Hypocritically Held Beliefs

 Hypocritically Held Beliefs        

 

SCOTUS, in the Hobby Lobby decision, ruled that corporate persons may refuse to abide by certain laws, on the basis of their 'sincerely held religious beliefs'. I set aside the absurdity of corporate personhood, and the madness of such soulless pseudo-persons having religions. Here I focus on the question of sincerity.

How would the Court define sincerity, and how would it determine which beliefs are held sincerely, and which are held hypocritically? This would require seeing into the hearts of men, which the Court cannot do.

Furthermore, why privilege sincerity over hypocrisy? Many faiths do so, but for the Court to do so would be an establishment of religion, in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that someone declares himself to be a member of the Church of Hypocrisy. He says that he worships hypocrisy, knowingly, and that everyone else also worships hypocrisy, unknowingly. And what's more, he refuses (say) jury duty, 'on the basis of his hypocritically held beliefs'. (For jury duty would require sincerity, which would be counter to his faith.)

When challenged if he really meant all that, he retorts that if he didn't, then that would be hypocritical, and therefore sincere to the teachings of his Church; whereas if he did, then that would be sincere, and therefore hypocritical. He's sincerely insincere, and hypocritically unhypocritical. Therefore the Church of Hypocrisy is founded upon paradox; but so (he says) is every other religion. His Church has only hypocrites for members; and so (he says) does every other religion.

          Why then privilege sincere belief over hypocritical?