The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-09-23
They Argue For Religious Liberty and
Claim They Are Prosecuted.
REGULATION BY LAW is ADVOCATED
A Correspondent Calls Christian Science
Mental Leprosy" AMI Points Out The
Difficulty in Dealing With
Il by Law.


To the Editor:-In your Wednesdays
Issue Is an editorial headed "Is 1t a
Crime ?'-refcrring to the death of a boy
at Newbern, from Christian Science treat
ment-so one would infer from the ex-
tTuct from the Journal and your article
following 1t. The interrogation point
shows there was an element of doubt
as to its being a crime, and 1t was well
put. It may be called insanity, fanati-
cism or rank foolishness, but not
crime, for the very fact of their praying
shows there was nothing criminal,
though the result in this case was death
Religious liberty-the right to worship
God according to the dictates of ones
conscience-has not yet been marked off
the list of things one has a right to do
Our Declaration OF independence is yet
in force.
Mrs. Parsons, the woman referred to
in the article. certainly had the same
right to employ a Christian Scientist to
treat her child as she would have had
to call in physician, and more especial
ly so If ii was a matter OF conscience,
Newborn and the coroners jury may
think her. II the boy had died while
under medical treatment--and suck
things do happen occasionally in
quest would have been held instead the
pulpit, press and pews would have said
with bated breath: ut is Gods will"
Christian Scientists use no material
remedies, and have no restrictions as
to diet, their treatment is by prayer al
together. III when people die under med
ical treatment and prayers combined, it
is said to be Gods WILL why may 1t not
be said to be His will when prayer alone
is used? If people never died under
medical treatment, but always recovered,
then indeed it might be called a crime
not to employ a physician, but as long
as their prescriptions differ and differ
ent schools of medicine use different
remedies, and just so long as doctors OF
all schools lose patients. people VIII
choose their own physicians and reme-
dies, even IL 1t be so foolish CD a thing
as to turn to God to heal sickness, as
we'll as sin. What man has right to
choose anothers physician and say what
medicine he shall take when sick? Would
not that be an infringement OF the law
OF personal liberty? II that be done
j be curtailed? Why could not the Bap
list then say all must be immersed; the
Presbyterian that all must adopt the
Westminster Confession of faith. DR.,
Briggs, to the contrary Notwithstanding;
the Epscopalianv that all must carry
prayer books he;Catholic that we go to
, mass andE tell our beads? - :, 4
j. Which Of these jurors does not reserve.
3 the.p rights to choose shis town physician ?l
Then why sit judgment on one who
onlytexerc,ses the same privilege? Does
not each one think the physician OF his
choice is best? Shall she not say and
take her choice likewise? When they
prove that medicine cures everybody who
takes il, that no one dies who does take
It, they will have no trouble in proving
that the child came to it's death from
not having proper treatment-that is
medicine. Physicians themselves say
medicines do not always have the same
effect, and certainly any Of us know its
different effects on different people II
any one of the men on that jury had had
child to die while under medical treat
ment, with prayers thrown in as good
measure, would he think any Scientist
justified in telling him the child would
have lived II no medicine had been mix
ed with the prayers? Yet, haven't the
Christian Scientists the same right to
believe thss that he has not to believe
it, Reverse the case Suppose the
Christian Scientists, instead of being a
mere handful. were a large body OF pco-
pie, influential and powerful to mould
public opinion and these jurors, the
small minority who adhered to their
views, consclentiously, in spite of ridi-
cule, would they not feel that on their
sorrow, instead Of the balm of pity,
had been poured the Walls of per-
secution? What though this woman be-
lieves that prayer and prayer alone could
heal her child-is it a crime? II all our
unanswered prayers are crimes. pity us!
What though she believed in her Bible
more than they. and her implicit depend
ence in that trying hour proves it's it
a crime? II to her IL meant more than
to them, II she thought to prove It's
words true though she failed, Is IL a
crime? Who loved this child more than
its mother? Who watched over IL with
tender care? Whose the hand, that min
istered to its needs. whose love grew
stronger for IL day by day~-hers or the
peoples who condemned her? Surely
this mother-no mother-wthout proof
that Miss Harrison's prayers had been
means OF healing to others would have
entrusted the life Of her child to her