Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.”     Thomas Sowell

December 5, 2005

Is Tolerance the same as Acceptance?

by Kay

How many times have you heard it said that we must be tolerant of someone, thing, idea, etc. with the implication being that you must accept it? The words “tolerance” and “acceptance” are used interchangeably these days, but do they really mean the same thing?

The definition for the word “acceptance” has changed little in the last 180+ years, still meaning:
A receiving with approbation or satisfaction; favorable reception; as work done to acceptance.

Looking up the word “tolerance” in the old Webster’s 1828 dictionary, we find this definition:
The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

The more current definition I find in the new Webster’s dictionary (circa 2003) is: open-mindedness; forbearance

So, you may say – it’s just semantics – means the same thing. But does it really? Is open-mindedness really the same as “enduring”?

I personally find in the day to day world many things about which I am not and would not be accepting of – however, realizing that not everyone has had the same experiences to shape them as have I, I am tolerant of things in others that I would not accept of myself. So from that standpoint, I absolutely do not believe that acceptance and tolerance are the same thing. I tend to go more along with the older word definitions, because, frankly, I think our language has been bastardized and weakened considerably by poor education, political correctness, and just general laziness.

Words are important – and weighty. Our forefathers understood the importance of weighing their words carefully – and expressing themselves in a very articulate manner. They used a tremendous volume of words at times to express what seem relatively simple concepts, but they did so because it was important to them that every “i” be dotted and every “t” crossed. They knew that the smallest matter not spelled out in our Constitution would lead to difficulties down the road when it came time for their descendants to interpret what they’d written. They did a remarkable job, but it was inevitable with time that word meanings should devolve and their writings lose some of the very preciseness they initially held.

I love words. I’ve loved words for as long as I can remember – I guess from the days as a child when I’d ask my dad for the meaning of something and he’d point me to the dictionary. I have been known on a number of occasions to actually sit and read through the dictionary, or flip through its covers looking for new words to commit to memory. It is for that reason that I become disturbed when I feel that word meanings have become corrupted.

I’m afraid at times that I may come across as a moralizer – it’s really not my intention – but I think of myself more as a moral philosopher or ethicist.

But I have digressed greatly. Back to the original question. Social liberalism would lead one to believe that tolerance and acceptance are the same, that I must accept the religions and beliefs of others. Once again, acceptance means to receive with satisfaction or give a favorable reception. Tolerance, however, means that while I must *endure* (put up with) the beliefs of others, I do not have to give them a favorable reception – I simply have to let them BE.

Tolerance and acceptance also go hand in hand with that 4 syllable monster of a word that has been bandied about so much – DIVERSITY. This country has been referred to as a “melting pot”, “multicultural”, “salad bowl” or “cultural mosaic”. While technically these terms all have different nuances to their meanings, the bottom line is usually that we have to be accepting of all cultures. Celebrate diversity.

But is celebrating diversity what made this nation a great one? The study of our nation’s history (not what is currently taught in public school – but don’t get me started on that) will show that there were people of very diverse backgrounds who came to these shores in search of freedom from oppression – and that oppression came in many forms. They had to learn to work together – and the successful communities learned early on that those who didn’t work, didn’t eat. Their diversity did not hold them together – they worked for a common goal, that of survival – and survive they did, in spite of their diversity.

I’m not advocating that anyone give up their heritage or forget where they came from, I just feel strongly that when it comes to acceptance, and diversity, we should have our eyes on the things that we share in common – our humanity – and learn to truly TOLERATE our differences.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2005/12/05/is-tolerance-the-same-as-acceptance/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

4 Comments

  1. I have always seen the same thing. This is especially true when you talk about those who engage in “alternative lifestyles” or “ethnic politics”. When they talk about “tolerance”, they’re not suggesting that you should allow them to do what you think is not right, they’re asking that you validate their choice. They’re not asking for tolerance, they’re asking for downright celebration. They don’t ask you to evaluate them as an individual, they ask you to treat them highly because of the “group” they identify with.

    Now, I’m a pretty laid-back guy. I keep to myself, and take people for what they are. I know that idiots come in all shapes, colors, and sizes, and so I do my best to evaluate people based on their individual traits, not on their interest group or their “lifestyle choice.”

    In all reality, I’m not a moralist in the sense of how people live their lives. Honestly, I don’t care much at all. The friends I keep, regardless of how they may or may not be “diverse”, are not the type who ask me to celebrate their diversity, they ask me to be a friend. And that’s the way I like it.

    I think the pendulum used to swing too far to the side of discrimination, where people treated others unfairly because of their “group”. But I think it has now swung the opposite direction, where we have ceased to be able to speak honestly in the name of political correctness. The hope of those of us who would like to see a truly colorblind society is not one where your “group” is treated in any particular way, but where you are not seen as a member of a “group” at all. I don’t need to see anyone’s group membership card to know whether I should treat them with respect, I will find that out through dealing with them as an individual.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 5, 2005 @ 1:47 pm
  2. Hear hear, Brad. That’s just how I see life as well – but I’m afraid we’re in the minority group, LOL!

    Comment by Kay — December 6, 2005 @ 6:39 am
  3. I like what I see. Related to this topic: the overuse and abuse of the term “open-minded,” which many also translate as accepting.

    Comment by David Rossie — December 6, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
  4. Yes, David, I actually debated about bringing in the term “open-minded”. Personally, I think of myself as being open-minded in the true meaning of the phrase (i.e. as I consider myself “liberal” in the classical sense, but not at all as the currently in vogue usage) but I’ve enough sense to realize that if you leave your mind too open, you may be in danger of losing some of it!

    Comment by Kay — December 6, 2005 @ 1:38 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML