Thread by @jholbo1

Sigh. The loss of privilege is experienced as oppression, chapter seventy bazillion. One may debate whether vaccine mandates are wise. But grant they are reasonable public health measures; it follows exemptions from them, for a few, is privilege. 1/ theamericanconservative.com/dreher/covid-h…

Dreher's writer: the 'lackeys' in HR should defer to the privileges of the rightful elite (religious believers) without asking impertinent questions! Even when the questions are pertinent. Any departure from this norm triggers a bout of ketman kayfabe complaint. 2/

The problem really is the standard of 'sincerity'. If you get special privilege/exemption for being 'sincere' - but only about religion - then there are going to be tests for sincerity ... and temptations to fake it. 3/

But what is being tested, by the sorts of questions being asked, is not so much sincerity as motivated reasoning or a conflation of cultural/partisan attitudes with 'proper' religion. And, predictably, the privilege-claimers are going to flunk, often. Which is undignifying. 4/

In other words: not so much a test of sincerity as authenticity. Lionel Trilling. What is tested is not sincere but 'authentic' religious belief. The believers sincerely believe they have inwardly 'authentic', religiously-based objections to X and Y. But they often don't. 5/

The questions are designed to expose that. And they are tolerably good tests. If you say you oppose the covid vaccine because of fetal tissue etc., but you don't mind that for other medicines, that shows that you don't really oppose the vaccine for that reason. 6/

If you say you wouldn't hire someone who is same-sex married, because the Bible tells you so, but you would hire a divorceé - well, that proves your reason is a bit different. You are probably just a cultural conservative. 7/

Which: fine. But you aren't entitled to special privilege just for having 'conservative' cultural mores about divorce being tolerable but same-sex marriage not. 8/

So maybe we really should test 'sincerity', not 'authenticity' of belief? But the problem with that is that we (moderns!) don't actually think that sincere confabulation, absent authenticity, is valuable. 9/

At any rate: getting people to sign a piece of paper attesting that they are religiously opposed to ALL medicines involving fetal cells, if they say they are opposed to that in principle, etc. is the most minimal of tests. 10/

It avoids, by design, the thing that Dreher frets it lets in: some kind of invasive inquisition. If you are willing to sign, even if it's not really true, you aren't EVEN sincere. But, seriously, no one is going to catch you. 11/

So the test really only weeds out those who don't have the courage of their lack of sincere (never mind authentic) conviction (which is, no doubt, a few.) So it's sort of a weak barrier. 'But it's embarrassing!' (still runs the objection.) 12/

Look, if you find it embarrassing to lie to get out of doing your part for public health ... well, no one ever promised lying, to prove 'sincerity' (of all things!) wouldn't be embarrassing. The situation is ridiculous, yes, but whose fault is that, ultimately? 13/

It would be interesting if some believers would simply say: I am opposed to the vaccine on the strength of the absurd, a la Kierkegaard. And, accordingly, they have all sorts of wildly inconsistent attitudes. Faith! I guess HR should accept that. Whatever. I'm easy.

We could also allow for 'cultural reasons'. You can get an exemption for 'cultural reasons' (as opposed to 'sincere' religious conviction). I think that's what's really being asked for here. I think there are serious normative and practical problems with that.