25,000USD isn't a huge amount of money - but it is an amount of money being considered for foot baths for Muslims as a part of their religion.

The ACLU is saying:

..but come on! If they were putting Holy Water bowls on the walls to for Christians, or Mezuzah's on the doorways I firmly believe the ACLU would be "lawyering up" against that sort of spending.

Questions For Debate:
Is this an attempt, through tax dollars being used, for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion?

Is this truly a safety issue that needs to be addressed or a plot to further Sha'ria Law? If they do it in Michigan why not New York?

Is this a mountain out of a molehill? Relax BA it's only 25,000USD and you could use them too if your feet were dirty!

Questions For Debate:
Is this an attempt, through tax dollars being used, for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion?
no, it is not an attempt for Congress to "establish" religion. Yes, it is an attempt to use taxpayer funds for the purpose.

Is this truly a safety issue that needs to be addressed or a plot to further Sha'ria Law? If they do it in Michigan why not New York? It is only a safety issue because some of the idjits are likely to slip while washing their feet. Is is a health issue? Don't think so. Is it a plot to further Sha'ria? Indirectly, yet it would be more accurate to describe it as foolishness masquerading as multi-cultural sensitivity.

Is this a mountain out of a molehill? Relax BA it's only 25,000USD and you could use them too if your feet were dirty! Its not a mountain out of a molehill. And here's why:

Pack Sink

Any Muslim who's so dead set on washing his (or her) feet 5 times a day can spend a whole $13 to address the "health and safety" issues himself.

BA I don’t understand why you would start a perfectly good thread, one that presents both sides of the argument, and then bias that thread with the comment below. This thread will be better if it doesn't turn into a "pitty the poor Christians."


Is this an attempt, through tax dollars being used, for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion?

Ah, in including a state university under the establishment clause, you are accepting the idea that much of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to include the states through the 14th Amendment. That in itself is a step in the right direction.

In general, I do not like state recognition or facilitation of religion either directly or indirectly, but...

Is this truly a safety issue that needs to be addressed or a plot to further Sha'ria Law? If they do it in Michigan why not New York?

Health and safety issues seem reasonable. It would be interesting to see a report from the university health department.

Is this a mountain out of a molehill? Relax BA it's only 25,000USD and you could use them too if your feet were dirty!

Given the small dollar amount, I don’t see why the Muslim community can’t come up with private funds to finance the foot baths.

Is this an attempt, through tax dollars being used, for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion?
Oh no, not at all. Unlike the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003 (HR 3030) for faith-based programs, abstinence-only education grants, using AmeriCorps to give religious instruction, crisis-pregnancy centers, religious programs for inmates, etc., this does respect religion. Uh-huh.

What's wrong with washing their feet in the sinks? It's not like you're going to drink from the faucet. Our hands already come into contact with plenty of germs as soon as you open a public door and I doubt Michigan-Dearborn has a shortage of wet floor signs. A safety issue would concern a physically handicapped Muslim who can't hook a foot over the sink or bend over with a soapy paper towel. Frankly, if it's that great a liability M-D should encourage Muslims to schedule classes around their prayers.

You would have to read "respeciting an establishment of religion extremely expansively to answer yes. In my view, it is not illegal. It is grossly unethical, in my view, to force taxpayers to pay for something that they do not want to pay for [I'm assuming they don't] and something that in no way benefits them...But in this case, unethical is not unConstitutional/illegal. They should not do it, but is is legal for them to do so.
Well, I haven't noticed a systematic attempt to impose Sha'ria on this country and I'm also not sure how much of a safety issue this is...So, I'll go with neither.
As I said, I find the idea of taking money from taxpayers to buy a footbath for another. There is no moral justification for it, in my view...So I would say it is outrageous, but for the United States and our state and national government, it certainly is no big deal.

CP

That's how good they are

In all seriousness though there are quite a few things the more radical Muslims are trying to quietly do to further Sha'ria in this, and other countries. damn where's Moif when you need 'em?

