Allow me to make a brief comment on the recent decision...

Camden (N. J.) Courier

Allow me to make a brief comment on the recent decision of a New York court in the case of a Christian Science practitioner, referred to in a recent issue under the heading "Legal Cases of Interest."

The several opinions in this case consume thirty-nine sheets of typewritten paper, but the gist of the whole decision can be put in a few words. Although the present decision is not final, the majority of the judges ruled to the following effect: It is allowable to practise religious tenets which include healing, unless the practitioner provides an office or place for the work and receives payment from those who offer it. If he does this, he must have a license to practise medicine.

It is to be observed, therefore, that this judgment rests wholly upon the alleged impropriety of receiving compensation for service rendered. On the other hand, the former chief judge of the highest court in New York (Edgar Montgomery Cullen) recently said in a public address: "In all Christian churches prayers are offered for the recovery of the sick, and all decent Christians, Friends possibly excepted, believe in supporting their clergyman. The Christian Scientist has exactly the same right to be paid for his service." Which of these views is correct may be debated by judges, but the ultimate right of decision belongs to a larger court. If the present ruling correctly interprets the law of New York, and the statutes thus construed do not conform to the sense of justice held by the people, the law can be changed and will be changed.

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

Sorrow Vanquished
March 20, 1915

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.