ACLU has been running around defending foot baths.

Religion: In the USAToday and Detroit News, ACLU reps are trying to mud up the issue and the Pope is a popular straw man.

USA TODAY:

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.

DetNews:

That said, the issue of the University of Michigan Dearborn installing foot baths is complicated. This issue would be simpler if the government were building inherently religious facilities. Here, the footbaths are not inherently religious facilities -- they are not blessed, cannot be desecrated and are open to everyone for any purpose. They are essentially spigots in the bathroom wall. In addition, the motivation of the university seems to be a response to a practical cleanliness and safety issue. Not every government expenditure to promote safety is unconstitutional because it has an incidental benefit to worshippers. When Pope John Paul II visited Hamtramck two decades ago, the ACLU of Michigan did not oppose the use of city funds for security because the motive and effect was to ensure the pope's safety, not to promote Christianity.

The pope was protected because he is a VIP and it would be inherently foolish not to protect the Pope or a figure who by safety protocols needs protection. The foot baths are being put in for religious reasons first with the no its not for religious purposes excuse for the public.

The appearance of foot baths coincides with a rise of a Muslim student body at each of these colleges, just like they appear with the rise of Muslim taxi drivers at Indianapolis airport or Kansas City airport. It is becoming insulting to the general public when the universities and inexplicably the ACLU seem to be rushing to defend this practice.