Could/should I have said anything

[Dinsdale]

Allow me to set the scene. I’m a 46 year old atheist. I commute to work via train from a burb west of Chicago. The town just west of mine is home to an evangelical christian college. As such, it is not unusual to encounter apparent biblethumpers on the train.

I always ride on the upper deck, in a row of seats facing the middle. Last evening, sitting directly across from me were 5 young adults, all wearing Air Force ROTC uniforms - apparently heading back to school after some event in the city. Throughout the 40 minute train ride, they proceeded to talk almost entirely about God. The 2 to my far left were having a separate conversation that I would have had to strain to overhear, but the 3 directly across from me were conversing in normal conversational tones or louder, which I essentially had to make an effort to ignore while I read my book.

It became apparent that 2 of these guys accepted the “comic book” Jesus Bible story hook line and sinker. As best I could tell, they resolved any questions they might have in favor of the God-as-a-security blanket.

The third was expressing some doubts - not so much in the existence of a God, but in certain religious beliefs. For example, a part of him was always going to be troubled by the lack of any tangible proof of a God. To which the others responded with the stories of epiphany and doubting Thomas (assuming I correctly recall my bible stories). He said one of his family members was questioning their sexual orientation, and he wasn’t willing to consider them a bad person because of that. To which the other 2 responded that homosexuality - like birth defects - were merely evidence of man’s sinfulness. And he was troubled over the recent death of one of his HS friends.

I was stricken with 2 thoughts. First, I was impressed at how much it disgusted me that these apparently intelligent, well-spoken, young people were eagerly allocating so much of their beings to what I personally consider a false and harmful belief system. But, very central to my personal beliefs is the idea that each person should be free to fuck themselves up in whatever manner they choose.

Second, I was impressed at the empathy I felt for the “doubter,” thinking how tough it must be to have such thoughts in such an evangelical environment.

So, I was tempted to say something to them several times. Momentarily I considered whether it might actually be entertaining to engage them in a debate - probably with the intention of ridiculing their beliefs. When they started on homosexuality, if they had gone the slightest step further I would have asked them to keep their prejudices more to themselves while in public. But most of all, I was urged to congratulate the “doubter” for asking questions and thinking for himself, and to encourage him to continue to do so.

Well, I kept silent through the entire ride. But I’d appreciate your thoughts. What, if anything, would you have said in a similar situation.

[According_to_Pliny]

People who ride trains reappear. Talk to the doubter alone. Don’t debate in public with people who will gang up on you the next day.

[Wee_Bairn]

The funny thing about people like that is, they would probably take offense if you had said something, but they would no doubt have butted in on you if you were having a discussion about atheism. These types, except the one you mentioned, usually have no tolerance for other beliefs.

[Oakminster]

I see it as a fine opportunity to have yourself a steaming mug of MYOB, with a side order of STFU. It wasn’t your conversation, nor was it your problem. You would have been way out of line to suggest they keep their thoughts to themselves–they have a right to discuss whatever they want, whether you like it or not. If offended, your best option would be to move to another car.

[Jodi]

Ditto Oakminster.

I was stricken with 2 thoughts. First, I was impressed at how much it disgusted me that these apparently intelligent, well-spoken, young people were eagerly allocating so much of their beings to what I personally consider a false and harmful belief system.

They might well have been equally disgusted to know that an apparently intelligent, well-spoken person such as yourself was allocating any part of his being to what they personally consider a false and harmful belief system. Regardless, few people appreciate having their conversations joined by eavesdropping strangers, or being accosted by total strangers on the train.

Second, I was impressed at the empathy I felt for the “doubter,” thinking how tough it must be to have such thoughts in such an evangelical environment.

If the guy didn’t ask for your help, you are presumptious to assume your help was either wanted or needed. Again, the patronizing offensiveness of congratulating another person for thinking for themself and encouraging them to continue to do so should be glaringly obvious. The fact that in this case the discussion was religion as opposed to NASCAR or Iraq or French Cooking or any other subject upon which you might happen to personally disagree is irrelevant. Your attitude was arrogant and your inclination to butt in misplaced. Congratulations on keeping your amazing rudeness to yourself.

