When pools of water began accumulating on the floor in some restrooms at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, and the sinks pulling away from the walls, the problem was easy to pinpoint. On this campus, more than 10 percent of the students are Muslims, and as part of ritual ablutions required before their five-times-a-day prayers, some were washing their feet in the sinks.
The solution seemed straightforward. After discussions with the Muslim Students’ Association, the university announced that it would install $25,000 foot-washing stations in several restrooms.
But as a legal and political matter, that solution has not been quite so simple. When word of the plan got out this spring, it created instant controversy, with bloggers going on about the Islamification of the university, students divided on the use of their building-maintenance fees, and tricky legal questions about whether the plan is a legitimate accommodation of students’ right to practice their religion — or unconstitutional government support for that religion.
As I noted the other day, this is a fairly tricky constitutional question, but the right seems to have reached a conclusion. Debbie Schlussel, a conservative lawyer and blogger in Southfield, Mich., posted, “Forget about the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state … at least when it comes to mosque and state.”
Which leads us to Case Study #2.
The churches seem to turn up here often and randomly.
In this town of 3,000 residents, there are at least 15 churches. Maybe 20. They’re featured prominently on business street corners. They’re also tucked away — hidden almost — on residential blocks.
So you don’t need to travel far to find the good Lord, as they say. In fact, visitors can’t drive into town without a holy hello.
“Welcome to The Village of Alorton,” say two green-and-white billboards with lights shining on them. “Where Jesus is Lord. Randy McCallum Mayor.”
This is less constitutionally tricky. Government offices and officials are supposed to be neutral on matters of faith. Having taxpayer-supported signs advertising that Alorton is a town where “Jesus is Lord” is not neutrality.
The far-right has made up its mind on this, too:
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said: “If the Supreme Court hadn’t erroneously decided at one point that the First Amendment phrase ‘Congress shall make no law…’ should now include states, municipalities, even schools, we would not be in the position where an organization like the ACLU could roam to and fro across the land, seeking those acknowledgements of God they could devour with their well-oiled machine of intimidation and litigation.
“The arrogance displayed here by the ACLU in not caring if the whole town believes the sign’s message is illustrative of the Left’s intentions of coercing every corner of the country to follow its secularized, anti-Christian worldview.”
So, if a university wants to accommodate the religious practices of Muslim students at a state school with a high Muslim population, the First Amendment applies and there should be a clear separation between church and state. The school should be entirely neutral on matters of faith, and the Bill of Rights is absolutely relevant to the actions of a local university.
If a town wants to spend tax-dollars on signs advertising that Christianity is the dominant faith, the First Amendment shouldn’t apply and there is no separation between church and state. The town need not be entirely neutral on matters of faith, and the Bill of Rights is only relevant to the actions of the federal government.
Funny how perspectives change based on whose religious liberties are being protected, isn’t it?