Tolerance
 
"Work, solidarity and tolerance." Allan Kardec

People claiming the lapidary slogan of Kardec in part on tolerance, applying this result in the publications of books being without the lower criterion, both regarding the content as well as the form. 

Clearly, the recommendation of the encoder applies to relationships between people. Accordingly, there are many pages by spiritual good doers that recommend the constant exercise of this virtue in our personal relationships. Be tolerance towards people and not towards their work. On these, Kardec always exercised the most severe test, is recommended you do the same, before you make something public on behalf of Spiritism.

Should we publish anything that comes through mediumship in the name of tolerance? If there is no opportunity for an analysis, where should we place the famous recommendation by the Spirit Erasto, contained in "The Book of Mediums" (question 230)? "Is better to refuse ten truths than to accept one lie, one wrong theory."

And how to apply what Kardec recommended on the same book (question 266)? "To submit all communications to a scrupulous examination on them, understanding and considering the thought and expression, as it is done when it comes to judging a literary work, rejecting it, without hesitation, everything that contradicts logic and common sense, anything that denies the character of the spirit believed to be in communication. This action will discourage lying spirits liars and they will withdraw, as they know that you cannot be deceived. We repeat: this is the only and effective way, because there is not one false communication that can pass a thorough critical analysis. Good spirits never get offend with this because they gives the advice themselves and have nothing to fear because of the examination. Only bad spirits avoid it, because they have everything to lose. Only with this analysis they will show who they really are. " 

To be tolerant is to publish all that is produced by mediumship, without any criteria?

Kardec continues by citing a recommendation by the spirit of Saint Louis:  

"Whatever legitimate trust the spirits that support you work inspire in you, a recommendation that there will never be used too often and you should have this always in your memory when you your study, is to weigh and meditate, to submit to the crucible of the most severe reason all communications you receive. Do not stop asking the necessary explanations so you can form a safe opinion if something seems suspicious, doubtful or obscure. "

But recently, in an article transcript in ' “O Espírita Mineiro” (The Spiritist from Minas Gerais), the author confuses the tolerance that must be taken in dealings with members of the spiritist family, with the lack of discretion in the selection of what is given to the public on behalf of Spiritism "It happens that after a century and a half, we still hear discussions and debates that demonstrate our lack of knowledge of the basic works of Spiritism and the exaggerated gospel principles in them entered, primarily those of union and mutual tolerance between those who work in Christian Fields" .

The author works based on an unfortunate mistake, because one learns in the Gospel: "However, your may say: Yes, yes, no, no, because this comes out of malignant origin." (2) And with Kardec one learns to refute communications that are not consistent with the Spiritist Doctrine structure. 

To be tolerant is to give the public everything that is produced mediumship, without any standard? And those that ensure consistency, the level of language, and the maintenance of the dignity and nobility of spirit would be considered to be intolerant and inquisitors?

Examine a work - in obedience to the teachings of Kardec - is an act of lack of fraternity?

In the article mentioned, the author imperceptibly stumbles on comments on interpersonal tolerance - essential for good living in the spiritist work - to a dangerous field of lack of criterion to be observed in everything that is presented to the public on behalf of Spiritism, when examining a work - in obedience to the teaching Kardec - was an act of lack of fraternity.

The author demands knowledge Kardec’s works, as mentioned above. But did he read the works which disclosure he defends?

On "Missionaries of Light", by André Luiz, chapter 10, one can read that to produce materialization is necessary to have the presence of twenty spiritual entities, some of higher planes. Among those incarnated in the meeting, had ingested an alcoholic beverage and had to be isolated. However, in one of those books sold in the bookstore of UME, is written that a spirit, without any support, materializes himself by taking the fluids of the body of a drunk, walks materialized through the streets of Uberaba, has an interview with a psychiatrist doctor – a spiritist who is used to mediumistic work - although he did not revealed his identity or his discarnate condition even though he was dressed with garments with the appearance of more than one hundred years ago. Those interviews were repeated for days to follow, and the physician only became aware that he was talking to a materialized spirit after a while, when the Spirit revealed his identity through a medium in a mediumistic meeting.

One would have to ask the author what he would answer to a person who was interested in knowing the doctrine, which case of materialization is true: the one from the cemetery, or the one quoted by André Luiz, and others, cited by William Crook, Aksakof, Bozzano?

It is irresponsible to publish everything we receive from the spiritual world, without a careful review

How would the writer reply when asked if the criterion in relation to abortion, which reads in The Spirits Book, "was changed? There one learns that there is only permissible if the child endangers the life of the mother. In a work sold in the bookstore said, are added two situations: in cases of anencephaly and rape, with aggravating allegations that Chico Xavier’s spirit gave these “revelations”.

Would it not be prudent a prior examination of these contradictions, before making such works public? Would it be a lack of tolerance?

Would this be included in the article’s statement: "The mediums and writers that believe they are the pariahs of the spiritist movement are there with their works. I searched with my eyes, my hands and my brains trying to understand whether there was logic in the organization of the shelves of books on sale, some indication of "selection" or "exclusion" of the "controversial works," and did not find anything. I tried to locate an index of content works best spirit of the possible indexed (disapproved), but my search was fruitless, nothing. "

The existence of a list of condemned books would be something unacceptable within the spiritist criterion; in fact it would be an aberration. Kardec never behaved like that. But on the other hand, he never published anything he produced without careful and judicious examination. If he were incarnated, he would be silent before these gaudy and dreadful revelations, before of this low language and such attacks on the Spiritist movement. All of this in the name of tolerance?

We need to see the fine line that separates the absurdity of the Index librorum Prohibitorum from such rampant irresponsibility to publish anything that we get from the spiritual world, without a careful review, in the name of tolerance.