[Dinsdale]

@Oakminster

I see it as a fine opportunity to have yourself a steaming mug of MYOB, with a side order of STFU. It wasn’t your conversation, nor was it your problem. You would have been way out of line to suggest they keep their thoughts to themselves–they have a right to discuss whatever they want, whether you like it or not. If offended, your best option would be to move to another car.

I’m not sure I entirely agree with you. While I certainly do not urge silence, I think that when riding a public conveyance, civility dictates conversing in a manner that does not unnecessarily intrude upon other passengers’ peaceful enjoyment of the vehicle. I think that is especially true when one is conversing on subjects that one might reasonably expect their passengers to disagree with.

Sorry, but if they had been gone one inch further in their anti-gay views, I would have told them to keep their distasteful opinions more quiet. Same as if they had been advocating a racist or mysogynistic philosophy. Or heck, even if they had been drunk and loud. Of course, in deciding whether or not to express my disagreement/disapproval in any such situation, I would consider whether that was the exact response they desired.

On the flip side - it seems to me that if folks choose to converse in public in a manner loud enough for others to hear, in some ways that is tantamount to an invitation that others to participate.

I agree with you that they certainly have the right to discuss whatever they want (subject to time, place, and manner restrictions). Oughtn’t I have that same right (whether or not I elect to exercise it)?

Another possibility - which my wife suggested - was that they might have staged the situation, to invite discussion/debate. But I honestly don’t believe that was the case.

[Autumn_Almanac]

If they were making genuinely bigoted/hateful remarks about homosexuals, then it would have been appropriate for you to ask them to tone it down, just as if they were making racist or sexist remarks in a public place. But to engage them “with the intention of ridiculing their beliefs” or enlightening them about “what [you] personally consider a false and harmful belief system” would have been incredibly rude and condescending.

[lieu]

While I certainly see both sides of the argument, if consistently using public transportation I’d carry a couple of little foam earplugs with me just for those rare times when confronted with a conversation too offensive to bear witness to. Rarely if ever would I intrude on another’s conversation, but by simply inserting the ear plugs you’re making an unmistakable statement about the perceived unpleasantness of their excessively audible opinions. That and, if you desire, a dirty look and you’ve said all that needs to be.

[Jodi]

@Dinsdale

I’m not sure I entirely agree with you. While I certainly do not urge silence, I think that when riding a public conveyance, civility dictates conversing in a manner that does not unnecessarily intrude upon other passengers’ peaceful enjoyment of the vehicle. . . It seems to me that if folks choose to converse in public in a manner loud enough for others to hear, in some ways that is tantamount to an invitation that others to participate.

What’s the rationale here? That if you can hear it you can join it? How is that “tantamount” to an invitation? And why is it tantamount to an invitation, just because you said so?

If people are acting in any matter than unreasonably intrudes upon your peaceful enjoyment of the vehicle – leaving aside that, as a legal matter, and as you well know, no one ever promised you “peaceful enjoyment” of public transportation – you have three options: (1) you can move; (2) you can ask them to knock it off (playing music, jumping on the seats, whatever); or (3) you can complain to management and demand that they deal with it. Your options do NOT include intruding yourself into the subject matter of their conversation which is clearly None Of Your Business – regardless of what the topic is or how you personally feel about it.

I agree with you that they certainly have the right to discuss whatever they want (subject to time, place, and manner restrictions). Oughtn’t I have that same right (whether or not I elect to exercise it)?

The question isn’t whether you can be an obnoxious busybody, but whether you should. If you want to stand on your right to do it, print up some pamphlets to hand out and take your position as just another annoying whacko who accosts people on the train.

[Monstera_deliciosa]

As a fellow atheist of the same age, who is in agreement and sympathy with your feelings, (except perhaps the ridicule aspect) I also believe that MYOB was the way to go.

You’re not going to change the mind of the believers, and if the doubts of the questioner truly run deep, they will not be so easily quashed–he will probably continue to look for answers.

If they were being rude and disruptive on the train, well that is what conductors are for.

[gigi]

If I were in that situation it would eat me up inside as I fumed about how they can be self-professed Christians and still be part of a military organization. I wouldn’t say anything but that’s what would be on the tip of my tongue.

[Dinsdale]

Gee Jodi, I was still trying to get my mind around your observation that it was “amazingly rude” for me to be aware of my surroundings, and to think about them. :rolleyes:

It is very possible that we differ, but I believe that to a certain extent the manner in which you choose to conduct yourself in public invites the possibility of responses from those who encounter you. And common sense suggests to me that the actor is not always able to dictate the response they receive.

If you want to have a private conversation on a train, it is not at all difficult to do so. Similar to cellphone usage. But if you choose not to keep your conversation private, then you greatly increase the possibility of someone else commenting on either the manner or contents of what you say.

Another aspect is, while the majority of folks might not consider the content of this particular conversation bothersome, I did. They were young, maybe they just didn’t think that not everyone shares their views. But if no one ever points it out to them, how will they learn?

I also have experienced numerous instances in which people on the train interjected themselves into the conversations of others. True, such instances generally do not involve “criticism” or “argument”, but in my 20 years of commuting experience the line does not appear to be as bright as you seem to draw it.

[Oakminster]

Hey, do what you want. Just don’t expect any sympathy when you post your “I got my ass kicked for being a buttinsky when I shoulda kept my mouth shut” thread.

[Autumn_Almanac]

Or when you’re having a conversation about atheism and some fundamentalist butts in and starts proselytizing at you, or when you’re talking about how badly the Iraq war is going and some rightwinger asks why you hate America.

[Jodi]

@Dinsdale

Gee Jodi, I was still trying to get my mind around your observation that it was “amazingly rude” for me to be aware of my surroundings, and to think about them. :rolleyes:

Since you missed my points, allow me to be more specific: (1) It is obviously not rude of you to be aware of your surroundings and to think whatever thought dances through the privacy of your own head. (2) It is patronizing and condescending for you to be evaluating the conversations of passersby in light of their “apparent intelligence” as opposed to their “false belief system,” and to feel that it would be appropriate to “congratulate” a stranger for thinking independently and “encourage” him to continue to do so. But fortunately you kept your condescention to yourself. (3) Had you chosen instead to air your condescention you would indeed have been quite amazingly rude – not even touching upon your apparent third option, which was to try to engage them in debate with the intention of mocking their beliefs.

It is very possible that we differ, but I believe that to a certain extent the manner in which you choose to conduct yourself in public invites the possibility of responses from those who encounter you. And common sense suggests to me that the actor is not always able to dictate the response they receive.

Obviously. BUT having a private conversation is not the type of intrusive conduct in public that generally invites or prompts responses from strangers. Certainly, it does not prompt or invite strangers to weigh in on the content of the conversation. Obviously anyone conducting themself in public cannot always dictate the actions of others – and “response” is the wrong word, because since you were not involved in their conversation, there was nothing that invited or demanded a “response” from you – but generally those of us who peaceably mind our own business in public think strangers who intrude themselves upon us are rude, crazy, or both.

If you want to have a private conversation on a train, it is not at all difficult to do so. Similar to cellphone usage. But if you choose not to keep your conversation private, then you greatly increase the possibility of someone else commenting on either the manner or contents of what you say.

Why? Because you say so? If the contents of the conversation are not patently offensive, then there is no reason for any uninvoled third party to weigh in on what is being said. If the manner in which the conversation is being held is objectionable – i.e., too loud, too profane – an objection might reasonably be registered as to the objectionable manner (“Could you please keep it down?”). But you were not complaining about the volume of the conversation, and you haven’t asked whether you might appropriately have objected to that. Rather, you appear to want to use the manner – the fact that these people were talking loudly – as a pretext to butt in on the contents of their conversation. Would that have been appropriate? No. Would it have been rude? Obviously yes. But like I said, if what you’re really looking for is to assert your right to be rude to others in public, I guess I can hardly argue that you literally can’t do so. But then, you can do a lot of stuff common sense and/or civility should dictate you don’t do.

Another aspect is, while the majority of folks might not consider the content of this particular conversation bothersome, I did. They were young, maybe they just didn’t think that not everyone shares their views. But if no one ever points it out to them, how will they learn?

I also have experienced numerous instances in which people on the train interjected themselves into the conversations of others. True, such instances generally do not involve “criticism” or “argument”, but in my 20 years of commuting experience the line does not appear to be as bright as you seem to draw it.
[/QUOTE]

[Jodi]

Sorry, didn’t finish my thought:

I also have experienced numerous instances in which people on the train interjected themselves into the conversations of others. True, such instances generally do not involve “criticism” or “argument”, but in my 20 years of commuting experience the line does not appear to be as bright as you seem to draw it.

I have seen people do a heck of a lot worse things on the train that butt in on someone else’s conversation. I would suggest that the fact that other people do something is not perhaps the best indicator of how you should order your own behavior. I assume you woudln’t piss on the seats just because some one else did.

[Jodi]

And if I seem to be harshing on you a little, Dinsdale, I apologize. But I found your thought process to be really quite amazingly condescending, and the inquiry as to whether you should have aired your thoughts with these unsuspecting victims to have only one answer, and a completely obvious one at that. And, again, religion has nothing to do with it. They could have been talking about the designated hitter rule. If you were sitting across the way marvelling at how such intelligent seeming young people could possibly approve of the DH, and wondering whether you should congratulate the anti-DH on his apparent independent thought and tell him to keep it up, my answer would be the same – oh hell no.

[Charger]

Chiming in would have been very evangelical of you. Then there would have been a situation of evangelical Christians vs. evangelical atheist, and both sides would have left with a chip on their shoulder and a firmer opposition to the other. Regardless of someone’s beliefs, I don’t like them chastising mine.

The homosexuality issue was a question of the compatibility of the belief in God with accepting homosexuality. To interject with “there is no God,” changes the subject. It seems to me that they’d do better to include in their discussion a Christian who has a live-and-let-live attitude toward homosexuals.

[lunarnoodle]

@Dinsdale

I also have experienced numerous instances in which people on the train interjected themselves into the conversations of others. True, such instances generally do not involve “criticism” or “argument”, but in my 20 years of commuting experience the line does not appear to be as bright as you seem to draw it.

I lived in Chicago for several years and in my experience it was perfectly common for passengers on the Metra to converse together and for passengers to interject in other’s conversations. I never saw anyone turned away or ignored when they did interject, though I suspect it would not be difficult to determine whether the people you approach find your comments welcome or annoying. In the case they do find you annoying, it’s easy enough to go right on back to minding your own business. On days when I didn’t want to interact with people, I would bring a book or a magazine. So, I don’t think the very idea of you interjecting comments in a conversation you are not a part is breaking any public transportation commandments at all.

If you were going to comment simply to ask questions or engage these guys in a debate to get them thinking about their value choices, I would say right on.

You seem to have been aiming for something a bit more confrontational and maybe derogatory however. In that case I agree with other folks here who are saying keep it to yourself. You don’t have to be rude or chastise their religious beliefs in order to engage them in a debate or to make comments about their conversation. In fact, the statement of your own deeply held personal belief that “each person should be free to fuck themselves up in whatever manner they choose” directly contradicts your impulse to ridicule them.

Also there are ways to interject politely so you aren’t just rudely “butting in”. You may even have a better chance of illustrating to them that their views of homosexuality are bigoted and start them off thinking further about the opposition to their views if you weren’t confrontational. I am not a religious person myself, but I did grow up in the Bible Belt and if there is one thing evangelical Christians love to do, it is discuss their beliefs. I’m sure they would have welcomed an addition to the conversation if you tried, and if they did not you could always go back to your book.

[Dinsdale]

As I said, the trip lasted 40 minutes. The other people said a whole lot of things, and a whole lot of things crossed my mind. I was merely trying to describe the situation - and some of my reactions - in a relatively quickly drafted OP of modest length.

The overwhelming majority of the time, my choice is nonconfrontation.