Universities will provide Muslim footbaths

[bk59]

I will bet you $50 that within a year of their installation we'll hear cries of rage from these people that someone is desecrating them with infidel feet or whatever. If you were familiar with the tactics of the organizations behind these pushes, you'd know that.

Are you actually serious? Really? Up until now Muslims at the university had to wash their feet in the sink. And you think that they are going to complain that a foot bath is being used by "infidel feet or whatever"? I will concede that it is possible that someone might complain. But do you have any evidence at all that this might happen? Do you have any evidence that the reason these foot baths were installed was because Muslims were complaining that infidels were using the sinks that they were using to wash their feet? I think, based on what little I have seen, the vast majority of Muslims at the university will be happy to have the foot baths and that will be the end of it.

[jbg]

I think, based on what little I have seen, the vast majority of Muslims at the university will be happy to have the foot baths and that will be the end of it.

My bottom line view is that they chose to come here; let them live the way we do.

[bk59]

As to the rest of your post, you can use whatever term you want to describe Muslim calls to prayer. Muezzins do not climb to the top of minarets to whisper calls to prayer. They shout, bellow, screech, holler...whatever verb one wants to use, that's what they do. And they do it 5 times a day. Do I object to it? You bet I do...this is not their country, and I have no problem at all claiming a preference for church bells over muezzin hollers...when church bells start evoking the same imagery as muezzin hollers, I'll start not liking them much too.

I hear that in Dearborn, the muzzim (typo fixed to muezzin, (link) thanks Buffycat) lead prayers in that manner. I am no "ScottSA" but my best information is that he is largely correct.

OK, let's take a step back here. The original ScottSA post talked about how "Muslims at prayer" did not fit the description of "quiet reflection." I objected to that because it is not true (to my knowledge). Muslims at prayer are much different from calls to prayer. I tried to stress that by asking if you would characterize Christian prayer as loud based on a church ringing bells. (I wouldn't. I think the act of prayer is separate from a call to prayer - Muslim or Christian.) I apologize if that was not clear.

But let's talk about the calls to prayer.... Here is an article from 2004 about calls to prayer. It backs up what jbg posted regarding Dearborn. Here is a quote:

"It takes only one minute — what is it, five times a day? Five minutes only — that's all we are asking for," Masud Khan told CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan.

Muslims figured it was no different than Christians ringing church bells which incidentally ring just across the street from the mosque five times a day, reports Cowan.

...

But Masud Khan, secretary of the al-Islah mosque, said the purpose of the call, which lasts less than two minutes, is not to proselytize.

"We are not inviting" non-Muslims, he said. "We are calling our Muslim people, reminding them they are obligated to come to pray."

...

The call to prayer can be heard elsewhere in metropolitan Detroit. The city of Dearborn, home to one of the largest communities of Arab Americans, has allowed the call under its general noise ordinance, without a specific amendment.

Hamtramck's amended ordinance would prohibit the call before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m. That will not always fit in with the Islamic schedule, but it is a compromise the mosque says it is willing to make.

This does not support ScottSA's assertion that Muslims are caterwauling and it definitely does not support his claim that they are blaring prayers. Again, this is a call to prayers, not prayer itself. It even shows that the Muslim community is willing to accept limits on their call to prayers to fit in with the community.

Maybe that is part of the reason why I find it so disappointing when people get so upset over a foot bath. It really does not hurt anyone and yet some people still can't find it in them to accept this accommodation.

[Moxie]

I agree, that most of the bleating is ridiculous, but consider something for me.

The primary reason for installing the footbaths is the safety of students on campus, are employers not legally obligated to provide a safe work environment for its employees? Will there come a point where companies that have Muslim employees be forced to install footbaths for safety?

Believing in a religion is a personal choice. Anyone who believes in a religion chooses to dismiss all others and for that very same reason their religion is likewise dismissed. The unknowable and unfalsifiable nature of religion should be enough to treat it as mythology and superstition. Yet here we are, installing footbaths in Universities because a group of people seem to think they know the will of an entity that in all likeliness doesn't exist.

