 |
Accommodating the faithful
Public schools go dark on Saturdays and Sundays, the traditional days of worship for Christians and Jews. And on Christmas, class will not be in session. But when schools provide foot baths for Muslims, critics cry foul. So what is acceptable in a country that has a wall between church and state?
By T. Jeremy Gunn
A few months ago, I had dinner with a prominent Evangelical Christian who insists that Christians are "persecuted" in the USA. Although we had a friendly discussion — and he generously paid for my dinner — I did think he was exaggerating a bit. So I asked him two questions:
First, could he identify any country in the world where there is more religious freedom than in the USA?
He could not. Nor can I.
Second, could he name any time in the history of the United States when Evangelical Christians have had more religious freedom (and political influence) than they do now?
He could not. Nor can I.
(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)
There are, of course, several reasons why there is more religious freedom in the USA than elsewhere. One of them is that we have an Establishment Clause in our Constitution that helps keep the government from getting into the religion business. The unfortunate consequences of government financing religion and choosing religious beliefs can be seen all over the world.
The majority view
Another is that we have a healthy respect for the right of individuals and families to practice their religion without government interference. The United States is particularly good at accommodating the core religious practices of majority religions. Public schools do not (usually) hold classes on Saturday and Sunday (worship days for Christians and Jews). Public schools are also closed on two of the majority religion's most sacred holidays, Christmas and Easter, the latter of which is of course always on Sunday. Majorities may be more likely to notice the unusual accommodation for others and take their own for granted.
While some religious accommodations are constitutional and to be encouraged, some cross the line and promote particular beliefs.
For example, public schools should not spend taxpayer money to promote religious practices. They should not be buying prayer rugs, rosary beads, prayer rooms, crucifixes, a mikvah, baptismal fonts, altars, loudspeakers for the Muslim call to prayer, veils, or religious icons. The Constitution bars these actions not because there is anything wrong with them, but because it is not the government's business.
Nor should governments and public schools be promoting religious practices. We do not want public schools to post notices encouraging students to attend either mass or a Dianetics meeting, to observe daily prayers, to be baptized at age 8, to wear a turban, to cross themselves when they enter a church, or to wear a yarmulke. Religious practices should be encouraged by parents, religious communities and each student, not public schools or government bureaucrats.
So what about foot baths used by Muslims?
A controversy has developed over whether it is constitutional for public schools and universities to install foot baths that are used by Muslims to wash before prayers. Offering five daily prayers is one of the five recognized "pillars" of Islam. Muslims are taught that before conducting prayers they should wash themselves, including their feet. Though not all Muslims perform this cleansing, for many it is a necessary preparation for prayers.
Observant Muslims, attending public schools or universities in the USA, often use sinks in public restrooms to wash their hands and feet. These sinks do not become ritual objects because people use them to wash. There apparently have been complaints by other students about this practice. Some have complained that they do not like washing their hands in the same sink that others have used to wash their feet. Others have complained that water spilled from this activity makes restroom floors wet and slippery. In at least one case, it seems a woman slipped and fell, injuring herself.
So what can be done about this situation that would respect the free exercise of religion as well as honor the Establishment Clause's prohibition on government funding of religious practices?
Some schools have proposed to install "foot baths" in restrooms. This typically would include a water spigot about 18 inches above the floor with a small basin and drain to catch the runoff. (There would be no signs identifying the purpose, and it could be used by anyone, including a janitor filling a bucket.)
Would it be constitutional for a school to pay for this foot bath?
Many who opine on this relish accusing others of hypocrisy or inconsistency, whatever the position taken, and without bothering to read their target's actual position. (I mean you, The Wall Street Journal.) Others see the foot baths as a terrific precedent to help them promote their own religious beliefs in public schools.
What is permissible?
Recognizing that people who respect freedom of religion and civil liberties can legitimately disagree about this issue, let me suggest the following examples.
If there were a busy intersection in front of a megachurch, could a city erect a stoplight? Would the answer be different if the city paid the same amount to put up a sign encouraging people to attend Sunday services?
Or suppose that the pope came to town. Would it be appropriate for the city to pay for extra police officers for crowd control? Would it be permissible for the city to erect a platform and an altar for him to celebrate Mass?
How one comes down on the foot bath issue probably depends on how one answers these questions. The schools assert that the foot baths would be installed for reasons of hygiene and safety. If that is true, this would seem to be a practical and reasonable accommodation. On the other hand, if the purpose for the foot baths were to promote Islamic prayers, or to entice Muslims to contribute money to the school, or to respond to pressure by Muslims to accommodate their practices, these would be inappropriate.
If we are to have a country that genuinely respects freedom of religion for all as well as prohibits government promotion of religious beliefs, we ought to be able to solve this sensibly.
T. Jeremy Gunn is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's program on freedom of religion and belief.
Backlash
When schools have recently made efforts to accommodate Muslims, the backlash has been swift:
* After a Muslim student injured herself last year while washing her feet in a bathroom sink, Minneapolis Community and Technical College announced that it was considering installing foot baths. At least a dozen universities already have such facilities. The American Family Association issued an "action alert," in effect telling its members to lobby against the foot baths. College President Phil Davis received thousands of e-mails. Even the Minnesota Legislature jumped in. In April, it passed an amendment to prevent the state's public colleges and universities from appropriating funds for religious purposes unless the project accommodates all religions, or equal provisions are made for each. The amendment did not become law. MCTC — which has about 8,000 students, 500 of them Muslim — hopes to have a plan for the foot baths in place next year.
* The University of Michigan-Dearborn, home to 8,500 students, came under fire in June after it announced plans to install two foot-washing stations. Student fees will be used to fund the $25,000 project, which will be completed by January. Muslim students account for roughly 10% of the student population.
* New York's Khalil Gibran International Academy is a publicly funded secondary school that focuses on Middle Eastern studies, including classes in Arabic. This summer, the school was criticized in the New York media for blurring the line between secular and religious Arabic education. The founding principal, Dhabah Almontaser, resigned in August, citing media pressure. Amid protests, the school opened its doors to 55 students earlier this month. The Stop the Madrassa Coalition, a citizens group, rallied at City Hall. The school, backed by the city's Department of Education, says its focus is strictly cultural.
Compiled by Kristin Deasy
No comments:
Post a Comment