Streszcz. ang. s. 133. Bibliogr. w przypisach. W tym samym numerze Oxford Journal of Law and Religion na stronie 184 ukazała się errata do artykułu ( https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/article/10/1/184/6425568 )

The article focuses on a crucial segment of a discussion regarding the legitimacy of conscientious exemptions, namely the burden inquiry. The controversy around this issue involves different ways of identifying the proper object of the inquiry, and the types of evidence that should be considered in the assessment. I claim that there are three main approaches in the discussion regarding these issues: the incommensurable religious costs account, the subjective religious costs account, and the objective religious costs account. In the article, the peculiarity of each position is highlighted and the evaluation of main arguments is provided. I argue that the main justifications advanced for the incommensurable religious costs account and the subjective religious costs account do not stand up to critical scrutiny, and that the objective religious costs account is the most plausible position in this debate.