Unfinished Bl…

About a month ago, there was a news story about a man named Bob Neinast who was kicked out of the Ohio statehouse for not wrapping his feet in cotton, leather, and rubber. In his own words:

I’ve visited the Statehouse many, many times barefooted over the past 10 years or so. I never had any problem until last June, when I was seen by a State Trooper. He stopped me, being sure there was a rule against it (there wasn’t). He also got quite indignant that I even suggested that there was no rule, and he brought in his smarmy Sergeant. Eventually, they called the folks in charge of the Statehouse, and were told that there was no such rule. They let me go (reluctantly!).
The Official Blog of the Society for Barefoot Living

However, the courthouse has responded by attempting to pass such an ordinance.

I offer a lament over this injustice that is taking place daily in the Land of the “Free” and Home of the Shod. It is an injustice which is hardly known to those who wear shoes, but an infuriating daily struggle for those who do not.

Amazingly, even Creationists and Evolutionists agree on this one! Whether it was God or Natural Selection, it makes no difference: our feet were not designed for shoes.

Why then do so many people seem to have such irrational podophobia that they cannot let any live in peace who would do so without the use of footwear?

What prompts all the hateful comments toward a man who has the audacity to want to use his feet to do what they were actually made to do?

What could be so incredibly appealing about a policy which infringes on the health, liberty, and happiness of citizens? I can think of only four reasons which might serve as motivation for the creation of such a rule:

1. Tradition
2. Aesthetics
3. “Laws” or “Health Code”
4. Liability

Tradition

It is common practice in the United States today to be shod most places except beaches and beds. It is also common practice in the United States to hang little blinking lights on fir trees in the month of December.

For some reason, it seems that being barefoot in public is considered by many to be “taboo”. I admit that I myself used to look with disdain upon people who were too lazy (I assumed) to wear shoes. Why is this? Perhaps it is due to the unfortunate stereotype that has emerged from the 1960s “hippie” movement, and the false notion that everyone who is barefoot is automatically one of those disrespectful, filthy, stoned hippies. Some have suggested that the widespread appearance of “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service” signs can be traced to this era, and that non-hippie individuals who had gone barefoot in public on a regular basis opted to begin wearing shoes, lest they be identified with opposition to the Vietnam War and other causes associated with the counterculture.

People had of course been going barefoot for thousands of years before the 1960s, but since you and I were not around back then, it’s not what we always think of. Most of us were taught, ever since we were born, that we are “supposed to” to wear shoes. Over time, society unintentionally brainwashes us with a healthy dose of Grade-A FUD to support this claim. We think that wearing shoes is just part of being “dressed”, but why don’t we say the same about gloves or a hat? These things are not matters of modesty or decency, only personal preference. Some of us choose to go unshod not due to slovenliness, laziness, or a desire to be “different”, but because we prefer not to encase our feet in supportive devices which tend to misalign our bones, atrophy our muscles, and cause any number of negative side effects by trying to fix something that is not broken in the first place. We happen to have some amazing organic devices on the ends of our legs.

Aesthetics

If an establishment is offended—or is afraid of other customers being offended—at the sight of a customer’s bare feet, I would also expect tattoos and piercings to be prohibited. Outrageously, under the current mindset, it seems it would be completely fine if a customer entered with 7-inch spiked green hair, a black leather jacket littered with pointy metal studs, and a body covered in tattoos and piercings; But if a conservatively-dressed customer walked in without shoes, he would be told to put something on his feet lest he behave like a heathen! Is this not arbitrary discrimination?

And if the visual appearance of feet is somehow disturbing, I ask you what the difference is between someone being barefoot and another wearing “flip-flops” which are nothing more than little flimsy pieces of rubber under their otherwise exposed feet? Besides, I suspect that the real culprit behind ugly feet is, ironically, shoes which alter the growth and development of our feet.

