Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Taking God Out of Good
Taking God Out of Good
Aug 28, 2026 3:30 PM

In a world apparently dominated by Christian footwear, a pany e to the rescue of atheists. Atheist Shoes boast a line of footwear that proudly announces the wearer’s lack of faith. The soles of the shoes (not to be confused with “souls”, mind you) state “Ich bin Atheist” (“I am an atheist”). pany thinks the world needed a “nice, understated way for people to profess their godlessness”, and the founders of pany wanted to help atheists proclaim their unbelief, especially in a world hostile to non-believers (despite the fact that Christians are now among the most persecuted people on the planet right now.)

We’re lucky to live in Berlin, a city where roughly two thirds of the population are atheists, but we’re conscious there are still places where it’s difficult to be godless.

One page of pany’s website is entitled “Taking The God Out of Good“. Noting that atheism is not opposed to being charitable, the page states they just want to do it in a way that doesn’t support any religious charities.

[O]rganised religion has a historical monopoly on ‘good’ and continues to be proud of its ‘do-gooding’, in preach and practice, despite the strong likelihood that it has done far more harm than good in it’s long, yarn-spinning history.

We find this sad. Not only because organised religion survives, scandal after scandal, unscathed, but because the atheists we know are amongst the kindest, most caring people we’ve met, each capable of being moral and good without god stories to show them how.

We want to challenge the mon-denominator view of atheism, to demonstrate that you don’t need god to be good.

The owners of pany understand that business is not simply about making money, but that business has social aspects: employing people, offering a product to consumers, using profit to benefit others. The irony of taking a religious ideal – being charitable to the less fortunate – and putting an atheistic “spin” on it seems lost on the shoe-makers.

However, once one tosses God out of the picture, then “good” is impossible to define. There are no parameters or boundaries, no definitions for “good”. “Good” es whatever one decides it to be. While the atheists of this pany want to pin scandal and damage on religion, one must accept the fact that the majority of 20th century genocides took place at the hands of atheists: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and others. These men all cheerfully believed they were doing “good”. And in a world where God is removed from “good”, they were – because they got to define “good”. As Fr. Robert Sirico writes in his book Defending the Free Market: the Moral Case for a Free Economy:

Those who claim that right and wrong have no stable meaning promise to liberate us from old structures, but in reality relativism undermines the rule of law and invites tyranny. Princeton professor Robert George has noted that people who imagine that relativism is the best guarantor of tolerance and freedom of belief couldn’t be more wrong. If everything is relative in matters of morality, how can one make the case against a Stalin or Hitler? Without moral absolutes, would we be able to speak of universal human rights, or

denounce female genital mutilation or child sacrifice, incest or rape? A firm belief in a transcendent moral order is the only guarantee of the “unalienable rights” of all people.

Atheist Shoes wants to have it both ways: a free market to create and enjoy the fruits of one’s labors, but with no acknowledgment of the true source of human creativity. They want to be good and charitable, but only on terms they define. What is to stop them from, in the future, deciding that charitably funding Al Qaeda is good? When you take God out of good, you don’t get a different shade of good. You get evil. Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, knew this:

In the city of man, there is no moral consensus, and without a moral consensus there can be no law. Chairman Mao expressed the alternative well: in his view, morality begins at the muzzle of a gun.

There has never been a case in history in which a society has been able to survive for long without a strong moral code. And there has never been a time when a moral code has not been informed by religious truth. Recovering our moral code – our religious truth – is the only way our society can survive. The heaping ash remains at Auschwitz, the killing fields of Southeast Asia, and the frozen wastes of the gulag remind us that the city of man is not enough; we must also seek the city of God.

Atheist Shoes is the perfect shoe store for Main Street in the City of Man. In the City of God, though, it just isn’t good business.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Government and Gambling
Over at Mere Comments I note the recent invective against gambling leveled by Al Mohler and Russell Moore. I contend that as opposed to casinos, lotteries are in fact the most troubling example of state-sponsored gambling. And I also worry a bit about the use of legal means to prohibit gambling, as it isn’t so clear to me that gambling is always and in every case a moral evil. Thus, I write, that cultural rather than primarily political attempts to...
Biased in Favor of the Entrepreneur State
Yesterday I argued that since bias is inherent in institutions and neutrality between individual and social spheres is illusory we should harness and direct the bias of institutions towards a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. One of the ways we can do that in the economic realm, I believe, is to encourage a bias toward entrepreneurship and away from corporatism. As Derek Thompson, a senior editor at The Atlantic, says, “It would...
Gleaner Tech #2: The Global Village Construction Set
[Note: This is the second in an occasional series ongleaner technology.] The Global Village Construction Setis a collection of 40 machines needed to “create a small civilization with forts…like a life-size Lego set.” ...
Since Christ Died for Us
Yesterday my son asked me why today is called “Ash Wednesday.” In that question I could hear the echoes of another question, “Since Christ has died for us, why do we still have to die?” The latter question is found in the Heidelberg Catechism, and the brief but poignant answer has stuck with me since I first encountered it. First, the catechism clarifies that our death does not have redemptive power: “Our death does not pay the debt of our...
Happiness is Subjective
One of the conclusions from last mentary was that the government shouldn’t be in the business of promoting a particular vision of the good life in America. That’s not to say that the government doesn’t have some role in promoting mon good or making some normative judgments about the good life. But it shouldn’t get anywhere near the level of specificity of promising a family, home, college education, and retirement for all. In part this is because while moral good...
Commentary: Human Excellence and the Moral Life
After 50-plus years of social unraveling, many reformers still see the “therapeutic model” as a cure for what ails American society. Or would a return to the classical virtues, as a means of healing first the person and then the culture, be the way of renewal? Rev. Gregory Jensen offers some thoughts in this week’s Acton Commentary (published Feb. 22), spurred by the reading of Charles Murray’s new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010. The full text...
Libertarians, Religious Conservatives, and the Myth of Social Neutrality
When es to our view of individual liberty, one of the most unexplored areas of distinction between libertarians and religious conservatives* is how we view neutrality and bias. Because the differences are uncharted, I have no way of describing the variance without resorting to a grossly simplistic caricature—so with a grossly simplistic caricature we shall proceed: Libertarians believe that neutrality between the various spheres of society—and especially betweenthe government and the individual—are both possible and desirable, and so the need...
Samuel Gregg: Inequality Anyone?
Over at National Review Online, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg takes a look at a recent Charles Blow op-ed in the New York Times in which the writer hyperventilates about statements made by Rick Santorum on the subject of e inequality. Economically speaking, e inequality reflects the workings of several factors, many of which are essential if we want a dynamic, growing economy. Even your average neo-Keynesian economist will acknowledge that, without incentives (such as the prospect of a higher...
Religious Freedom and the HHS Mandate
Matthew Schmitz over onFirst Thoughtsposted a great article by Peter Berger sharing Peter’s thoughts on the recent HHS controversy. Peter gets at what is really the heart issue here. Though there is fierce debate ensuing about contraception, religious freedom is at the heart of the matter. Peter Berger, the eminent sociologist of religion at Boston University and longtime friend of First Things, offers his readers at the American Interest some background on the HHS controversy, the cobelligerence of Catholics and...
What does it mean to be On Call In Culture?
Most of us know what it feels like… this pull toward something. Whether it is art or science or writing or business—there is something inside you that says, “Yes, this is where I belong. This is what I was meant to do!” As Christians this realization e with a bit of disappointment mixed with the excitement of finding our place. We somehow wish that our calling were something of a more spiritual nature…something that mattered more. But here’s a question:...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved