Thursday, July 24, 2008

It is not Selfish to ask Visitors to Remove their Shoes

re-post

Some people claim it is selfish to ask visitors to remove their shoes. They think that it shows excessive concern for one's carpet or flooring.

On the contrary it is not selfish at all.

Firstly, there is an health issue involved. Peoples' shoes pick up dust and animal excrement which is not good for one's health and especially bad for the health of one's children. If one has babies or small children that play on the floor it is extremely sensible to keep one's home shoe-free.

There are many worries today about the health risks posed by pollution, toxins and chemicals. Personally, I think many of these health scares are exagerrated. Many of the supposed health risks have not been scientifically verified. However, it is best to keep as much nasty stuff out of the house as possible.

Secondly, the notion of selfishness here is relative. In a country where shoe-removing is the norm, like Finland or Russia, it would hardly be selfish to insist on shoes-off.

In Britain or the USA, where keeping shoes on is the norm, there are many people who would like to insitute a shoes-off policy, but who are afraid of causing offence or being deemed 'selfish.' If a person is brave enough to insist on shoes-off, she makes it easier for those other people who feel that they would like to make their homes shoe-free. In time, the norms of the UK and the USA may change and shoe-removing may become as normal as it is in Thailand or Sweden.

5 comments:

jazzycat said...

In Britain or the USA, where keeping shoes on is the norm, there are many people who would like to insitute a shoes-off policy, but who are afraid of causing offence or being deemed 'selfish.'

The reminds me of what I consider to be a terrible plague in America and that is the thinking that a consensus must be formed before one can act. IMO, good leadership and a good bold world-view on living would be to put up a sign that says no shoes allowed in house.... Go for it Matthew

Celestial Fundie said...

Thanks, Wayne.

I am reminded Shakespeare's Henry V:

KING HENRY V
It is not a fashion for the maids in France to kiss
before they are married, would she say?

ALICE
Oui, vraiment.

KING HENRY V
O Kate, nice customs curtsy to great kings. Dear
Kate, you and I cannot be confined within the weak
list of a country's fashion: we are the makers of
manners, Kate; and the liberty that follows our
places stops the mouth of all find-faults; as I will
do yours, for upholding the nice fashion of your
country in denying me a kiss: therefore, patiently
and yielding.

As Henry V said in this play-

"We are the makers of manners."

jazzycat said...

Speaking of consensus.... There is a consensus of opinion on Romans 2:7 by reformers that I reject and you may be surprised to learn that I think Zane Hodges has it correct. I may disagree with him on an awful lot, but on this passage, I think he is correct. I do believe long standing tradition consensus has bound many into error that makes it hard for them to escape.

I hope you don't mind my getting a bit off subject with that comment.

Celestial Fundie said...

I am glad you agree with Zane Hodges about something. Please post about it. Thanks.

jazzycat said...

I think I will do a post on it soon. My pastor is going through Romans and preached on Romans 2:1-16 last time. He knows I disagree with him on it. I believe as does ZH that that none of those judged by 2:7 will receive eternal life. Paul hasn't even gotten to justification by faith alone yet and that of course precludes all human works.