Tag: religious freedom

Conservative MP calls on religious leaders to oppose Liberal plan to criminalize quoting Scripture

Conservatives are warning that Canadians should be “very afraid” of the Liberals’ proposal to punish quoting Scripture, while advising religious leaders to voice their opposition to the legislation.

During a December 6 session in Parliament, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Larry Brock warned Canadians of the very real threat to their religious freedom thanks to proposed amendments to Bill C-9, the “Combating Hate Act,” that would allow priests quoting Scripture to be punished.

“Do Christians need to be concerned about this legislation?” MP Bob Zimmer questioned. “Does it really threaten the Bible and free speech in Canada?”

“They should be very afraid,” Brock responded. “Every faith leader should be very afraid as to what this Liberal government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois wishes to do.”

“As I indicated, religious freedom is under attack at the hands of this Liberal government,” he declared.

Brock stressed the need for religious leaders to “speak out loud and clear” against the proposed amendment and contact their local Liberal and Bloc MPs.

Already, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops penned an open letter to the Carney Liberals, condemning the proposed amendment and calling for its removal.

As LifeSiteNews reported earlier this week, inside government sources revealed that Liberals agreed to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate speech laws as part of a deal with the Bloc Québécois to keep Liberals in power.

Bill C-9, as reported by LifeSiteNews, has been blasted by constitutional experts as empowering police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

Now, the Bloc amendment seeks to further restrict free speech. The amendment would remove the “religious exemption” defense, which has historically protected individuals from conviction for willful promotion of hatred if the statements were made “in good faith” and based on a “religious subject” or a “sincerely held” interpretation of religious texts such as passages from the Bible, Quran, or Torah.

Keep reading

U.S. Supreme Court Smacks Down Lower Court in Major Win for Amish Families Fighting New York’s Draconian School Vaccine Mandates

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower-court decision that had sided with New York State’s sweeping school vaccine mandates, and ordered the case back to the appeals court for a full reconsideration.

At the center of the case is a shocking and deeply disturbing campaign by New York officials to bankrupt Amish schools, intimidate parents, and shut down religious education entirely, all because the Amish refuse to inject their children with state-mandated vaccines that violate their longstanding religious beliefs.

Despite admitting that the Amish families were sincere in their religious beliefs, the New York Department of Health slapped three one-room Amish schools with devastating penalties:

  • $52,000 against Dygert Road School
  • $46,000 against Twin Mountains School
  • $20,000 against Shady Lane School

These fines were issued for a single day of alleged “noncompliance,” and the DOH openly bragged in its filings that it was being “generous,” warning that future fines would be even more severe.

The department declared that each unvaccinated child attending school constituted a separate violation worth up to $2,000 per day.

The Amish schools, which receive no government funding, operate on private land, and are central to the community’s religious life, face closure because the families have no means of paying these six-figure state-imposed financial attacks.

In one year alone, some New York schools granted medical exemptions to 30–50% of their students, depending entirely on local administrator discretion. But the Amish? Zero tolerance. Zero accommodation. Zero exemptions.

Lower courts dismissed their claims. But on Monday, the nation’s highest court issued a rare and forceful correction.

In its Monday order, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for reconsideration “in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025),” a landmark ruling handed down earlier this year strengthening protections for religious objectors against state public-health mandates.

Keep reading

Canadian Muslims Take to Streets in Anger After Quebec Pushes Forward With Ban on Public Prayer

The Canadian province of Quebec is planning to ban all public prayer as part of an aggressive push toward secularization.

Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean-François Roberge, said the laws were designed to accelerate his push toward secularization.

The Guardian reports:

Quebec says it will intensify its crackdown on public displays of religion in a sweeping new law that critics say pushes Canadian provinces into private spaces and disproportionately affects Muslims.

Bill 9, introduced by the governing Coalition Avenir Québec on Thursday, bans prayer in public institutions, including in colleges and universities.

