I just came across an interesting book on religious tolerance. The book is Religion, Diversity and Conflict, edited by Edward Foley.
It documents a meeting of the International Academy of Practical Theology that occurred in 2007.
The book itself is a collection of articles written by various attendees at the conference. The first article is about the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding and the work that it does. That article is entitled A Look at Religious, Diversity and Conflict through a Practical Lens by Joyce S. Dubensky, who is the ex-officio CEO of Tanenbaum.
Part of the article talked about Seven Principles that were used in addressing conflict, and how they could be used to teach people. Principle Number 3:
Preventing Prejudice (learning to identify and proactively debunk stereo-types);
I think barefooters of all sorts, religious or not, can really identify with that and would love to see it put into place everywhere.
Anyways, the article goes on to address some of the religious issues that take place in the workplace, and how they might be addressed. They identify that
Key issues repeatedly trigger religious diversity conflicts in workplaces including prayer, attire, diet and scheduling.
What really caught my eye was the example given for attire:
Attire: What should a company do when a Hindu employee wants to come to work barefoot for a month in preparation for her religious pilgrimage, but the company’s policy requires proper attire (including shoes) at the office?
“Ooooh, ooooh!” I say. “Pick me, teacher! I know the answer”.
“Let the employee come to work barefoot. It hurts nobody and really should cause no problems.”
Let’s see what Tanenbaum says is the answer:
The barefoot Hindu woman may present a more complicated issue, but an attempt to accommodate may minimize any resulting tensions. What if bare feet are not allowed because it is unsanitary and can spread disease? Here, the response would be that the employee must wear shoes. Alternatively, it might be possible to allow the employee to work off-site, depending on her responsibilities, or allow her to take her vacation or unpaid time to meet her religious obligations (provided, again, that it does not unduly burden the company).
Huh? I thought you were supposed to be debunking stereotypes to prevent prejudice.
Bare feet are unsanitary? Since when? Exactly what disease would she be spreading? (Of course, keep in mind that things like athlete’s foot are shod diseases—if you go barefoot all the time it is extremely hard for the fungus to take hold outside the warm, dark, moist environment of a shoe.) When employees have colds and really are unsanitary, do you make them wear face masks with breathing filters? Or are you just selective in your prejudice?
The response ought to be to do some research. The response ought to be to apply your Principle Number 3.
Why not let the employee just go barefoot, particularly if it is in a typical office environment? (There might be some jobs and conditions where safety might really require something like a steel-toed shoe, but why assume that in a general answer?)
All I can say is that stuff like this is extremely disappointing, and is typical of the sort of thing we barefooters have to regularly counteract. These people are presenting themselves as experts, and them spectacularly fail in an area that we know something about.
And then how can we trust them to know anything in any other area?
Ahcuah 
It looks a whole lot like whoever wrote that was looking for any reason at all to say no. Sigh.
It reminds me of two articles I saw a little while ago. One was about Indian children going barefoot and an Indian podiatrist saying it would ruin their feet. The kids in question? They thought he was stupid “we go barefoot every day, nothing happens.” The parents didn’t care either. They were more concerned that the kids get an education. But of course they would, they likely don’t wear shoes either, or were brought up barefoot.
The second article was about how a factory was making workers in India leave their shoes behind so they wouldn’t go far from work during lunch. The workers themselves still went out, but hid their faces out of shame of being seen barefoot. Sigh.
My suspicion is that the “unsanitary” bit is a prejudice/assumption that the author grew up hearing and just never questioned.
But that is so much like a religious prejudice (grew up hearing and never questioned) that she really ought to have known to carefully examine her assumption.
I think it might be good to encourage people to politely message to try and get them to endorse a religious right to go barefoot. It could be really helpful to us if we can get them to see reason on the issue.
As a person of no religion I’m against religious privileges. However if going barefoot becomes a right for religious reasons, it’s obvious that for those religious people it’s not an “unsafe, unsanitary, improper” practice. That would mean the rest of us have just as much of a right as they do.
In a strict mathematical/logical sense, “unhealthy and can spread disease” is not true, so this cannot cause a ban of bare feet, making the “what if” condition to never apply, thus making the whole answer moot. But I think the author did not have this in mind.
In my opinion the advice given is meant to reassure any employer that (s)he can be (or appear to be) accomodating without questioning his/her authority to set the rules for attire at the workplace, regardless of how far-fetched the “rationale” for the rule may be.
This may be seen in the wider context of disspelling fears businesses may have regarding the implementation of anti-discrimination laws (in the US, ADA, RFRA etc.), which some seem to see as too intrusive into their affairs.
That sounds a whole lot like the justification for “we respect your lifestyle choices, but we can’t let you come in barefoot” line they always throw out at me. What they really mean is that they are absolutely forbidding you from going barefoot, but at the same time they want to make it seem like they are being polite and reasonable.
Or in other words, “Lets compromise by doing what I want”. She was plainly trying more than most with that whole idea about them working offsite or giving them a paid holiday. Though, if they can work offsite, why can’t they work onsite?
To make my point clear: in my opinion the employer has the right to specify proper attire at the workplace. But I think it’s unwise to publicly state a rationale that doesn’t stand even casual examination. That would make the business appear in a bad light. It’s better to not give any explaination in this case.
Minor quibble: an employer may have the right to specify acceptable* attire in the workplace. That does not mean it is not “proper”.
* Acceptable to them and their prejudices.
Yes, of course. “Proper Attire” as they define it.
I’m a secularist: Religious laws come second and only if they are in accordance with the laws that society agreed on democraticcally.
If it’s a real safety issue (actual danger of hurting your feet in a factory, so safety shoes must be worn) there can be no exception for religious reasons.
(Just as I wouldn’t make an exception to motorbike helmet laws for sikhs so that they can wear their dastar. If they wish to do so, they should choose a different means of transportation.)
But what most shoe wearers don’t get is that outside such danger zones, workplaces are absolutely safe for walking barefoot. And it should be simple logic that no disease has been spread by a healthy barefoot person, so if there is any doubt, a checkup at the doctor can be done to ensure there’s no risk.
Interesting information that it seems to be common among hindu to go barefoot during and a month before pilgrimage. I have seen numerous barefoot pilgrims in holy cities of India such as Varanasi (hindu) or Amritsar (sikh) and they all appeared to do quite well despite the dirt and rubbish in the streets.
Unci – the reason Sikhs are allowed to wear their turbans is because the way they are rolled actually makes them as good or better than a lot of helmets. It is also their personal choice to do so.
I’m glad to hear that barefootedness is surviving in Sikh culture, even if it is in a limited way.
I wonder if they go barefoot outside their holy places/cities (as part of their culture). It seems they also have a tradition of being barefoot at home. (But I know now sikhs in Austria to check with …)
Of all indian religions, sikhism was the one that made me feel most welcome as an “outsider”. And their gurdwaras are the most barefoot-friendly place as everyone walks through a stream of warm water upon entering the place, so it’s nothing but clean bare feet, a very pleasant place.
Interesting picture on http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/editors-choice?articleId=USRTX25L14 today. It looks like a barefoot Sri Lankan military march! Picture 14
Nice!