Extracts from Reports of Christian Science Committees on Publication for the Year Ended September 30, 1927

South Carolina.

The editors of our state are becoming more and more careful to keep from the columns of their publications unjust remarks about any religion. One of the largest daily newspapers printed a detailed account of plans for church building in Columbia, and later commented editorially upon the handsome stone structure which was being built by Christian Scientists of that city. This church, which is built of native granite, will soon be ready for occupancy. It is built on the lot owned by First Church of Christ, Scientist, where a small wooden building formerly stood.

The seventy-seventh session of the General Assembly convened in Columbia on the eleventh of January, 1927. This session was a most intersting one to Christian Scientists, because of the passage of a bill, sponsored by them, which provided for Christian Science treatment for the children of parents and guardians who desire it. This bill (House No. 721) was designed to defeat compulsory "medical treatment" for children. After the words "medical treatment" in a former bill, the following amendement was added: "or other modes of treatment as recognized under Section 2400 of 1922, Code of Laws of South Carolina." The section referred to in the above is embodied in the Medical Practice Act, enacted in 1920, which contains the following amendment: Provided, "that nothing herein contained shall apply to those who practice the religious tenets of their church without pretending a knowledge of medicine or surgery and provided that the laws, rules and regulations relating to contagious disease are not violated."

On the statute books of the state of South Carolina we now have tow provisions which definitely acknowledge and protect Christian Science practice, namely: (1) the right to practice Christian Science under legal protection, and (2) the right of parents and guardians to provide Christian Science treatment for their children.

In spite of the fact that there was not a single Christian Scientist in the legislature, our bill was given prompt and courteous attention by the members of the General Assembly. We are grateful to the young member of the House of Representatives who introduced our bill, and to the Speaker pro tem. of the Senate, who was responsible for its passage in the Upper House. We are also indebted to the legislative chairman of the South Carolina Medical Association and to the chairman of the Medical Affairs Committee of the Senate, who, though physicians, were both in favor of the passage of the bill, and whose attitude to our request did much to forestall any opposition from the medical profession.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit