whole country to respond to it,” Goldfinger said. “And if they both went off together, then you’ve got potentially San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver all in an emergency situation in a compressed timeframe.”

Mr. Goldfinger said that if he heard that the Cascadia Subduction zone went off, he would immediately leave his home in Palo Alto and head east. This is one expert's advice that we intend to follow.

Endangered Seal

(Image from ncronline)

The State of Washington wants Catholic priests to break the seal of the confessional: [bold added]

A new law, signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson in May, would require clergy to violate the confessional’s seal of confidentiality if they hear about potential child abuse. Failing to break the seal and report suspected abuse to authorities carries a penalty of up to 364 days in jail and a fine as high as $5,000.

Catholic clergy in the state sued, and U.S. District Judge David Estudillo of the Western District of Washington blocked the law with a preliminary injunction on July 18. Judge Estudillo ruled the law likely violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion because it denies priests the confidentiality extended to other professions. The state has until Aug. 18 to appeal.

Confession is an essential practice of the Catholic faithful, who believe it reconciles a sinner with God. In the sacrament, the penitent admits wrongs and receives God’s forgiveness through the priest’s prayer of absolution. The seal of confession is so crucial to the Catholic faith that any priest who violates it is automatically excommunicated.

“For us, that’s a matter of spiritual life and death,” says Bishop Robert Barron, an American Catholic evangelist who filed an amicus brief in the case. The bishop says even “the slightest suspicion” that one’s confessed sins might be repeated elsewhere is an obstacle to the sacrament. Any law that might discourage a repentant sinner from seeking God’s forgiveness would hinder the free exercise of religion. Washington’s law is “the most egregious violation of religious liberty” in the U.S. right now, Bishop Barron said.

Child abuse is a heinous crime but is not so horrible that lawmakers want attorneys to break confidentiality with accused clients:

Washington lawmakers passed another bill this year exempting higher education attorneys from reporting abuse related to clients they represent. For these legislators, sins confessed to a priest don’t merit the confidentiality of what is said to an attorney. That “appears to be a textbook example” of targeting religious conduct, Judge Estudillo wrote.

Attorney-client privilege originated from English common law and does not derive from the Constitution, while confessional confidentiality is protected by the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). The latter would seem to have a stronger pedigree constitutionally, but your humble blogger is no lawyer.