Actually, BoF, your take that his comment is biasing the thread towards "pitty {sic} the poor Christians" does nothing more than reveal your bias. BA's hypotheticals concern both Catholics (and a few Protestants, but the bowls of holy water are much more of a Roman Catholic thing) and Jews. Yet, its "pitty {sic} the poor Christians" for you (let us not forget to read that with a sneering and/or condescending tone now, eh?), no recognition of the Jews.

Has BA ever articulated that the First doesn't apply to states? More importantly, has he ever argued that the identical concept, frequently articulated in an identical fashion, in every state constitution, doesn't apply? How, pray tell, without looking it up, do you refer to your state's freedom of religion/expression/press/assembly guarantees? Framing the question the way he did, while certainly imprecise (although, since they do receive Federal monies, it may not be imprecise after all), is common.

And I've provided a perfectly reasonable means for the religious individuals to address any health and safety issues attendant to their religious practices that do not impinge upon others.


It would be far more interesting to see a report from an objective health department.

Only $25k? Use private funds, but then put the footbaths on public property, supply them with water on the public dime, have civil servants clean them? The ACLU won't allow a privately funded posting of the 10 Commandments in a school, even though it requires no maintenance or upkeep, and even though the 10 Commandments are engraved in the Supreme Court Building itself! And yet they don't think that installing infrastructure specifically for the purpose of enabling religious worship constitutes "establishment" by their incredibly broad standards?

'Cmon secularists, show a little consistency here, if for no other reason than that you won't have to argue against installing ashpots in schools so that Catholics can "freshen" themselves up throughout the day on Ash Wednesday. I mean really, think of the health and safety arguments to be made against students cooking up their own ash during the day! Be much better if the State provides it, healthier and safer and all that. Or perhaps it would be just another step on the road to a Papist theocracy..... First its ashpots, next, The Inquisition! aiieeeeeeee............

Oh, one last question: what are you going to do to insure that the footbaths aren't mistaken for low lying urinals, or perhaps bidets? If such a mistake were to occur, I suspect that the Muslims would get a wee bit perturbed ...

Questions For Debate:
Is this an attempt, through tax dollars being used, for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion?

Not necessarily. When Judge Roy Moore and the infamous Ten Commandments monument controversy broke, I adamantly argued that Moore was well within his rights to allow such a display. The unconstitutionality of his actions rested in his rejection of other religious displays in the same rotunda. Depictions and expressions of religion are fine--so long as the state does not play favorites. The people are well within their rights to exhibit any religious iconography they choose to, but it must be a 100% broad-based rule. Someone wants to put up a monument of Luke Skywalker next to a statue of Jesus? Fine--they are within their rights, given their choice of Jedi as religion. Or Buddhism. Or Hinduism. Or Paganism. The constitutionality becomes a matter when government begins to favor one over another. Since this can be costly (financially and logistically), I favor no religious displays whatsoever. If you can't have them all, you can't have any.

That said, they should NOT be using public funds to finance such an endeavor, no matter if any religious act is allowed. Like others have said, if the students want to obtain private donations and build the necessary facilities, fine. Although they'd probably still have to find some way around the location. A religious display on public grounds takes up space--if anything, the Muslim students should find a private plot nearby to establish their cleaning facilities. Since the act is specifically derived from religious practice (unlike, say, doing number one or two which are natural requirements), I think the ACLU's argument is flat-out wrong. And I'm a card-carrying ACLU member.

Is this truly a safety issue that needs to be addressed or a plot to further Sha'ria Law? If they do it in Michigan why not New York?

It is not a safety issue. It's a religious one, and as I said before, the ACLU is wrong on this case.

Is this a mountain out of a molehill? Relax BA it's only 25,000USD and you could use them too if your feet were dirty!

It's a molehill on a mountain of dangerous and steep slippery slopes.

*edited to correct botched English*

Is this an attempt, through tax dollars being used, for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion?

No. Fining people for failing to participate in a footwashing ritual would be establishment under the framers' intent; under current establishment law, footbaths have non-religious utility, so they probably wouldn't qualify as a primarily religious expense, even if religion is a contributing factor.

This really seems much less of an establishment issue than a misguided attempt to solve a messy bathroom problem by throwing state money at it rather than teaching students to be respectful of bathroom cleanliness norms or raising private funds for luxury items. However, I don't think it unreasonable for a university to go beyond the required accommodations to make life comfortable for students and faculty-- so long as it avoids spending state money on controversial luxuries.

Is this truly a safety issue that needs to be addressed or a plot to further Sha'ria Law? If they do it in Michigan why not New York?

The only immediate need to do this would be if it were a real safety/health issue, but there may be other legitimate considerations. Dearborn has a higher muslim population than most of the country, so there will be some practical issues universities experience there that make certain accommodations of Islam more often ruled "reasonable" in Dearborn than elsewhere in the U.S.-- reasonable accommodations are mandatory under law, but significant effort and expense is not.

In this instance, there's no mandatory religious accommodation issue of which I'm aware, because it's certainly possible, and quite common, for muslims to wash their feet without a footbath and without making a mess. I don't think it would necessarily be insensitive to mention a messiness problem to Muslim student organizations and ask their leaders to train messy members in cleanliness-- that's probably how they'd handle unnecessary messes arising from Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist student practices; Muslims repeatedly making unnecessary messes should be treated the same way.

From a practical/health/safety perspective, footbaths will need at least as much routine cleaning as a bathroom without them. I've been an executive facility maintenance engineer (ahem, janitor) before, and you can take my word for it that there's far worse messes that happen more than five times a day in a restaurant bathroom than muddy footprints in the sinks. Spending $25,000 for special facilities is not going to eliminate the need for a janitorial staff. If the staff is overextended, hire more staff. The point being, providing footbaths won't fix the health/safety/cleanliness problem. The university will still need to send janitors around with a mop and Ajax at least five times a day.

So, there's really no compelling practical or religious reason to install footbaths, but there's still the morale issue to consider. If enough students and faculty would really appreciate the footbaths, then classify them as luxury items best paid for by raising private funds, not tax or tuition budgets. In a corporate environment, there's really no issue-- companies that want to keep their workers happy provide comfortable working conditions within reason, as judged by the workers. Where state funds are concerned, however, the decisions require a bit more deliberation.

Is this a mountain out of a molehill? Relax BA it's only 25,000USD and you could use them too if your feet were dirty!

No, it's worth discussing. It is certainly possible-- even typical-- that university officials would rather spend $25,000 of somebody else's money than treat muslims like everyone else. The university should NOT prevent students from washing their feet in bathrooms-- but it's possible to wash feet without footbaths and without making a mess, so simply permitting the practice is the extent of the university's constitutional responsibility. If someone decides to donate 25k for footbaths for everyone, and it would solve a serious janitorial problem or improve morale, then I wouldn't object to installing footbaths even if some see it as part of a master plan to take over the world.

Companies, in contrast, would be wise to respond by accommodating whatever requests their workers have within reason; keeping a few clean basins under the sinks isn't much to ask. We have at least one bathroom at each facility with lockers, benches, towel racks, showers, etc., even gyms in some locations, so I guess I might be more aware of footwashing problems if we weren't already a bit excessive catering to employee morale. But then, we also don't have nearly as many messes as a university might.

CAN A BROTHER GET AN AMEN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I was reading this thread and thinking exactly this.

A foot bath, in my eyes, on public and tax-payer funded property will not only require long term maintenance undoubtedly not done by muslims, but moreover provides a visible sign that would allude to the notion that the University (and the tax payers) support the Muslim religion.

Let's reverse this.

How would everyone feel if the school tok $25K to pay for a room in the school to be turned into a Methodist Chapel? $25K would be GREAT if we took one of those large lecture rooms and tricked it out. We could equip it with state of the art equipment, a great altar, etc, etc, etc....

BOF, I'm speculating, but I'd guess that you'd go NUTS if this happened!!!

I don't know about all schools, but in my experience, places of worship are off the tax payers dole. Churches at LSU and other schools I've visited aren't paid for by the University.

I'm not arguing "establishment", as that's a particularly "grey" area. However- it is interesting to note that the whopping $25,000 is being considered to be spent (when most public Universities are strapped for cash) for a Muslim article of worship...

