|
CSEC ON-LINE REFERENCE LIBRARY |
|
[From the Tribune, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada] He said in part: "You will note that the question is not, 'Does the law compel?' but, 'Should it compel?' And to this question I give an unqualified No. To prove my case I am going to picture for you an imaginary commonwealth which, like all real commonwealths, is composed of people who are united together in the bonds of intelligent citizenship. They are under the rule of law. As citizens they are pledged to certain obligations, among which is obedience to the laws placed on the statute books by the legislators, who were elected to frame such laws. These laws are designed to protect the rights and to safeguard the liberties of those who make up the citizenship. But should such a commonwealth pass a law compelling all its citizens to employ a physician, to submit to vaccination, or to be inoculated with an antitoxin serum, or to undergo a surgical operation? That is another matter. Let us look into it. "In the first place, no physician would enter a home to treat a case of ordinary sickness unless invited so to do. Ordinary sickness, I repeat. I am not now speaking of pestilence and epidemics. When they sweep through a community, emergency laws are sometimes passed compelling people to open their homes for medical examination. But in our imaginary commonwealth, even when a physician has entered the home of a man, and declared him to be suffering from the pestilence, he cannot compel him to accept medical treatment. But he can quarantine the house. "You see, the chief cornerstone of this commonwealth we have in mind is personal liberty, and the right to practice religion according to the dictates of one's own conscience. Well, in this commonwealth is to be found a certain class of people known as Christian Scientists. They are a religious folk. They have their churches. Their conduct toward each other, toward the community, is largely governed by their religious beliefs. One of the tenets of their faith is that, for them at least, sickness does not exist as a reality. It is an error of what they call the mortal mind. It has no basis in [divine] fact. . . . To them, the taking of medicine to cure disease, to submit to surgical operation, to be vaccinated, or to be inoculated with antitoxin, is against their faith. Then should this imaginary commonwealth pass a law compelling Christian Scientists to employ a physician for ordinary cases of sickness? I repeat, — it should not. Such a law would be unjust. It would introduce an order of tyranny into the affairs of state. It would be a violation of religious freedom. If the lawmakers of this commonwealth we have in mind did pass such a law, then the citizens of whom I am speaking would be justified in adopting the historic attitude of passive resistance to it. You will observe that I am not commending nor condemning Christian Science. I am directing your attention to . . . [that] which is actually the foundation of our system of government in all sections of the British Empire. But, keeping still in mind this hypothetical commonwealth, the conclusions I have arrived at are as follows: The law should not compel Christian Scientists or others of kindred beliefs to employ a physician for themselves, to be vaccinated, or to be inoculated with antitoxin serum. But when the law decrees that the only alternative to vaccination or inoculation is a reasonable term of quarantine for themselves and their families, they must cheerfully comply with the law's demands. By doing so they prove that they are sincere Christian Scientists, and worthy citizens of the commonwealth in which they find a domicile." |
Copyright
© 1996-2008 CSEC