This post is motivated by a profound difference in perspective between me and more than one of the people in my personal circle of friends and family. I have been struggling since the beginning of Covid to understand how we - when I know them to be decent, thoughtful, intelligent individuals - can perceive the world in such fundamentally different ways. I have attempted to engage these friends and family members within the field of politics, the field of science, and the field of philosophy. The results of these exchanges have consistently left me with a deep sense of confusion at the differences which separate us.

More and more clearly, I now understand that this is because we are dealing with a fundamental religious split. This divide is masked because the people I’m speaking of don’t recognize it as related to religious beliefs.

The word “religion” itself carries a host of problems, because it is very poorly and loosely defined. It’s that classic quote from the Supreme Court justice “I know it when I see it.” For our purposes here, however, I will define religion as “any ideology and associated narrative which explains the definition, meaning, and purpose of life, and the correct role and morality of humans within that life.”

We know our Covid moment represents a religious split because of the manner of response: the current policies enacted by government and corporations alike represent classic societal shunning. If a person refuses to follow the moral code enforced by the authorities, that person is considered unfit to live within the community. This is the unspoken - though very clearly communicated - message behind “No jab, no job”. The behavior of persons who do not perceive our current Covid situation as the authorities do (in other words, persons who don’t ascribe to the enforced definition of what “life” is and should be) is defined as immoral and representative of an existential danger to the tribe; the age-old punishment for moral failure is shunning. It’s classic tribal behavior, and it is all about maintaining religious orthodoxy. To disagree with the dominant religious worldview is considered heretical, and heretics are not tolerated.

This is why argument and discussion have completely shut down. The disagreement is not intellectual; it’s spiritual. Those of us outside the dominant group are not considered to be disagreeing; we are considered to be sinning. The other strategy being used in addition to shunning is censorship. Precisely the same phenomenon and logic apply as regards shunning.

They don’t even realize what they are doing. In their mind, they think they are having an intellectual disagreement. But these responses are completely out of character for intellectual disagreements. The people promoting this behavior are convinced that they are simply “right”, and anyone who disagrees must be ignorant or deceived. They cannot conceive that the people opposed to them have equal moral merit to their own. It is the purest of ad hominem. The fundamental lack of respect for their opponents is clear as day.

Given the above, does anyone with greater knowledge of historical religious confrontations have any advice for what this means regarding strategies for those of us in the new “religious minority”? How can we advocate for our rights while avoiding violence, a direction that would only further justify (in their minds) the ongoing persecution? What intellectual pathways will help us to break through the radical intolerance we are facing and begin again a respectful conversation among fellow humans?

If we cannot figure out effective answers to these questions STAT (as they say in medicine), the escalation becomes clearer by the day. This is getting very ugly very fast.