Martha Minow delved into the rights of different religious groups during a speech Monday that described the ways in which religious groups have faced discrimination and have discriminated against others. The Jeremiah Smith Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Minow said that despite the divisions in society regarding religious organizations' autonomy, the controversy is not irreconcilable.
Answering the question posed in her lecture's title, "Should Religious Groups Ever be Exempt from Civil Rights Laws?", Minow said that "to answer yes puts in jeopardy the civil rights laws and elevates religious groups above others."
"To say no infringes on the free exercise of religion and will just lead to religious organizations suing," she said.
Minow discussed the innate contradictions presented by the Civil Rights amendments of the U.S. Constitution. While these amendments secure an individual's right to freely exercise their religion without state interference, they also afford religious groups these same rights.
These two rights sometimes conflict and curtail the civil rights of some individuals when religions exercise tenets that discriminate against certain groups in society. This takes place when religious organizations discriminate against members of other races, genders and sexual preferences, in accordance with their faith, Minow said.
Minow cited current policies at Bob Jones University, whose website describes it as the "citadel of biblical Christianity," to describe current cases of discrimination by religious groups.
"When [President] Bush visited Bob Jones University in 2000, the University still had in place a ban on interracial dating," she said. "It wasn't until the media uncovered this that they got rid of the ban."
According to Minow, to not exempt religious groups from the Civil Rights amendments, which mandate that everyone should be treated equally, would infringe upon the free exercise of their religion.
To deny religious groups any exemption would be imprudent, she said, for the majority of Americans are religious. Sympathy for suppressed religious groups would lead to conflict, dividing society between the religious and non-religious members, she added.
"Religious communities create meanings for people," Minow said. "Just because they run into conflict with the secular state, it does not mean the state is right."
The solution to the problem mentioned in her speech's title is for people to act with a little humility, she said. This is a solution not usually proposed by lawyers, Minow said, drawing laughter from the crowd.
"I do think that aggressive advocacy by groups sure of their correctness is harmful," Minow said. "Certainties are clashing. The normative direction is a little less certainty and a little more humility. We need to be willing to admit that truths may exist on the other side."
The non-partisan nature of this issue initially appealed to Minow and led to her further research of religious groups in America.
"I like to explore issues that don't have a predictable right-left alignment, and can therefore be explored to find coalitions. The right has always been associated with religion, but left wing groups generally support the free exercise of religion as outlined in the constitution," Minow said.
The partisan nature of U.S. society today risks undermining America's collective identity, she said.
"Today we are a very divided society. We are at risk of losing the collective 'we' because of partisan politics. Too often we demonize people who have a different view. It's important to remember that they make America great too," she said.
Despite the rifts in society, Minow said that there is still hope for collective action in America.
"Two-time failed presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson once said, 'Eggheads of the world unite. There is nothing to lose but your yolks,'" Minow said to laughs from the crowd. "If we can work together it can result in a win for both sides."
