How do you define "acceptance," particularly of other faiths/lack thereof?

Question

Whether a theist or atheist, the conscience tells us to be accepting of one another. How do you define acceptance? How are you accepting of other beliefs or lack thereof? Or is tolerance the better option?

Answer 1

Acceptance suggests agreement with. Tolerance, on the other hand, suggests being open minded and permissive of different beliefs. There are some faiths/non-faiths I'm very accepting of, and other faiths that I tolerate. If I don't agree with someone's religious doctrine, then I can't really be accepting of the religion itself. I can be accepting of people individually though.

Answer 2

I must say, good question. I have always tried to be tolerant. I think tolerance is accepting someones else beliefs even if you do not feel the same. If you accept their beliefs it's like you agree with them. But if you are tolerant you accept that they are who they are what ever they believe. Does that make sense?

Answer 3

Mutual tolerance. We may hold very different beliefs, but we should avoid imposing our beliefs on each other. It's really not as difficult to understand as some people make it out to be, either. The controversy over whether or not "Intelligent Design" should be taught in public school biology, as an "alternative" to evolution, is typical. "Christians" will actually argue that evolution is the imposition of an atheist theory on the kids. Never mind that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism as such. Then they insist that "ID" (=Creationism), which is patently religion, be taught alongside evolution as if it were a scientific theory!

Either they're pretending to be confused, or really are; but it's the difference between secular and religious institutions. It's really just as if somebody argued that the kinetic theory of gases was an "alternative" to the Lord's Prayer. It's an entirely different plane of thought.

Scientists don't, as a rule, spend all their time trying to make it impossible for religion to exist, or imposing their theories on religion. That the earth is over 4 billion years old is the conclusion of science. This is not an attack on religion. The controversy arises from the fact that *some* religious people believe that science ought to be prejudiced in favor of conclusions that support the Bible narrative as they interpret it, and that the extent to which it doesn't is just the extent to which scientists are "attempting to impose an atheist agenda."

The problem, ultimately, is that religion is, for the very religious, the end-all-be-all of everything; and they forget that they equally owe their right to practice religion as they see fit to our secular democracy. They believe that since they've "got it right," it can't be "wrong" to want the rest of the world to be in on it. It's a good intention, usually, on the part of the "laity" anyway; but it always seems to end in religious tyranny, the systematic persecution of people who disagree. And I happen to think it ought to be one's prerogative to disagree on matters of religion.

Answer 4

One should never have blanket acceptance. That's just morally lazy.

We have a brain, so we might as well use it.

In life, we find that nothing is ever totally wrong or totally right. The extremes are actually quite rare, and we know nothing in an absolute sense. We only know our view of things.

We should accept things as they are, and that means accepting some things about people and not accepting other things. We don't have to like everything.

Answer 5

You treat others with the same amount of respect you feel you should deserve.

Religion is a personal and private thing.

I work in an office with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddists, Shintus, Muslims, Atheists, Gnostics. We've got a job to do and we do not discuss religion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I may from time to time ask a question in order to understand something, but generally I respect their privacy and they respect mine.

Answer 6

Acceptance is the lack of resistance.
Evident respect.
Love without fear.
We are gifted with free will but sometimes we forget all about it or confuse our minds with thoughts that don't belong there.
Protection of free will is our responsibility towards our selves and others.
Don't we all expect others to respect our faith,love us and accept us for what we are?
Aren't we obligate to do the same for others?
Acceptance is the balance we maintain btw our rights and obligations.

Answer 7

"Tolerance" could hardly be the same thing as acceptance. Would you prefer to be tolerated by your parents, or accepted?

I accept all other "faiths" as long as they don't step on my toes. I don't tolerate being expected to participate in public prayer that is offered "through Jesus Christ."

If Christians are expected to love their neighbor as themselves, why are the vast majority of them indifferent to the suffering taking place right now in Darfur, Sudan? Or does loving one's neighbor apply only to neighbors who look and act like us?
.

Answer 8

Acceptance is respecting the opinion of others and agreeing to disagree. You don't have to agree with them, you just can't persecute them for their beliefs.

Answer 9

not to bash it.

i for one dont accept the christian religion. i find it to be dangerous and pointless.

with extra dangerous on the side.

i tolerate it because people are free to beleive what they wish. i also see the positive side of religion. but the negative possibilities outweigh the positive.

tolerate it, but dont accept it.

Answer 10

Acceptance is code for "surrender".

People who tolerate everything value nothing.


I've heard it all a million times in this place, and it's no less irrelevant now than when I first heard of all the whining about how we just need to LOVE, ACCEPT, and TOLERATE EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY.


No, ...............I don't.