The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-09-25
They Argue For Religious Liberty and
Claim They Are Prosecuted.
REGULATION BY LAW IS ADVOCATED
A Correspondent Calls Christian Science
Mental lepros," and Points Out The.
Difficulty in Dealing With.
it by law.

To the Editor:-In your Wednesdays
issue is an editorial headed rs 1t a
Crime ?'-referring to the death OF a boy
at Newborn, from Christian Science treat
ment-so one would infer from the e2-
tract from the Journal and your article
following it. The Interrogation point
shows there was an element of doubt
as to its being a crime, and it was well
put. 1t may be called insanity, fanatl-
cism or rank foolishness, but not a
crime, fer 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
Cod according to the dictates or one $
conscience-has not yet been marked OH
the list of things one has a right to Go.
Our Declaration Of Independence is yet
IN force.
Mrs. Parsons, the woman referred to
IN the article. certainly had the same
right to employ q Christian Scientist TO
treat her child as she would have had
TO call in a physician, and more especial
" So if 1t was a matter of conscience,
however much misguided the people OF
Newbern and the coroner'S jury may
think her. II the boy had died while
under medical tr~eatment-and such
things do happen occasionally-no in
quest would have been held; instead, the
pulpit, press and pews would have said
with bated breath: 1t is Gods Will"
Christian Scientists use 40 material
remedies, and have no restrictions as
to diet, their treatment is by prayer al
together. If when people die under med
zeal treatment and prayers combined, IT
is said to be Gods will, why may it not
be said to be His will when prayer alone
is used? If people never died under
medical treatment, bat 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 will
choose their own physicians and rene
dies, even if it be SO foolish CD a thing
as TO turn to God to heal sickness, as
we'll as sin. What man has a right to
choose another's physician and say what
medicine he shall take when sick? Would
not that be an infringement Of the law
of personal liberty? If that be done
who can say when religious liberty may
be curtailed? Why could not the Bap-
IlSG tueu Say Ill must DS lIIlii4Si ScQ, JIG
Presbyterian that all must adopt the
Westminster Confession of faith, Dr..
Briggs to the contrary Notwithstanding;
the Episcopalian that all must carry
prayer books. the Catholic that we go to
mass and tell our beads?
Which CT these jurors does not reserve
6hc right to choose his own physician?
Then why sit in judgment on one who
only exercises 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
cakes it, that 70 one dies who does take
1t, 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 net always have the same
effect, and certainly any Of US know its
different effects cn different people. If
any che Of the men on that Jury had had
a child TO die while under medical treat
mont, with prayers thrown in as good
measure, would he think any Scientist
justified in telling him the child would
have lived if TO medicine had been mix
Cd with the prayers? Yet, haven't the
Christian Scientists the same Fight to
believe THIS 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-
pic, influential ard powerful to mould
public opinion, and these jurors, the
small minority who adhered to their
views, conscicntiously in spite OF ridl-
cule, would they not feel that on their
sorrow, instead of the balm of pity,
had been poured tho walls Of per-
SCcution? What though this woman be-
lieycs that prayer and prayer alone could
heal her child-is it q crime? If all our
unanswered prayers are crimes, pity us!
What though she believed in her Bible
more than they, ard her implicit depend
ence in that trying hour proves it's it
a crime? If TO her it meant more than
to them, if she thought to prove its
words true though she failed, is il q
crime? Who loved this child more than
its mother? Who watched over it with
tender care? Whose the hand that min
istorcd to its needs, whose love grew
stronger for it day by day-hers or the
peoples who condemned her? Surely,
this mothor-no motler-vithout proof
that Miss H@Tri5on's prayers had been
d means Of healing 10 others, would have
entrusted the life OF her child to her.
II Sic IVES brave enough 10 take st.
James at his word and call. if not an
clder-hcr leader or minister, to pray
Ter her chiid's recovery, though she fail
Cd. shall she not be allowed the same
consolation any Christian can claim from
TIE Bi.ic-that some way, some how, ii
IS best? If she thinks PRAYERS will be
answered for casting out disease Of body
as Wei as mind and spirit, she has fo1
proof only to point to the same Bible
from which the Baptist gets immersion
the Presbyterian sprinhling. ard the Qua
ker neither. VINO shall set a limit to hcr
Prayers? This jury?
Mention is also made that this is the
fecord case Mss Harrison has lost-the
other about q year ago. What OF those