It also bans communal prayer on public roads and in parks, with the threat of fines of C$1,125 for groups in contravention of the prohibition. Short public events with prior approval are exempt.

CAQ has made secularism a key legislative priority, passing the controversial Bill 21 – which bans some public sector employees from wearing religious symbol – in 2019.

It plans to extend that prohibition to anyone working in daycares, colleges, universities and private schools. Full face coverings would be banned for anyone in those institutions, including students.

Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean-François Roberge, said the laws were designed to accelerate his push toward secularization.

“It’s shocking to see people blocking traffic, taking possession of the public space without a permit, without warning, and then turning our streets, our parks, our public squares into places of worship,” he explained.

He added that schools are “are not temples or churches or those kinds of places.”

Keep reading

Anti-Christian Judge Prevents Mother from Taking Daughter to Church or Even Reading the Bible

Child custody cases are often fraught with trying and unusual behaviors and demands, but the recent custody order from a judge in Maine has taken bigotry against Christians to a new level.

Emily Bickford had a daughter, Ava who turns 13 in January, with Matt Bradeen. The two were not married, and Emily has retained primary custody while the father has visitation rights.

Emily is Christian and has worked to provide a foundation of faith for her daughter, something her non-custodial father opposes.  He has been described as ‘hating’ Christianity.

Bradeen took the issue to court, found a former ACLU president who had become a judge, and the war on religion commenced.

The judge issued a custody order that can only be viewed as hostile to Christianity. The order forbids Ava from associating with any of her church friends, attending church or Christian events, and even prevents Ava from studying the Bible, “religious philosophy,” or discussing her faith with her own mother.  Ava is also not allowed to participate in Christian holiday events such as Christmas.

According to Liberty Council, the mother and daughter had been attending Calvary Chapel, an evangelical Christian church in Portland, ME, for 3½ years. Ava shared her excitement with her father over her upcoming baptism and that is when the trouble began.

Instead of sharing his daughter’s excitement, even if his views differ, he engaged the leftist judge and then brought in a Marxist former sociology professor from California as a “witness.” The witness testified that Calvary Chapel (and any church that believes the Bible) is a “cult” that causes psychological harm to children.

“The judge found that Emily is a fit parent EXCEPT for the fact that she is a Christian,” Liberty Council’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver notes.

“The judge mocked Ava and Emily’s faith by purposefully refusing to capitalize the word ‘God’ — something I have never seen.”

The judge even chastised Emily for allowing the church pastor to pray for Ava. And the judge ruled that Emily could not take Ava to ANY church unless Matt approves. And Matt has steadfastly refused to approve ANY church,” he continued.

Keep reading

Portugal Bans Burqa: Is It Really About Women’s Rights?

Portugal has just approved a nationwide ban on full face coverings in public, adding another country to the long list of European nations abolishing burqas and niqabs. Does this protect rights, or restrict them? Is it even about rights at all?

Portugal’s Vote: What Passed

The country’s parliament approved a bill banning face coverings worn for religious or gender-related reasons in most public spaces. The measure targets burqas and niqabs with fines of €200-€4,000 and penalises anyone forcing somebody else to veil with up to three years in prison. Introduced by Chega and backed by centre-right parties, the left-wing parties oppose the bill calling it discriminatory and unnecessary in a country where very few women wear full-face coverings. 

What started 15 years ago in France as a way to tackle specific concerns about identification, social cohesion and security continues to spread further and wider than ever. It currently looks like a victory for those seeking improved cultural integration, but is there a bigger picture to consider?

The List Gets Longer

Here’s a recap of other European countries imposing similar bans in recent years: 

  • France was the first in Europe to enact a nationwide ban on full-face coverings, with the law passed in 2010 and effective from 2011 – it was later upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2014 
  • Belgium brought in a national ban in July 2011, with violators facing fines 
  • Bulgaria’s national ban was adopted in 2016 
  • Germany introduced partial bans focused on public servants and official duties in 2017 
  • Austria’s Anti-Face-Veiling Act came into force in October 2017 
  • Denmark passed a national ban in May 2018, effective from August that year 
  • Norway introduced a sectoral ban in schools and universities in 2018 
  • Netherlands brought in a partial national ban in public buildings and transport in August 2019 
  • Switzerland’s nationwide ban was approved by referendum in March 2021, with federal law taking effect in January 2025 

Other countries like Italy, Spain and Luxembourg have local or limited measures rather than blanket national bans. 

What They Say the Ban Does

Supporters of Portugal’s new legislation argue that the measure aims to strengthen public safety, facilitate identification, and promote women’s rights and social integration. Chega’s leadership framed the proposal as a means of protecting women from coercion, maintaining that a woman forced to wear a burqa loses autonomy and becomes objectified. According to the party’s leader, immigrants and others arriving in Portugal must adhere to their social norms, including the expectation that faces be visible in public. Members from supporting parties such as the Social Democrats, Liberal Initiative, and CDS-PP cited concerns about identification, public order, and the belief that no tradition or imposition should erase an individual’s presence in society. 

Penalties for breaking this law will result in fines of up to €4,000 in Portugal – the highest in all European countries. Fines are around €150 in France and Austria, and up to 1,000 CHF in Switzerland. 

Is It Really About Security or Women’s Rights?

Supporters brand these bans as pro-women, claiming they protect girls from coercion and affirm equality in public life. Others argue that if the goal were women’s freedom, the policy would centre around choice and support rather than fines and police checks. In practice – especially in Portugal – the ban polices what a tiny minority of women wear, while doing little for victims of abuse or forced marriage who need legal aid, shelters, and community support – not fines for what they wear. 

There’s another angle to consider here too. Keeping in mind that these rules extend beyond just religious clothing, removing face coverings makes everyone machine-readable. As cities roll out CCTV with facial recognition, is the goal to keep everyone trackable? A continent-wide expectation of uncovered faces makes it easier to identify and profile hundreds of millions of people – even though the rule initially looks like it tackles widespread cultural and security concerns.  

Consider protest anonymity, football ultras, or simply masking for privacy in tomorrow’s camera-tracked world. Broad bans today may satisfy voters by targeting religious coverings, but could be diverting attention from the real end-goal. Will it essentially become illegal to hide your face from recognition software in future? 

Keep reading

China Arrests Almost 30 Pastors, Members Of One Of Its Biggest Underground Churches

Nearly 30 pastors and members of China’s unsanctioned Zion Church were detained Friday in the biggest Christian crackdown since 2018.

Founder and Pastor Jin Mingri was also detained at his home, his daughter, Grace Jin, and church spokesperson, Sean Long, told Reuters.

“What just happened is part of a new wave of religious persecution this year,” Long said, adding that authorities have questioned more than 150 church members and have increased harassment during Sunday church services over the last few months.

Long said five pastors and church members have been released, but he showed Reuters an official detention notice saying Mingri is being held on suspicion of “illegal use of information networks.” The charge could potentially land Mingri in jail for up to seven years, the outlet reported.

Jin said she is concerned for the health of her 56-year-old father, who was previously hospitalized for diabetes.

“We’re worried since he requires medication,” Jin said. “I’ve also been notified that lawyers are not allowed to meet the pastors, so that is very concerning to us.”

Keep reading

Massachusetts parents lose foster license after refusing to sign gender affirming policy for kids

A devout Christian couple has been stripped of their foster license after refusing to sign a gender-affirming policy they say conflicts with their faith.

Lydia and Heath Marvin, from Woburn, Massachusetts, have looked after eight children under the age of four since 2020, including many infants and toddlers with serious medical needs.

But the couple say social workers pulled their license because they refused to sign a clause requiring foster parents to ‘support, respect, and affirm a foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.’

It put them in a position where they were essentially forced them to choose between their religion and the vulnerable children they had dedicated their lives to helping.

‘We were told you must sign the form as is or you will be delicensed,’ Lydia told WBZ. ‘We will absolutely love and support and care for any child in our home, but we simply can’t agree to go against our Christian faith in this area. 

