NationStates

So today I witnessed something on my college campus that's got me thinking now.

I was sitting outside the cafeteria in the student union when I saw a guy get into an argument with the woman at the counter and a cafeteria worker. The student was not wearing any shoes because shoes violated his religious beliefs (don't know what his religion was; if anyone could shed some light that would be great). He was admitted into the cafeteria but was removed by the cafeteria worker after another student reported his lack of shoes.

Anyway, it turned into a heated argument over freedom of religion and the cafeteria's "no shirt no shoes no service" policy. People were stopping and staring. Finally, the student demanded the name and number of the cafeteria worker because he was going to the president's office over it, the cafeteria worker refused to provide that information even after the student provided his, and the worker walked off as the student was still talking to him.

So this little incident got me thinking: where does freedom of religion end and school policy begin? I know this question has been asked many times before, but I never really thought much about it until today when I saw it in person.

What do I think? I'm conflicted. On one hand I believe strongly in freedom of religion, and I don't think someone should be forced to do something that violates their religious beliefs. On the other hand, it's school rules, and they're there for a reason. Bare feet carry all sorts of germs (the guy's feet were filthy). However, I do think the cafeteria worker was rude by not giving his name and walking off mid-conversation.

What do you think NSG? Was the school right to kick this guy out of the cafeteria because he wasn't wearing shoes? Where does freedom of religion end?

It seems to me that freedom of religion, in this case, ends with health department regulations, and school (cafeteria policies). I don't think a forgiving god would frown upon say hemp sandals for the duration of the visit to the caf. Note, I went to a summer camp that was totally clothing optional, except at meal times...

And yeah, walking away was kind of rude (not actually having witnessed the altercation)

The student should've gotten his way.

Freedom of religion shouldn’t apply to public places. You are free to worship but that doesn’t extend to the public sphere

Kubumba Tribe wrote:The student should've gotten his way.

No he shouldn’t have. We shouldn’t bend over backwards to accommodate every single religion. You can follow your crazy practices in your house or in a place of worship but not a public cafe. And especially not in a school

I'm honestly not certain why bare feet would be disallowed; if he's not wearing shoes, his feet are probably just as dirty (edit: as the shoes). Maybe they're even cleaner (edit: than the shoes) because he's watching where he steps.

Ithreland wrote:I'm honestly not certain why bare feet would be disallowed; if he's not wearing shoes, his feet are probably just as dirty. Maybe they're even cleaner because he's watching where he steps.

No you’re feet aren’t cleaner barefoot than if you wear shoes

Yeah, no. Bare feet carry germs. End of story.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ithreland wrote:I'm honestly not certain why bare feet would be disallowed; if he's not wearing shoes, his feet are probably just as dirty. Maybe they're even cleaner because he's watching where he steps.

No you’re feet aren’t cleaner barefoot than if you wear shoes

First of all, I'm sorry to be that guy, and mean no offense, but *your.
Secondly, sure. But are shoes cleaner than feet assuming the same amount of wear/use? Especially since you'd have to step more carefully because things could hurt you? I live near an evergreen nut-bearing tree; my driveway demands at least slippers.

Thermodolia wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:The student should've gotten his way.

No he shouldn’t have. We shouldn’t bend over backwards to accommodate every single religion. You can follow your crazy practices in your house or in a place of worship but not a public cafe. And especially not in a school

Places of worship are public places. Anyone can walk in off the street, just like they can walk into a cafe.

Ifreann wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No he shouldn’t have. We shouldn’t bend over backwards to accommodate every single religion. You can follow your crazy practices in your house or in a place of worship but not a public cafe. And especially not in a school

Places of worship are public places. Anyone can walk in off the street, just like they can walk into a cafe.

Technically, but they're still privately-owned, they're generally locked at night, and by that criterion anyone's unlocked front door makes their house public.

Ifreann wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No he shouldn’t have. We shouldn’t bend over backwards to accommodate every single religion. You can follow your crazy practices in your house or in a place of worship but not a public cafe. And especially not in a school

Places of worship are public places. Anyone can walk in off the street, just like they can walk into a cafe.