“Laws” or “Health Code”

It is a great misconception in the United States that shoes are required by law in places of business, especially restaurants. It is also com­mon­ly thought that shoes must be worn while driving. The website barefooters.org debunks both of these persistent myths. Several contributors to the website have combined efforts and written to all 50 states, multiple times. The responses they have received confirm that no such laws exist. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration only regulates the attire of employees, not customers. There is also no truth to the claim that sensory-dulling slabs of rubber are required to operate a motor vehicle.

Despite the nonexistence of these “laws”, many signs are sadly still seen posted at establishments that say something like:

NO BARE FEET
by Order of the Health Department

Um, how about NO BAREFACED LIES?

If “cleanliness” is the concern, I ask you to consider which is more sanitary: a pair of shoes that have been worn, sweat in, and dragged through whatever is on the ground every day for six months without being washed, or a pair of human feet which have been washed with soap every day and whose skin cells are constantly being replenished with new ones, thus making these not even the same pair of feet that existed six months ago? O, Glory be to God for His wonderful creation!

Liability

Perhaps the reason for requiring shoes in buildings is something like “you’ll sue us if you step on broken glass”. First of all, I have rarely in my life seen any broken glass on the floor inside a building, but if I did, I think I would have the sense to walk around it. And I have found from experience that such things as small pieces of broken glass can be directly stepped on without causing any harm to the human foot (especially that of the seasoned barefooter). Furthermore, I don’t see helmets being required indoors in case objects fall from high shelves. If safety really was the concern, high-heels or platform-shoes would be banned since they can be much more dangerous than the absence of shoes; but they are not banned because everyone seems to understand that it would be the customer’s own fault if she tripped and injured herself with her choice of footwear, and that legislating such things would be an infringement of personal liberty.

I like the Bible. It describes a God who created us never intending that we wear shoes. Adam and Eve were naked in the garden and it was “very good”. Now, lest you think I’m advocating nudism, we all know that when they sinned, they were ashamed of their nakedness; but have you ever noticed that they were not ashamed of their barefootedness? Genesis 3:21 says God made them tunics of skin to clothe them, but no sandals. And let’s not forget the command given to Moses as he approached the burning bush—the very presence of God:

Do not come near; put some shoes on, you hippy, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.

Oh wait, that’s not how it goes...

Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.
Exodus 3:5

I am not saying it is wrong to wear shoes; I am only saying that it is not the intrinsically “right” thing to do, as most seem to insist. It is simply interfering with nature. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad. But enough from me. I’ll conclude with what some others have said.

Dr. Steele F. Stewart notes:

Millions of Indians, both American and Asian, and Congoids wander their native savannas and rain forests without protection, inconvenience, or complaint. Footgear, therefore, would appear to be unnecessary.
(“Running-related injury prevention through barefoot adaptations.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19(2), 1987, pp. 148-156.)

Not only are shoes unnecessary, they can actually be very harmful to our feet. There is something to be learned from the country of India:

In Europe and America flat foot is a common reason for attendance at a children’s orthopaedic clinic, but in India children are seldom brought for treatment for flat foot. The few children who do attend with this complaint are from affluent urban families and they all wear shoes. In our clinic we have never seen a child from the farming community or from the family of a manual labourer who complained of flat foot.
(Benjamin Joseph. “The Influence of Footwear on the Prevalence of Flat Foot.” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 74B(4), 1992, pp. 525-527.)

Regarding “athlete’s foot”, the American Academy of Dermatology has has stated:

Athlete’s foot does not occur among people who traditionally go barefoot. It’s moisture, sweating and lack of proper ventilation of the feet that present the perfect setting for the fungus of athlete’s foot to grow.
(“Athlete’s Foot.” Patient Information Pamphlet, American Academy of Dermatology, Schaumburg, IL, 1994.)

Regarding other conditions, Stewart stated:

All writers who have reported their observations of barefooted people agree that the untrammeled feet of natural men are free from the disabilities commonly noted among shod people—hallux vagus, bunions, hammer toes, and painful feet.
(“Footgear—Its History, Uses and Abuses.” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 88, 1972, pp. 119-130.)