Philosophically I'm with you. It is absolutely absurd for taxpayers to have their money taken and used in such a way. With that having been said, will you agree that one would have to read the First Amendment incredibly expansively to interpret such an action as "unConstitutional?

CP

Thank you for the thread. I have often wondered why there was so much water on the floor beneath sinks in public restrooms--as though someone were a real klutz and couldn't wash her hands properly!

Maybe we ought to install lower sinks for the sake of the health of a community, given that this practice is taking place and that slips and falls might be prevented thereby. I know this is skirting the issue, but it might be the more practical solution. It sounds like rather than hiring more people to maintain the restrooms, the personnel already doing janitorial work would have a couple more basins to clean. Or, barring that, those lucky migrants who can pony up the money for the guest visas being talked about in Congress might have a couple of extra jobs available to them.

The religious practices of other people can be damn inconvenient, can't they? Except that every now and then the pesky practices happen to be mine, or yours.

Here I am, but this topic is outside my reading. Domestic American issues do not pertain to my research which by virtue of my nationality is necessarily Eurocentric and I have no opinion on how Americans should allocate their social spending with regards to religion except in the most general way.

Yes, Muslims have been trying to push sharia where ever they have congregated, but whether or not this issue constitutes an attempt at spreading sharia law in the USA is beyond my powers of observation. The matter is simply too vague. How would this introduce sharia law?

My general principle is, societ should not have to spend money on any religion. What acomplete waste of resources! Currently, my country has a national church and its upkeep is deducted from my funds by means of a church tax. Were it up to me, I would immedietely scrap this tax and abolish all forms of religious dues from the state. If people want religion, then they should pay for it themselves.

...except I don't have any religious practices.

1) No, because basins to wash one's feet are not inherently religious and anyone can use them. The same principle would apply if the custom was to wash the entire body instead of only washing the feet and the school was spending $25,000 to build showers into all of the restrooms instead of foot baths. Foot baths and showers are not inherently religious and are therefore publicly fundable. Just because a religious group disproportionately uses the baths does not mean that the baths themselves are religious.

2) I can't say how much of a safety issue it really is without more info. But it is conceivable that chronically wet floors and dirty feet essences in the regular sinks could be a problem.

I don't understand the second question because Sha'ria law isn't mutually exlcusive from our laws. Folks act like it's from Bizarro World or something. There are many Sha'ria stances that coincide with judeo-christian laws, which by extension coincides with our current laws. I imagine that you would find many non-muslim folks in this country that wouldn't object too strongly to the Sha'ria stance on homosexuality (it's against it) or its penalties for theft.

3) Exactly. It's ot like they spend millions of dollars of public money to build a mosque or anything like that, Air Force Academy Chapel anyone?

I have to say that this is one of those peculiar issues where folks switch their usual point of view. For consistency's sake, I would not expect religious folk (the same ones lobbying for the stuff that Lesly listed in her post above) to be against this. On the other hand, I would expect that the ACLU, with it's de-Godification campaign would be all over it.


That would make an interesting topic all by itself. Where would something like the funding of required handicap accessible accomadations fit into this way of looking at it public funding. UM just got sued for not having 1000 handicapped accessible seats which by definition won't benefit most people.

Tell me about it...We've touched on this topic in the "Do Laws Constitute Morality" thread.
They wouldn't fit in, because there would be no public universities in my world. If private organizations choose not to accomodate the handicapped, that is a choice they make at their own risk and discretion.

CP

Emoticons and non-words like “aiieeeeeee” aside, I’ll try to "wade" through this and give you a rational answer.



As a “secularist” I tend to think my way around issues rather than pray my way around them. Like Seamus, I am looking for a practical solution.

In addition to students and faculty, I would think Muslim alumni would contribute funds to such a project,

The parties involved could handle the cleaning and maintenance in at least a couple of ways.

UNT in Denton is my twice my alma mater. Baptist Student Ministries is located between the Student Union Building and a parking garage owned by UNT. The University owns the green buildings on both sides of BSM. The BSM building is on private property and privately owned. I just confirmed this info by calling BSM in Denton. The same arrangement applies at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. I also confirmed this via telephone.

http://orgs.unt.edu/bsm/location.htm

Another option might be to lease an on campus building to Muslim students. They could then install footbaths or whatever they like. This would be about the same thing as renting a building for a hamburger joint and installing a grill.



This seems like a crude joke, but there is enough venom against Muslims in this country, that I don’t doubt someone would intentionally urinate in a footbath.

Hate, anger and fear produce all types of sociopathic behavior. When I was in elementary school, we had an art teacher who routinely assigned me and several other students detention. We routinely disregarded the assigned detention. One day our homeroom teacher took us up to the art room and left us outside the door. We left immediately. The next day he deposited us inside the art room. One of our compadres was so angry that he relieved himself in a drinking fountain after detention. The more I think about it, I would lay odds that some Catholic kid - angry at the church - hasn't done the same thing in holy water.

Hey, I never thought about it, but our friend's wee wee in the drinking fountain might be categorized as scatological warfare against the art teacher or the school in general. Maybe it would be a great weapon to use against those "dreaded" Muslims.




As long as the religious group pays for the whole thing, I don’t care if student groups erect a Methodist chapel or a Wiccan alter, although I would prefer that it be housed in a nearby off-campus structure.

Well I'll be the nag for today.
Is this an attempt, through tax dollars being used, for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion?
I'll side with the courts on this and say, yep.

"respecting an establishment" does not mean "accomplishing the establishment"

The Constitution does not allow actions by the government to affect the practice of religion, positively or negatively.

If the footpaths were instated without an intended secular purpose, tax dollars should not pay for them

Is this truly a safety issue that needs to be addressed or a plot to further Sha'ria Law?
Much like the minarets the link between footbaths and Sha'ria is non-existent.

Is this a mountain out of a molehill?
A speed bump. The issue here is the seperation of church and state, likely one of the smartest things the founders ever thought of.

To be clear, not only is "scatalogical warfare" (great term) likely, but there is the very real possibility of mistakes. Given the current paranoid mindset of many in the Muslim community, I doubt that they would be very accepting of the idea that someone could make such a mistake, which means that this is presents higher opportunity for accidental conflict.

Ah yes, those "dreaded Muslims" ... after all, there's no reason to be concerned about them, eh?

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (source)

Those are just two simple examples. But hey, what do I know? It's a "religion of peace"

Yes and it should not go forward. I am not surprised to see the ACLU on the wrong side of this of course. Now if the proposal had anything to do with helping Christians prepare to “pray” where do you think the ACLU would be on the issue?

It is just a bad idea.


It is poor practice and if the muslims need this that should fund it themselves or find another way to wash.

Actually Ted- the ACLU is as likely to defend religion as oppose it:


http://www.acluutah.org/religiousfreedom.pdf

REad the one where they defended evangelicals right to preach on public sidewalks?

That being said- no, it is wrong for tax payers to foot the bill for ANY religious based activity- and the "health and safety" is a smokescreen IMHO.

I am curious about those on the right here that are all outraged about this- does your outrage extend to faith based initiatives? I am consistant with my disdain for religion in goverment- but the real "anti" posters seemed to be more outraged that it is muslim and not christian, than any seperation of church and state issue

As far as the mountain/molehill thing- ya, it is a molehill compared to the daily onslaught of the christian right to force thier religion down others throats with taxpayer money- in the examples in Lesly's post #4=-

Aevens- are you against all those things lesly pointed out- or just the muslim ones?

For the most part I have to agree with Tonyman.

Can anyone show us the religious meaning behind these footbaths?? I mean you put a basin of water out, no big deal, you put a cross by it and call it holy water... problem.

So I will say this if there are any religious symbols on or in relation to these foot baths, it is unethical.

If the school is putting in footbaths because they are tired of seeing people sticking their nasty feets in the sink... people really need to get a grip.

Is it me or has anyone else noticed the comparison made here are way off??

a Methodist Chapel...

a great altar...

installing ashpots in schools... (oh by the way are you sure schools don't have those ashtray/trashcans so kids aren't throwing cigeratte butts on the ground.) Actually come to think of it. Since some religious people put ash on their forehead we should say installing any ashtrays with public money as a respecting the establishment of religion....