Yes, thank you for the pedantry.

Ithreland wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Places of worship are public places. Anyone can walk in off the street, just like they can walk into a cafe.

Technically, but they're still privately-owned, they're generally locked at night,

Just like cafes.

and by that criterion anyone's unlocked front door makes their house public.

I didn't mean that a place in public because it is physically accessible, I mean that a place is public if people are allowed to walk in.

Ifreann wrote:

Ithreland wrote:
Technically, but they're still privately-owned, they're generally locked at night,

Just like cafes.

and by that criterion anyone's unlocked front door makes their house public.

I didn't mean that a place in public because it is physically accessible, I mean that a place is public if people are allowed to walk in.

So if I have guests over, it's semi-public. Interesting. Never thought of it that way.

Ithreland wrote:I'm honestly not certain why bare feet would be disallowed; if he's not wearing shoes, his feet are probably just as dirty (edit: as the shoes). Maybe they're even cleaner (edit: than the shoes) because he's watching where he steps.

His feet were filthy. I doubt they’d be any dirtier if he was wearing shoes.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ithreland wrote:I'm honestly not certain why bare feet would be disallowed; if he's not wearing shoes, his feet are probably just as dirty. Maybe they're even cleaner because he's watching where he steps.

No you’re feet aren’t cleaner barefoot than if you wear shoes

Then what's your issue with what he did.

Why can't we just let people do what they want as long as its not hurting anyone? I can kinda see the shoe thing since you could argue that its a health hazard but for the larger question, what's wrong with people following their religious beliefs in public? That guy being barefoot on the sidewalk or wearing a burka or having a cross isn't hurting you.

The United Lands of Ash wrote:Why can't we just let people do what they want as long as its not hurting anyone? I can kinda see the shoe thing since you could argue that its a health hazard but for the larger question, what's wrong with people following their religious beliefs in public? That guy being barefoot on the sidewalk or wearing a burka or having a cross isn't hurting you.

^this.

For anyone wondering what barefootedness has to do with religion:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoo ... us_aspects

Kowani wrote:Yeah, no. Bare feet carry germs. End of story.

It ain't like he's putting his feet on any of the tables.

I'd imagine it's not very healthy or safe to walk around in bare feet, but I don't see that it's unhealthy for other people to be around someone in bare feet? They're probably cleaner than the soles of shoes. Seems to be a case of something socially abnormal being labeled a public safety issue because people are confused by it.

Ifreann wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No he shouldn’t have. We shouldn’t bend over backwards to accommodate every single religion. You can follow your crazy practices in your house or in a place of worship but not a public cafe. And especially not in a school

Places of worship are public places. Anyone can walk in off the street, just like they can walk into a cafe.

Places of worship are held to a different standard and aren’t considered public places

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No you’re feet aren’t cleaner barefoot than if you wear shoes

Then what's your issue with what he did.

First off the guy didn’t wear shoes, that’s a no no. Second he’s trying to use his religion to get his way, also a no no

Kubumba Tribe wrote:The student should've gotten his way.

It's a public health hazard. Verucas and so on. We shouldn't tolerate peoples religion if it's damaging to public wellbeing. Aztecs make for poor neighbors.

Thermodolia wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Then what's your issue with what he did.

First off the guy didn’t wear shoes, that’s a no no. Second he’s trying to use his religion to get his way, also a no no

Also this.
If you can't come up with a secular argument, i'm rejecting it out of hand because you're waffling about fairies as far as i'm concerned. If your gods reasoning is so alien to human experience that you can't connect to it and argue it from a temporal basis, you probably shouldn't be worshiping them because their morality system is alien and not suited to humans.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:The student should've gotten his way.

It's a public health hazard. Verucas and so on. We shouldn't tolerate peoples religion if it's damaging to public wellbeing. Aztecs make for poor neighbors.

How is someone not wearing shoes a public health hazard?
Was he putting his feet on the tables? Was he using his feet to put food on his tray?