Acceptance celebrates who the person is or what they do.  Tolerance lets them do it but does not celebrate.  It implies putting up with what you think is evil or wrong in the hope of the person doing it seeing the light.
Tolerance implies that the tolerated are less than good or less than right if not bad or wrong. When you say you tolerate other beliefs your tolerance is an offensive insult to those who hold those beliefs when you cannot provide evidence for your own belief. Every religion claims to be right and that the others are wrong so tolerance is the best it can give. When they have no evidence or only insufficient evidence, we cannot be blamed for saying that the religionist’s tolerance is an insult to followers of other religions and leads to bigotry and division.
Tolerance is a paradox. We often tolerate in others what we find intolerable. This shows the importance of trying to be as non-judgemental as possible. There is a risk that our tolerance will collapse in the face of what we find intolerable. In other words, if somebody is promiscuous or something else that society looks down on, prove that the person's deeds are bad. If you can't, then it is evil and dangerous to find their behaviour intolerable even if you do tolerate it.

Nobody is allowed to be offended by being tolerant. The tolerant don't allow it. How tolerant of them!
Many humanists reject tolerance for tolerance means putting up with something bad so it is quite slighting and grudging. If people believe what they are doing is good we should encourage them to do it even if it is contrary to our principles. But nevertheless we have to try and win others to our way of thinking because it is the only way to certainty and joy.
Can we encourage a person to commit murder if they believe murder is right? We have to encourage them to do what they think is right but invite them to think more about it first. We are not encouraging murder for we are concerned only with them doing what they believe in. Nevertheless we want them to see the abhorrence of murder by themselves.
If you encourage a Muslim to go to the Mosque though you do not approve of Islam, you are not being a hypocrite or intending to further Islam but you are furthering a different and separate thing, the autonomy of the person. People do often make logical mistakes.

Humanists hate opinions that look down on Atheism and even religion for trying to promote its teaching. 
Humanists hate spiritual opinions that look down on Atheism and the scientific method. Humanists hate it when religion tries to promote its teaching.

Humanists know that Humanism is the method of getting to the truth. Religion opposes that method thus for religion to promote itself at all is for it to damage

Humanism and the majesty of its ethos that we believe nothing until we learn the case in its favour.  An objection to our stance is a gift and leads us to ways to improve our arguments and show that we are the true servants of reason. It helps us to know that Humanism is the truth.

We can respect the people who have wrong beliefs and be sensitive with them but we cannot respect the beliefs for we oppose them and want them destroyed. We seek to destroy them not by antagonising or upsetting anybody unnecessarily but with understanding and patience and good-will. We politely challenge their beliefs with questions and they will doubt. They cannot expect us not to work against their beliefs for that is denying us the right to be people of integrity and we cannot expect them to not work against ours. They should if they think they should. Never argue. Talk and discuss and do it nicely even under the worst provocation. Atheism is love and only being happy and spreading that happiness to others can spread Atheism.
Does Tolerance Exist?
Tolerance means letting something you disapprove of be. The trouble is, suppose John will be sacked unless he listens to his bosses' verbal abuse directed at him. If John cannot leave his job as he really has no choice, then is John being tolerant? No. His intention is not to put up with the abuse. He simply has no choice. He may look like he is acting tolerant but he is not. We all put up with things for we have no choice. If tolerance exists then it is uncommon. We cannot then be judged tolerant just because of appearances. The worry about that is that we are essentially intolerant most of the time. Thus it is downright vicious to invent a faith or religion or anything that gives us more to be intolerant about.
People say, "I cannot change your opinion of me as a member of a particular religion or what you think of me or it. You have to do that yourself." So they conclude that it is none of their business what you think of them for they can do nothing about it. This contains the hidden idea that if they could do something about it they should and it is a pity they can't. This is not tolerance but being forced to put up with it. To force a person to be tolerant is as impossible as forcing them to be loving. It cannot be done. You may manage to make them seem to be tolerant but that is all. It follows then that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as tolerance. Tolerance is just the label we put on people being unable to give free rein to their hate.
Fake Tolerance
Fake tolerance is disguised intolerance.
Fake tolerance can be a problem. Here is an example of fake tolerance. John says he will write a book debunking the Catholic Church. Jean the Mormon urges him to be tolerant. But she is being intolerant for she is ordering him what to do. She is preaching a principle at him instead of guiding him in such a way that he adopts the principle as if it were his own idea if it makes any sense. And it is none of her business - she is a Mormon. Also, it is his right to author the book as long as his intention is to enlighten those who are open to being enlightened. If Mormonism is true the challenge to its teaching will only accentuate that. How dare she!
Another example of fake tolerance is asking for your opinion to be accepted as something that should be protected from encouragement to revise it. "I have a right to my opinion" is how it is phrased. It will be used against somebody who helps you see that your opinion may be wrong. It's euphemistic for, "I don't respect you for I want you deny you the right to encourage me to re-think. My opinion is more important than you or the truth." Saying you have the right to your opinion is fine when nobody knows or can know the best thing to do. But to use it to silence somebody is an abuse. If something really is your opinion you will welcome any challenges to it. An opinion is about what you think is true but because you are not sure of it being true you will be willing to give it up when you get further light. If you won't hear it being challenged or debated you are really degrading yourself for the sake of what you call your opinion.
The person who knows how to deal with an opinion will use questions in order to help the other person rethink it. Using "I have a right to my opinion" to stop the questions is really just saying, "I am a bigot where you are your questions are concerned. My opinion comes first even before truth. I am addicted to my opinion."
Tolerance is putting up with what you consider bad. It is best to be as tolerant as possible because tolerance implies a judgment that something you are doing is bad. Tolerance is compatible with helping a person to see through their religious faith.  It demands it if the faith is too controlling or anti-truth.

Saying things like, "Frankly, I couldn't care less about any one's religious delusion as long as they are law abiding, do no harm to minors (deny health care based on faith healing) and don't want to impose via public policies their religious strictures on my personal life" forgets what happens if people are wrong and errors lead to more errors. And if you are in error you are unsafe in the sense that there could be risks involved that you have not met yet.

Do you really want a Christian world if the Bible is actually no more divine than a book of nursery rhymes? We challenge each other day in and day out and there is nothing wrong with that. Those who say faith is fine as long as it is law abiding and they don't care are trying to protect religion and faith from a challenge. They are just selfish and lazy.

I would argue that tolerance is based on pretending that lies and untruths don't lead to worse lies and untruths.  Sooner or later the tolerant will turn on you.


No Copyright