Tolerance v. Acceptance
I have a new response towards anyone who accuses you of being intolerant for disapproving of religion.
The tenet of it is that there is a distinct difference between tolerance and acceptance. I am capable of tolerating the behaviors of someone who goes to church weekly. However, I can reasonably dispute this behavior, and refrain from accepting it as valid.
Ergo, most accusations of intolerance would be inaccurate, invalid, and ergo unacceptable.
And this isn't just a petty technicality-based rebuke; the concept of intolerance has been blown way out of proportion by modern culture. Most religions/irreligions tolerate each other, as plainly demonstrated by our lack of blowing-each-other-upness.
Of course, I do think intolerance is unreasonable. There is no reason why I should not be able to live or interact with someone just because of belief difference. However, un-acceptance is perfectly reasonable. Some things are just stupid.
Anyone?
posted by Anonymous @ Monday, June 19, 2006
4 Comments:
Well, I already wrote a whole entry on the topic of tolerence and intolerence:
http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/04/when-your-neighbour-is-terrorist.html
I like your distinction between tolerance and acceptance, though. It's a very good idea.
yea the difference is that tolerance is simply respecting someones belief, accepting it would be approval for it
i think that un-acceptance is never acceptable. its discrimination.
you have a point. but im so against unacceptance when it comes to humanity. people just intolerate things because they try to make everyone think like them and they try to make them how they want them to be. when really society has to realize that we are all different and ACCEPT that. becuase un-acceptance among humankind is discrimination. i believe that its reasonable to intolerate that persons actions, but not who they are or what makes them who they are.
Post a Comment
<< Home