I find it curious how so many folks are talking about how useful footbaths are, and how these would clearly have non-religious uses. Of course, there is a problem with that line of argument.

Its irrelavent! If footbaths were so darned useful, then why doesn't the university already have them? If they don't have any religious significance, then why is it religiously observant Muslims who want them? Nobody else seems to be interested in them. The primary purpose of the footbaths is to facilitate religious worship. The fact that they can be used for other purposes means little. As a comparison, consider this: the university decides to spend an extra $5,000 a year for the next five years in order to serve kosher food, without raising the cost of the food. Everybody can eat kosher food, so this would qualify as "multi-purpose", yet it certainly seems this expenditure would constitute establishment.

BD- I believe you are on to something here- I am against it for that reason- why are they suddenly being an issue? Well, because muslims made it an issue. How big of an issue was installing foot baths PRIOR to the Muslim prayer thing came up?

They're hardly useful to the like of me and you. And yes primarily they would likely be used for people who wash their feet like they wash their hands.

All this talk about well germs are germs... is bologna.

Droop's Challenge:

Any one reading this....

Smell your hand...
Take off your shoe and smell it...

Same odor???


Droop's Other Challenge

Walk by a coworker smelling your hand.
Walk my a coworker smelling you sock.

Or better yet, go wash your hands in the sink
Wait a day and wash your dirty nasty feet in the sink

I mean logically speaking, I don't think feet have that many more germs than say your mouth. But socially and culturally speaking... I don't want to have to use a sink to wash my hands, brush my teeth after lunch, wash some dirt/sweat off my face, or fill up my water bottle if some body's had their grimey feet in there before me.

Sinks aren't made for washing feet... that's why they stand so high...

Now if the school bans them from washing their feet in a sink, they'll have a lawsuit on their hands. I guess they could put basins in the bathroom, but the principal would be the same regardless of the dollar figure.

And you know what... these are college students, I am willing to bet on a hot day wearing flip flops people soothe their feet in a nice foot bath.

As for the kosher food...

I mean I don't mind someone eating the food I eat, I do mind some one washing their feet in the sink I use. And if you asked your coworker... most of them probably would too, ya think??

Clean/sanitary doesn't necessarily mean smell nice. Take a shower, press your freshly washed hand against your freshly washed fart-locker and inhale deeply. Do you stink like roses?

The fact is most sanitation is focused on hand-washing and people who don't wash their feet before prayers don't have to worry about exposing this body part to germs in public restrooms. What about foot fungus? How often is the school going to clean these things? I picked up nail fungus in a public shower stall wearing clunky inch-thick flip flops. I hope the school requires mandatory health insurance enrollment every quarter like OSU or they're going to revisit the issue with Lamisil.

Is there something disrespectful/insensitive/undue about "forcing" Muslims to use damp paper towels?

I guess they'll clean them as often as they clean locker rooms... and sinks!!

And no I don't think there is anything disrespectful with telling muslims to use damp paper towels or even baby wipes. And if that was the issue I'd state that clearly. But not asking them to use damp clothes and instead seeing a need a filling that need by placing foot baths is nothing to me either.

There's nothing religious about foot baths. I readily admit that muslims are the likely reasons these things are getting put in, but that does not translate to these foot baths in and of themselves are religious artifacts.

Either way, there is nothing wrong. Tell them to use baby wipes, put in water basins under the sinks, install foot baths around the campus. Cost difference, yes. Ethical, moral, constitutional difference.... well, no. Are these faith based water baths orsomething?? Is there some sort of holy rite that needs to be observed before these foot baths can be installed?? What is the difference between public foot baths and public sinks??

If someone shows me something religious about these foot baths, I'll change my tune, otherwise.... sounds like people are just mad because muslims are the people predominately going to use these items.

If I may, let me similarly widen the net for a moment to discuss whether there's a general rule formed by related case law that can help shed more light on the footbath issue.