They've made a lifestyle choice, which involves this particular ritual and I don't think the University, nor employers, should feel obligated to provide for Islam (or any other religion for that matter). It is unsafe to wash your feet in a sink, especially when you're standing on a tile floor; however, they've made the choice, by believing that this is something they MUST do to appease a God, and therefore should be responsible for their actions.

If prayer rooms and footbaths are going to be provided for Muslim students, so too should a church be provided for Christian students (several different types for all the denominations) and a synagogue for jewish students. Obviously a ridiculous request and regardless of the safety issue of washing feet in a sink, the school is still providing a holy area for Muslim students and therefore should also be providing a holy area for all other religions if they're going to go that route.

At what point do you look at the validity of religion and just decide to tell all students to keep their religions to themselves?

Thank you I feel the same why, leave your religion at the door and not make it an issue. Sadly Islam brokers no discussion only total compliance with it's beliefs. If it was safty issue why bring it up twenty years after Islam came to the West? The Koran (I've read it unlike most who embrace it from the left) and it's followers feel they are above anyone else and they shall and will make sure they are treated as our betters.

American Girl you can sprout off all the PCness that you like but if you make me eat mashed potatoes all the while telling the media I'm eating Jello it does not change the fact that I am eating mashed potatoes. Allowing foot baths is by extension allowing Islam into a Public Place. Potatoe and potatato but it means the same thing spouting Political Correct tripe from a website doesn't make it Jello Dear.

[bk59]

My bottom line view is that they chose to come here; let them live the way we do.

But what does that really mean? Does that mean everyone in Canada should dress the same? No new fashion from overseas, because that's not how we do things here. Should we ask immigrants if they will be preparing food dishes that originated from their home countries, and if so turn them away?

My point is simply that yes, they must adapt to our culture, but that does not mean that we can't accommodate parts of their culture. It is a question of where you want to draw the line I suppose. And I doubt that any two people will identically agree on where that line should be. But in this case, how is this foot bath in any way harming anyone? It is an addition to a bathroom that everyone can use. It avoids a safety problem that affected everyone, not just Muslim students.

I have no problem adopting your position if, for example, someone shows up and wants to execute someone for a crime since we don't have capital punishment here. But if someone is just practicing their religion without affecting anyone else - and make no mistake, Muslim students praying does not affect me or you in any way - then why not let them?

[jbg]

Allowing foot baths is by extension allowing Islam into a Public Place.

The intent of the request for footbaths is to press their religion into our faces. The intent is not benign.

[ScottSA]

The intent of the request for footbaths is to press their religion into our faces. The intent is not benign.

Some people simply refuse to see what is going on. Would that they took a few moments browsing the website of Cair...the organization behind all the lawsuits. Perhaps if they scrolled down to the picture of the white house on left hand side, on a link to "Muslim Voters," they'd begin to see just what this foot bath thing is really about. But they won't...

[Guest American Woman]

American Girl you can sprout off all the PCness that you like but if you make me eat mashed potatoes all the while telling the media I'm eating Jello it does not change the fact that I am eating mashed potatoes. Allowing foot baths is by extension allowing Islam into a Public Place. Potatoe and potatato but it means the same thing spouting Political Correct tripe from a website doesn't make it Jello Dear.

Again with the "American Girl?"

As to the actual issue: I am not spouting off "PCness," simply stating facts. I'll ask you and everyone else complaining about the university's "catering to Muslims" outright and see how many of you answer:

Do you think wet floors create a hazzard?

A couple of others facts for all of you complaining about how Muslims should conform to our culture since they moved to our land:

We sure didn't conform to the Native Americans' ways when we moved to their land and after taking their land, this country was founded on freedom of religion.

[bk59]

The intent of the request for footbaths is to press their religion into our faces. The intent is not benign.

Please explain to me how a foot bath is pressing religion into anyone's face. A foot bath is hardly a symbol of Islam. In fact, many people seeing it in the bathroom probably wouldn't associate it with Islam in any way.

I also took a look at the PDF on the CAIR website under "American-Muslim Voter Survey". I'm not sure if this is what ScottSA was talking about or not, but looking at it I can only ask "What is the big deal?"

Here are some quotes from page 11:

Integration in American Society

The findings of this poll demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of American Muslims favor engagement and a search for common ground with others:

89% said they vote regularly, which is almost identical to the 2004 comparable national figure of 88.5%

...

42% said they volunteer for institutions serving the public. In contrast, federal government data shows that only 29% of all American adults volunteered in 2005.

...

77% said Muslims should emphasize more strongly the values they share with Christians and Jews

How dare they participate in their government! Or contribute by volunteering. And holding values in common with other religions in the US... unthinkable.

Perhaps all this fuss about a foot bath is just a bit of overreaction.

[ScottSA]

Do you think wet floors create a hazzard?

A couple of others facts for all of you complaining about how Muslims should conform to our culture since they moved to our land:

We sure didn't conform to the Native Americans' ways when we moved to their land and after taking their land, this country was founded on freedom of religion.

Wet floors do create a hazard. So do bank robberies. Should we facilitate bank robberies to bring down the hazard level? Silly logic.

As for conforming to the native's way of life, no we didn't. We stuck with a far better way of life. Are you suggesting that because we took the Indian's land, we ought to allow someone else to take it from us? That's even sillier logic.

[cybercoma]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wants me to do tumbling during my breaks at work. Should my employer be required to put gym mats in for my safety during my somersault routines?

Maybe I missed it, but no one addressed the point I made.

If washing their feet in a sink is a safety hazard (and I'm not sure I can disagree with that fact on its own) and the school now is providing footbaths for safety, what ramifications does this have for employers?

Under most occupational health and safety legislations, employers must provide a safe work environment and show due diligence for its employees safety. If a company hires Muslim workers and they must wash their feet and pray during their shifts, is it not then the employers responsibility to provide a safe place for them to wash their feet and practice their religion?

I contend that their religion is a personal choice and they are choosing to partake in an unsafe action that is wholly unnecessary. They're saying that the existence of God is real and that they know his will. They've made a statement of fact through their actions without offering any sort of evidence to the validity of that statement.

If an employee believes there are ghosts haunting their cubicle, is it the employers responsibility to bring in an exorcist for the employee's safety?

Whether it costs the school any money or not is not the point. The Muslim group could pay for the entire thing. The problem is that they're pandering to the idea of a supreme being which is unknowable and unfalsifiable. Like all other things that are unknowable and unfalsifiable, these ideas should be dismissed and the footbaths should be deemed unnecessary. Should students wish to endanger themselves with activities such as washing their feet in sinks, they should be made to sign a waver releasing the school of any responsibility for their injury.

[jbg]

This non-issue is a classic example of the rationalization of hate, fear and intolerance.

Of course, there have been quite a few reasonable responses. The third post on the very first page should have been enough to put this to bed. Anyone who wishes to hide the sordid nature of their real motivations behind a guise of reasoned secularism; who wishes to assert that no educational facility should be abetting religion, must first attend to the beam in their own eye by seeing to the elimination of every Christian student association conducting prayer and bible study within every major post-secondary institution in North America. They must fire and remove every campus chaplain providing spiritual guidance on campus. They must remove all religious texts, especially the Bible, from every school library because you never know when somebody is going to derive a spiritual reaction devoid of cold academicism. Then and only then will there be any credibility at all left over for those objecting to this minor act of lavatory renovation.

No question that you're right on religious involvement, at least at the University level and more in the US than in Canada. Where we part is that the heritage of the US and Canada is Christian, basically. I am Jewish. My ancestors chose to come here. That was their choice and I respect the fact that we are Christian countries. Immigrants do not have the right to remake us in their image. They chose to come here, presumably to get away from something undesirable. They do not have the right to import their hatreds and battles here.

The same goes for the misplaced comparison to the issue of the Ten Commandments within a court house; a building clearly defined as housing one of the three branches of government. Such Constitutional ignorance cannot be taken seriously. Neither is a university a public school. It may receive public funding, but it is primarily funded by private donation and tuition. Last time I checked, muslim students were paying the same tuition fees as everyone else. The difference between a teacher leading an entire class of children in prayer and making small accommodations which allow young adults to practice their faith without impediment should be self-evident to a reasonable mind.

