Article April 27, 1907 Issue

We are not sure as to where the line should be drawn...

The Star

We are not sure as to where the line should be drawn between the quacks and those who, without the use of drugs, claim the power of curing disease and alleviating human suffering. Of one thing, however, we are sure, and that is that there are many believers in the Christian Science system, high-minded and honorable men and women, whose right to put their religious belief into practice ought not to be denied them. It is claimed by those who favor this medical bill that it in no wise interferes with the Christian Science religion, and that the adherents of the cult can go on, as heretofore, in the treatment of physical or mental ailments without rendering themselves in the least liable to the law as embodied in the medical bill. We say "as heretofore," for we have heard of no charge that the Christian Scientists have at any time been guilty of any offense under the terms of the new law, except in the matter of charging a fee for their treatments. Thus, it would appear, the whole matter, so far as the Christian Scientists are concerned, is reduced to a commercial basis. This is not very high ground on which to predicate a public measure for the protection of the people, and it is certainly not the ground on which the main idea of the bill is founded. But there seems to be no other basis for what the Christian Scientists regard as a direct attack upon them.

If the Christian Science method of treatment is hurtful, it ought to make no difference whether their healers collect a fee for their service or not. In other words, the offense should not be in the charge for the treatment, but in the treatment itself—unless it is held, which we have not heard, that they are practising a fraud, otherwise harmless, for a cash profit. If they are to be permitted to go on attempting the cure of disease, in what respect will denying them the privilege of charging for their services be a protection to the public, in the sense that this bill is designed to secure such protection? We have no more interest in Christian Science than has any other citizen who is not a member of that sect, but it does seem to us that this bill has not dealt with Christian Scientists in that spirit of fairness to which every individual and every class is entitled. Either they should be prohibited from practising their system of cure, on the ground that it is harmful, or they should be allowed to charge for their service or not, as may be their pleasure and the pleasure of those who seek their assistance.

It has been suggested that as the Christian Science healers bear a spiritual relation to their followers similar to that borne by the pastors of other denominations to their church members, that therefore the healers should receive a salary, to be raised in the same manner as are the salaries of the pastors. This would be a good suggestion were it not for the fact that it seems to contemplate the regulation of an affair which is clearly within the sole province of the Christian Scientists to regulate for themselves. It is not for outsiders to dictate how the Christian Science Church shall arrange for the compensation of its healers. If the Methodist Church, for instance, were to decide that their preachers should provide for their pay by charging a fee for pastoral visits and for prayers for the comfort and consolation of those to whom they thus ministered, would any one think of asking for a law prohibiting them from making such a charge?

Send a comment to the editors