The kosher diet analogy is interesting because it underscores the current nature of case law on such issues. Relevant law generally sets up a value judgement that has to be made on a case-by-case basis rather than giving clear-cut decisions. Are university cafeterias required to serve kosher food? Some are, and some are not, based on the same body of case law. However, on the issue of whether state funds are permissible to budget for the service of kosher food in universities, the law is pretty clear-- it's usually okay, within reason. Whether or not I agree with the law, that's how it is. In general, if I were a university official whose higher-ups had determined footbaths must be installed one way or another and funding was up to me, I'd try to find a way to get private funding for it.

Most state-funded university and armed forces cafeterias or mess halls have been required by the courts to provide nutritious selections compatible with traditional Hindu, Muslim, Vegan, and kosher diets, among others, under the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Those cases tend to side with reasonable accommodation and against substantial burden. I qualified that with "most", because some are not required to accommodate, when courts deem accommodations at other public facilities on the same or nearby state-funded premises are reasonable. In other words, this is something that can generally go either way, but usually sides with any government facility providing large numbers of people with food must consider common dietary restrictions, even when the only restriction is religious in nature. But again, that's about whether providing kosher food is required. Providing kosher meals at a reasonably higher expense to the state remains legally permissible, whether or not it is required.

Here are a few sources. I'm picking those that elucidate the general decision mechanism, not necessarily those that make a clear-cut case for always siding one way or the other:



Finally, here's a list of case summaries regarding religious accommodations in prison. I'm listing this because it shows how individual cases can go either way depending upon the facts of the case and the distinction between reasonable accommodation and undue burden. Prison-related case law has to be taken in context. On the one hand, the prison has a captive audience, so it is frequently required to accommodate in ways other institutions wouldn't in the free world. On the other hand, prisons are rife with spurious claims, so occasionally a summary may omit a finding based on distrust of the plaintiff's credibility; a case on the "outside" with similar facts and evidence might easily go the other way given a more credible plaintiff. In addition, there's the Safley-O'Lone standard that allows prison regulations to impinge on constitutional rights "if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests".

At any rate, right or wrong, the legal precedent closest to the facts in the footbath case would tend to indicate that providing footbaths is not required, but funding them with state money could be permissible provided the $20k isn't an undue burden, and the footbaths either have a legitimate non-religious utility, or are central to the religion. A court would probably find that there's no religious mandate for expensive footbaths; but a court may or may not find that footbaths have a significan non-religious utility; in the absense of clarity, courts may either decide in such a way that effectively defers to the university officials, or they may choose to decide it themselves.

Either way, it's unlikely that a church-state separation issue under the establishment clause would hold up if the facts of the case already include a finding that footbaths are not a religious requirement to begin with. To apply chuch-state separation, one side would have to argue that Islam mandates not just footwashing, but also footbaths-- I doubt competent counsel would make that mistake in court. Otherwise, the other side would have to argue that washing feet serves no useful purpose except to Muslims-- to make that case, you'd probably have to argue that baths and showers serve no useful purpose to non-Muslims, either-- a very dubious line of reasoning, to most of us who wash our feet at least once a week whether they need it or not, with a range of frequency deemed reasonable. Maybe someone else could find another opening for a church-state separation argument, but from what I can tell, successfully applying church-state separation in this case would seem unprecedented, and possibly establish new precedent counter to current trends, if allowed to stand by a high court.

I would argue from my political agenda, not current law, that tax or tuition funds shouldn't be spent on significantly religious or unnecessary projects except possibly where equal access to state resources is an issue, but private funds covering installation and maintenance would be preferable if the project filled a real need. Many courts tend to clarify the important legal issues, then leave a large chunk of such decisions to the bureaucrats or legislators. Others tend towards more micro-management. At the end of the day, as happens so frequently, it's impossible to know for sure how courts will rule on a case as it makes its way through the system.

edited to add...

In the spirit of the question and the context of a state education or prison environment, the answer is no. If "forcing" were not in quotes, I'm far enough into legal mode to try to quibble. Argh! Okay, I'm fine now.

also edited to insert accidentally omitted words and correct some strange punctuation encoding