How does posting the Ten Commandments, which clearly are the bedrock of every civilized society, even if not called by that name, violate anything. The Ten Commandments memorialize the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men, period. Would you have a lawless society?

A courthouse must create awe and respect for the law.

Then there is the shameless dishonesty of portraying a completely unrelated educational program, designed to get students to see from someone else's p.o.v. for a few days, as a forced conversion. There are some educational programs that get men to see a pregnant woman's p.o.v. by having them wear a weight belt around their middle for a few days. No doubt this should be seen as forcing them to get a sex change operation. Such nonsense certainly didn't deserve the reasoned, researched response given by A.W. and the stream of vitriolic abuse that ensued was entirely what one would expect from someone drawing such insane, conspiracy-minded conclusions.

Your point? Or are you babbling? Clear this up please.

As for the question of whether an analogous program would be tolerated in Saudi Arabia, dear me, yes. Let's guide all our public policy based upon what the government of Saudi Arabia would do. Let's throw away all such educational experiences because you wouldn't catch the House of Saud trying it. Otherwise it's a "double standard". Absolute madness. The "double standard" going on before our eyes is using the Saudis as an example of muslim evil even while Bush and Condi arm them to the teeth.

You're dancing. The point is that they won't let us live among them. I don't mind letting them live among us, but it is our country, understand that!!!. Ours, not theirs.

What this boils down to is that certain people hate muslims and are going to get upset when even the slightest attempt is made to be nice to any muslim anywhere. For such people, the only good muslim is a dead muslim and the only good money spent on muslims is to drop high explosives on them. These are the same people who will then turn around and rhetorically wonder aloud why muslims hate us. They are no better than the hate-spewing fundamentalist mullahs who goad a minority of muslims into joining the terrorist cause and they are just as dangerous to the majority of geniuinely Christian souls in the west.

With any luck, the University of Michigan will have no more trouble dismissing their ridiculous bleating than I have.

I have never advocated killing any peaceful, law abiding people. Sedition and treason should be dealt with severely, however. Sewing disorder is sedition and/or treason. What part of that don't you understand?

[bk59]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wants me to do tumbling during my breaks at work. Should my employer be required to put gym mats in for my safety during my somersault routines?

Maybe I missed it, but no one addressed the point I made.

If washing their feet in a sink is a safety hazard (and I'm not sure I can disagree with that fact on its own) and the school now is providing footbaths for safety, what ramifications does this have for employers?

Under most occupational health and safety legislations, employers must provide a safe work environment and show due diligence for its employees safety. If a company hires Muslim workers and they must wash their feet and pray during their shifts, is it not then the employers responsibility to provide a safe place for them to wash their feet and practice their religion?

I contend that their religion is a personal choice and they are choosing to partake in an unsafe action that is wholly unnecessary. They're saying that the existence of God is real and that they know his will. They've made a statement of fact through their actions without offering any sort of evidence to the validity of that statement.

If an employee believes there are ghosts haunting their cubicle, is it the employers responsibility to bring in an exorcist for the employee's safety?

Whether it costs the school any money or not is not the point. The Muslim group could pay for the entire thing. The problem is that they're pandering to the idea of a supreme being which is unknowable and unfalsifiable. Like all other things that are unknowable and unfalsifiable, these ideas should be dismissed and the footbaths should be deemed unnecessary. Should students wish to endanger themselves with activities such as washing their feet in sinks, they should be made to sign a waver releasing the school of any responsibility for their injury.

I think maybe there are a few issues in your post that could be separated a bit. First you seem to advance the position that anything having to do with faith is not worthwhile. And while I suppose we could have a whole debate about the merits of faith, or lack thereof, this thread doesn't really seem the place for it. I'll just say that whether you agree with having faith or not, there is a large segment of Canadians that subscribe to some form of faith and find it worthwhile to hold those beliefs and practice their faith through actions.

