The editor of the Empire in one paragraph of his recent...

Ezra W. Palmer

Alamosa (Col.) Courier

The editor of the Empire in one paragraph of his recent attack assures the public that he has no desire to curtail the religious liberty of Christian Scientists, and almost in the same breath announces that Christian Scientists "When going to the extreme of turning down and forbidding all material aids in sickness, should be protected by a statute making this practise misdemeanor if not felony." In other words, the editor advocates the arrest and imprisonment of Christian Scientists because they prefer to trust God for healing disease rather than to depend on drugs, many of them deadly poisons, and all of them admittedly inefficacious. Christian Scientists do not need such "protection" as this gentleman offers. If this is not advocating the curtailing of religious liberty, then there is no such thing as infringement of that sacred right. Furthermore, Christian Scientists do not forbid any person the use of material remedies. If a person is sick and wishes drug treatment, he is at full liberty to have it, and no Christian Scientist would stand in his way.

The chief grievance of the editor of the Empire seems to be that Christian Scientists use prayer to heal the sick and do not employ those "practical, material aids which by the use of centuries have proven indispensable." Despite the above assertion it is a well-known fact that material remedies change continually. The nostrum of yesterday is discarded today, and humanity has never found an indispensable material remedy, much less one which has been so proved by centuries of use. The reason for this is not hard to find. A drug sooner or later is proved useless to heal disease, and is therefore discarded. Thus, a well-authenticated medical authority recently declared that in the treatment of pneumonia drugs in general were useless.

Christ Jesus used no drugs, neither did he advocate material aids of any kind. He healed by prayer, and he commanded his followers for all time to do the same. This critic, to be consistent, would advocate the imprisonment of Jesus and his disciples for not using the abominable and filthy "material aids" prescribed by the pharmacopoeia of the first century. He assumes that there is greater danger for a patient if he turns to Christian Science, and gives this as a reason for his desire for state regulation against it. As a matter of fact, large numbers of persons turn to Christian Science after all material aids have been tried and have failed and the patient has been given up to die by his medical advisers. The healing of these cases, not only in one instance but in many, is one of the rational explanations of the confidence with which Christian Science has inspired people all over the civilized world.

The critic urges that his proposed law should determine the criminal neglect or failure to use "material, medical, or surgical aid." It would be interesting if this critic, or any one, could determine what "material, medical, or surgical aid" can be sufficiently relied on to constitute criminal neglect in omitting its use, especially when prayer to God, the efficacy of which is beyond dispute with the believer in the Bible, is employed in its stead. The world has been using drugs and material and surgical aids for hundreds of years; nevertheless, diseases have multiplied, until the conviction has forced itself upon some physicians that if the whole druging system were eliminated there would be less sickness and less mortality. The plea of the critic that such state regulation would do no harm is futile. Any legislation directed against the liberties of the people is harmful; and for the state to attempt to dictate a school of healing for the citizen is just as inimical to his liberty as for the state to dictate his religion.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit