The league of teaching Several of our correspondents were surprised that we have not yet spoken of the association designated by the title of League of teaching. For its progressive character, to them, this project seems to deserve the sympathies of Spiritism; however, they would like to have our opinion, before joining. Thanking them for this new testimony of confidence, we will repeat what we have told them many times, namely: that we have never intended to enchain anyone's freedom, nor to impose our ideas on anyone, or consider them as having the force of law. By remaining silent, we wanted to not prejudge the issue and allow everyone's full freedom. Regarding our personal abstention, we have no reason to keep silent, and since they want to know it, we will say it frankly.
Our sympathy, like that of all Spiritists, is naturally associated to all progressive ideas, and to all institutions that tend to propagate them; but it is necessary, moreover, that this sympathy have a determined objective. However, until now, the league of teaching only offers us a title, attractive it is true, but no defined program, no outlined plan, no precise goal. Besides, this title has the drawback of being so elastic, that it could lend itself to combinations greatly divergent in their tendencies and in their results. Everyone can understand it as they please, and no doubt, by anticipation, build a plan according to their way of seeing; it could, therefore, happen that when it comes to the execution, the thing does not correspond to the idea that some people had made of it; hence the inevitable defections.
But, they say, we risk nothing, since it is the subscribers themselves that will regulate the use of the funds. – One more reason for people not to get along, and in this conflict of opinions and various views, there will inevitably be disappointments.
With a well-defined goal, a clearly drawn plan, on the contrary, we know what we are committing to, or at least, we know whether we are giving our support to something practicable or to a utopia; one can appreciate the sincerity of the intention, the value of the idea, the more or less successful combination of the gears, the assurances of stability, and calculate the chances of success or failure.
Now, in this case, this appreciation is not possible, since the fundamental idea is shrouded in mystery, and it must be accepted on word as good. We want to believe that it is perfect, we sincerely wish so. When the good that must come out of it will be demonstrated to us, and when we see, above all, its practical side, we will applaud it wholeheartedly; but before giving our support to anything, we want to be able to do it knowingly; we want to have a clear sight of everything that we do, and know the terrain where we set foot on. In the state of things, not having the necessary elements to praise or blame, we reserve our judgment.
This absolutely personal point of view must not induce those that believe themselves to be sufficiently enlightened.