As for what effect this has on employers... I would guess none. Yes, employers must provide a safe working environment, but that does not have anything to do with religion. Take a look at the Supreme Court case Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway. (You can read it here if you want.) In that case CN required its employees to wear hard hats. Bhinder was a Sikh who, because of his religion, was forbidden from wearing anything on his head except a turban. The Supreme Court sided with CN saying that although this regulation had the effect of discriminating against Sikhs, it was a valid occupational requirement. In that case safety trumped religion. Your post seems to say that accommodating religion would be a valid safety concern. At least according to the Bhinder decision that is not the case. Using your ghost example, I would think that the employee would have to demonstrate that the ghosts posed an actual safety hazard in terms of the work environment before the business would have to take action.

Also remember that a university is a very different place than a business. At a university students are encouraged to participate in extra-curricular groups. Some of these groups happen to be faith based. If the university is providing a place for worship (irrespective of religion) then it makes sense that they should do what they can to accommodate members of that faith community in terms of safety. And maybe that is the only effect it will have on business - businesses that provide space for worship may have to ensure that those spaces are safe. Then again, any business that provides space for worship would probably have no problems installing something like a foot bath. Not only because it seems like a fairly minimal cost, but also because if it really is a safety issue then they will not want to be sued.

[Guest American Woman]

Wet floors do create a hazard. So do bank robberies. Should we facilitate bank robberies to bring down the hazard level? Silly logic.

As for conforming to the native's way of life, no we didn't. We stuck with a far better way of life. Are you suggesting that because we took the Indian's land, we ought to allow someone else to take it from us? That's even sillier logic.

Speaking of silly logic, according to your logic, we shouldn't have speed limits, drunk driving laws, or even highway bridge repairs. After all, we're not facilitating bank robberies to bring down that hazard level.

A response such as yours, while everyone else avoids the question altogether, is proof that the point has been made. The fact is, wet floors do create a hazzard, and that is reason enough for U of M to put in the foot baths. You may care more about not appearing to accomodate Muslims than you care about a bathroom hazard, but I'm sure the other people who have to use the bathrooms feel differently.

Regarding not conforming to Native Americans' way of life: the point is, according to the arguments being made here, one must conform to the culture of the country they move to. Again, I've made my point. Your response does help explain your fear, though. You're afraid someone is going to do to us what we've done to them.

I honestly don't know how some of you can live a happy, productive life carrying around so much anger and fear. That a couple of foot baths can invoke this much attention, anger, and fear is truly mind boggling.

[cybercoma]

I'm talking about wet floors being a SAFETY HAZARD to the students who choose to use sinks to wash their feet. Since it is indeed a safety hazard, then all employers of Muslim people should be REQUIRED to put in footbaths for the safety of their employees, according to occupational health and safety legislation across the country, right? If the University has a responsibility to the students' safety, then employers have even more of a resonsibility to its employees' safety.

My point about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is directly to this. If my religion says I have to do something that is unsafe and I have to do it while I'm at work, does my employer have an obligation to protect me?

I have no fear of Muslim people and I'm more than happy to accept them into this nation. I'm happy to accept everyone to this nation, as long as they keep their religion to themselves. Religions have no basis in reason or understanding, they're nothing more than a statement of fact, then a bunch of rules and demands for reverence that are undeserved of such nonsense. As long as they keep their religion to themselves (that goes for all religioins) and don't demand that I have to show some undue reverence towards it, we've got no problems.

Edited August 8, 2007 by cybercoma

[jbg]

I'm talking about wet floors being a SAFETY HAZARD to the students who choose to use sinks to wash their feet. Since it is indeed a safety hazard, then all employers of Muslim people should be REQUIRED to put in footbaths for the safety of their employees, according to occupational health and safety legislation across the country, right? If the University has a responsibility to the students' safety, then employers have even more of a resonsibility to its employees' safety.

My view is that whether in the workplace or in the university, use of a sink as a footbath is use for an unintended purpose, and should be considered vandalism or trespassing. For football players there is a new invention that should make life easier. It's called "paper towels".

[kimmy]

Just a hypothetical...

Suppose there's a pool, or water-feature, or fountain-type thing on campus. It's out of the way. It's not out in the middle of the Quad or anything, it's in a quiet location near the administration building.

A group of Muslim students find the fountain to be a handy place to wash their feet before prayer.

A group of non-Muslim students find the fountain to be an enjoyable place to wade, or dip their feet after a long day on their feet.

Are the Muslim students doing anything wrong? Are the non-Muslim students doing anything wrong? Are the Muslim students doing anything wrong that the non-Muslim students aren't?

There is a big pool in front of Edmonton's city hall that's immensely popular for wading during the summer. Should that practice be stopped? Has City Hall been Islamified? Should waders be required to sign an affidavit promising that they are not wading for any religious purpose before being allowed into the water?

-k

[bk59]

I'm talking about wet floors being a SAFETY HAZARD to the students who choose to use sinks to wash their feet. Since it is indeed a safety hazard, then all employers of Muslim people should be REQUIRED to put in footbaths for the safety of their employees, according to occupational health and safety legislation across the country, right? If the University has a responsibility to the students' safety, then employers have even more of a resonsibility to its employees' safety.

My point about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is directly to this. If my religion says I have to do something that is unsafe and I have to do it while I'm at work, does my employer have an obligation to protect me?

I have no fear of Muslim people and I'm more than happy to accept them into this nation. I'm happy to accept everyone to this nation, as long as they keep their religion to themselves. Religions have no basis in reason or understanding, they're nothing more than a statement of fact, then a bunch of rules and demands for reverence that are undeserved of such nonsense. As long as they keep their religion to themselves (that goes for all religioins) and don't demand that I have to show some undue reverence towards it, we've got no problems.

But there is a difference between safety hazards that exist as part of the workplace when employees are going about their work and a safety hazard that exists because of an employee doing something unrelated to doing their job in the workplace. To my knowledge, occupational health and safety generally requires employers to eliminate the first type of hazard, but not the second type. There is nothing hazardous about a sink. Using it in a certain way could create a hazard though. But unless employees are required to wash their feet in a sink as part of their work then I doubt an employer would have to deal with this issue.

Regarding your Monster, as I tried to point out in my last post, an employer is not obliged to accommodate your religious practices if it is a safety hazard while doing your work.

I understand that you do not want to be forced into a religion yourself, but the fact is we belong to a society that holds many different beliefs. Try not to let your anti-religious stance cloud the fact that we can accommodate these beliefs without forcing anyone to follow any particular religion. (To be clear, I am not using "anti-religious" in a derogatory way - your posts just make it clear that you don't support religious beliefs.)

[bk59]

Just a hypothetical...

Suppose there's a pool, or water-feature, or fountain-type thing on campus. It's out of the way. It's not out in the middle of the Quad or anything, it's in a quiet location near the administration building.

A group of Muslim students find the fountain to be a handy place to wash their feet before prayer.

A group of non-Muslim students find the fountain to be an enjoyable place to wade, or dip their feet after a long day on their feet.

Are the Muslim students doing anything wrong? Are the non-Muslim students doing anything wrong? Are the Muslim students doing anything wrong that the non-Muslim students aren't?

There is a big pool in front of Edmonton's city hall that's immensely popular for wading during the summer. Should that practice be stopped? Has City Hall been Islamified? Should waders be required to sign an affidavit promising that they are not wading for any religious purpose before being allowed into the water?

-k

In my opinion the answer to every single question you asked is No.

[ScottSA]

Just a hypothetical...

Suppose there's a pool, or water-feature, or fountain-type thing on campus. It's out of the way. It's not out in the middle of the Quad or anything, it's in a quiet location near the administration building.

A group of Muslim students find the fountain to be a handy place to wash their feet before prayer.

A group of non-Muslim students find the fountain to be an enjoyable place to wade, or dip their feet after a long day on their feet.

Are the Muslim students doing anything wrong? Are the non-Muslim students doing anything wrong? Are the Muslim students doing anything wrong that the non-Muslim students aren't?

There is a big pool in front of Edmonton's city hall that's immensely popular for wading during the summer. Should that practice be stopped? Has City Hall been Islamified? Should waders be required to sign an affidavit promising that they are not wading for any religious purpose before being allowed into the water?

-k

As I recall, there were no affidavits required for Muslims to wash their feet in the sink, either.

But what if it came to the attention of city hall that Muslims found the existing pond to be somewhat hard to clamber into, and demanded a new pool with wheelchair access so that returned wounded mujahaddin could soak their sores in heavenly bliss? Because that's a much closer parallel to the actuality.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm talking about wet floors being a SAFETY HAZARD to the students who choose to use sinks to wash their feet. Since it is indeed a safety hazard, then all employers of Muslim people should be REQUIRED to put in footbaths for the safety of their employees, according to occupational health and safety legislation across the country, right? If the University has a responsibility to the students' safety, then employers have even more of a resonsibility to its employees' safety.

It's not just a safety hazard to the students who choose to use the sinks to wash their feet; wet floors are a hazard to everyone using the restroom. And universities and places of employment aren't comparable. A university is like a community within itself, providing a service to paying students. And it's not just foot baths; chaplains are employed in the university hospital, the university actually funded building a chapel way back when, etc. So if the Muslims were barred from using the sinks and foot baths weren't provided, and therefore Muslims couldn't pray, then their freedom to practice religion would be being infringed upon. So what it boils down to is this: hazardous sinks or foot baths.

My point about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is directly to this. If my religion says I have to do something that is unsafe and I have to do it while I'm at work, does my employer have an obligation to protect me?

I have no fear of Muslim people and I'm more than happy to accept them into this nation. I'm happy to accept everyone to this nation, as long as they keep their religion to themselves. Religions have no basis in reason or understanding, they're nothing more than a statement of fact, then a bunch of rules and demands for reverence that are undeserved of such nonsense. As long as they keep their religion to themselves (that goes for all religioins) and don't demand that I have to show some undue reverence towards it, we've got no problems.

Your Flying Spaghetti Monster scenario doesn't work because while we are guarenteed the right to freedom of religion, we aren't guaranteed anything regarding Flying Spaghetti Monsters. You may think religions have no basis in reason or understanding, and that is your right-- you have the freedom not to practice religion-- but in spite of what you think, we are guarenteed the right of freedom of religion.

I will say one more time that this is much ado about nothing. Foot baths are being installed in bathrooms more and more often. Michigan isn't the first university to be doing this: others are doing it too. In fact, it's already been done-- and wonder of wonders, the world as we know it hasn't come to an end.

[Bonam]

Your Flying Spaghetti Monster scenario doesn't work because while we are guarenteed the right to freedom of religion, we aren't guaranteed anything regarding Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

Hate-ridden Anti-Pastafaric comments like this should not be accepted on this forum. As you say, we are guaranteed freedom of religion, so who are you to discriminate against the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in this way? According to a highly reliable source, the Church of the Flying Spaghetting Monster itself, this religion has over 10 million adherrents. I feel that you should further educate yourself on Pastafarianism before deriding its beliefs.

http://www.venganza.org/

[ScottSA]

Hate-ridden Anti-Pastafaric

Don't be ridiculous. The word is 'pastaphobic.'

[Bonam]

On the contrary, both are valid terms. Pastaphobic refers to one who fears the spread of Pastafarianism and the Pastification of our society. Anti-Pastafaric refers to one who has a deep, ingrained hatred of all Pastafarians, regardless of the effect of Pastafarianism on our society. A Pastaphobe would be content if followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would simply cease to bother us and remained in their own homeland, whereas an anti-Pastafarite would not be content until all Pastafarians were whiped from the face of the Earth.

[guyser]

As I recall, there were no affidavits required for Muslims to wash their feet in the sink, either.

But what if it came to the attention of city hall that Muslims found the existing pond to be somewhat hard to clamber into, and demanded a new pool with wheelchair access so that returned wounded mujahaddin could soak their sores in heavenly bliss? Because that's a much closer parallel to the actuality.

Actually, it should read " if the Muslims found the pond to be somewhat hard to clamber into, and decided to raise the funds themselves for improvement

You forgot the fact that they were going to pay for this themselves.

What is funny is how the University does something fiscally prudent and people get their knickers in a knot , and should the Univ NOT do anything about the hazard and lose a lawsuit their knickers would be in a huge knot.

But when you have an agenda , nothing will stop the rants. Heck , obviously not even logic .