Happy feet

Airports have been getting a bad rap lately, what with all the plane delays and foot-tapping routines in public restrooms. In better days, they were a good place to catch up with the latest issue of People magazine. Now, they are fast becoming battlegrounds over mundane things like the establishment clause. Last year, the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport removed all Christmas trees in the display areas after a local rabbi insisted on putting up an electronic menorah. \nThe Indianapolis Airport has become the latest casualty of the politically correct atmosphere prevailing in our society. Airport officials are considering installing washbasins in the restrooms to accommodate the 100 or so Muslim cab drivers who currently use the sinks to wash their feet. Some Muslims wash their hands, face, mouth, ears and feet up to five times a day in preparation for their prayers. Officials hope that the presence of washbasins will deter Muslim drivers from using the sink to do so, since it poses safety and hygiene concerns. \nUnderstandably, the proposal is fast becoming a source of derision, primarily for Christian activists. Rev. Jerry Hillenburg, a Baptist pastor whose son was killed in Iraq, characterized the proposal as “caving in to Islam.” In a news release, Hillenburg also called for the end of “fraternization with our open enemies during a time of war.” His sentiments are undeniably colored by the tragic loss of his son, and his words – while an exaggeration – highlight the same quandary in which I find myself.\nLegally, there is no obstacle to this proposal, since the washbasins will be privately financed. One could also argue that a washbasin isn’t inherently a religious symbol since it is not venerated by any particular group. Furthermore, by discouraging the use of sinks for washing feet, airport officials are promoting sanitary habits. \nYet, I find myself uneasy with this proposition, mostly because of the danger of going down a slippery slope. Once public officials grant this request, it will become much more difficult to reject proposals for other religious accommodations. And while the freedom to practice one’s religion is a cornerstone of American democracy, there are religious customs that are incompatible with the rule of law. The question is, what determines the standards by which these practices can be evaluated? \nEarly this year, Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport refused to take passengers who were carrying alcohol. As a result of this religious stipulation, more than 4,800 individuals have been refused service in the past five years. Thankfully, the Metropolitan Airports Commission refused to bow down to the drivers’ requests and voted to stiffen penalties for those who refused to comply. \nThe Indianapolis Airport’s proposal, while well-intentioned, advances the notion that religion can and should be a part of the public sphere. It also highlights the arbitrary standards by which religious practices are evaluated today. Like other rights, the freedom to practice one’s religion is not absolute, and incidents like these will continue to test its limits.