From time to time, during the last decade or two, there have been frequent attempts to legislate against Christian Science. These efforts to invoke the machinery of government on behalf of those who, for various reasons, opposed the practice of Christian Science, have not been confined to one section of the country. On the contrary, the records show that in widely separated states there has been waged a conflict which has developed unaccountable bitterness on the one hand and patient charity on the other. It may be pertinent to examine more or less in detail the nature of this widespread action, the merits of the opposition, and the grounds upon which it is sought to make illegal the healing of the sick and the reforming of the sinful. To be of value, such an examination should be judicial and dispassionate, and such we shall endeavor to make it.
It might appear, at first seeming, that the logical starting-point for such an investigation would be the motives of the authors of the proposed laws. Mature deliberation, however, will save us from this mistake. We are not properly concerned with the immediate incentives, for, as Christian Scientists, we cannot fail to see that these are but secondary, in the line of action. The primary stimulus we understand to be the carnal mind, and we cannot forget Paul's admirable analysis, when lie says, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood [persons], but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." In the words of a recent contribution to our own literature, our righteous effort is to "separate all error from our thought of man," and in doing this, we get back of persons, back of the present phenomena of evil, to the belief of intelligence apart from God, apart from good. Having admitted the metaphysics of this reasoning, we would gain nothing if we dealt with effects only, and did not probe into belief respecting cause. There is one great advantage in this view of the situation. It deprives our rebuttal of every symptom of harshness or resentment, and as a matter of history, the conduct of Christian Scientists under pressure has been notably characterized by the absence of ill temper.
It makes no difference whether those who go into the halls of our legislatures with bills which are intended to obliterate Christian Science, do so honestly, or dishonestly the question is not as to whether their motives are selfish and sordid. They may or may not be genuine humanitarians burning with zealous desire to destroy what they conceive to be iniquitous or dangerous. They may or may not be incited by a personal sense of financial loss. They may or may not be moved by a professional feeling of rivalry. With the hundred and one unworthy impulses which may or may not lie at the bottom of this activity, we need not concern ourselves. The legitimate question is this Is it the function of government to regulate by law, the relations of man to his Maker?