‘Our Christian faith, it really drives us toward that,’ husband Heath explained. ‘[The Book of James] says that true, undefiled religion is to care for the fatherless.’

The Marvins say they were blindsided by the decision. Their last foster child, a baby with complex medical needs, lived with them for 15 months. 

‘Every night for 15 months, we were up at least three times,’ Lydia said. ‘We certainly thought we would have young children in our home for… we didn’t know how long, but we were not done.’

Keep reading

Italian PM Meloni Sends Bill to Parliament Banning Burkas and Niqabs in Public Spaces

Curbing forced marriages is another target of the legislation.

Conservative Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has introduced legislation in Parliament against ‘Islamic separatism’ that, among other things, would institute a ban on the burka and niqab in public places.

The Telegraph reported:

“The prime minister’s ruling Brothers of Italy party put forward a bill imposing fines of between £260 and £2,600 for wearing the face-covering garments in schools, universities, shops and offices.

The party called it a bill against ‘Islamic separatism’ aimed at combating ‘religious radicalization and religiously motivated hatred’.

It introduces criminal penalties for virginity testing, while strengthening punishment for forced marriages by adding religious coercion as grounds for prosecution.”

The bill also lays out transparency rules on the funding of Mosques and other religious organizations.

Muslim organizations must disclose all funding sources, ‘with financing restricted to entities that pose no threat to state security’.

Keep reading

Judge Orders HHS to Rescind Changes to Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) must rescind changes it imposed to teen pregnancy prevention programs, a federal judge ruled on Oct. 7.

Updated conditions for organizations carrying out the programs, which cited executive orders from President Donald Trump, were so vague that the organizations could not know how to comply, Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a 65-page decision.

“The Policy Notice mandates compliance now, without providing plaintiffs with any meaningful standard for achieving that compliance,” Howell said.

She ordered HHS to vacate the notice laying out the updated conditions for grant recipients.

An HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the department would not comment on litigation. The spokesperson pointed to the news release for the policy, which states in part that the update “safeguards the rights of parents to protect their children from content that undermines their religious beliefs.”

Under the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, created by Congress in 2009, HHS provides money to organizations to carry out “medically accurate and age appropriate programs that reduce teen pregnancy.” Most of the funds go to programs that “have been proven effective through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk factors underlying teenage pregnancy, or other associated risk factors.”

Keep reading

What Democrats Will Support In Order To Oppose Donald Trump

The list is staggering, really. And one need not go back to January to compile a collection of the most anti-democratic behavior and positions possible, all to save muh democracy. I can fill out this column with stuff just since Friday. 

In June of this year, The United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Mahmoud V. Taylor, in favor of parents objecting to sexually explicit LGBT material being used in school on religious exemption grounds. The case overturned the decision against both the rights of parents and the 1st Amendment’s freedom to practice religion by a district court judge nominated early in Joe Biden’s term. That judge’s name? Deborah Boardman. 

One might think that a leftist trial court judge getting spanked by the Supreme Court that hard would be the biggest black mark on her record. Wrong. On Friday, Judge Boardman ruled in the sentencing phase of the would-be assassin of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Nicholas Roske. 

Roske, in case you don’t recall, left his home in Simi Valley, California after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe V. Wade and returned the abortion issue where it belonged – to each state’s citizenry to decide. This was too much for Roske, who flew across the country and eventually arrived outside Justice Kavanuagh’s Maryland home with a Glock-17 with ammunition, zip ties, a tactical knife, pepper spray, a hammer, a screwdriver, a nail punch, a crowbar, duct tape, a pistol light, and padded boots for stealth. This was not a spontaneous murder he was plotting. 

Roske was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Federal sentencing guidelines for a crime like this vary between 324-405 months. The Department of Justice asked for 30 years, or 360 months, right in the middle of the sentencing guidelines. Boardman came back with 8 years, or 96 months. Why? Because sometime recently, Nicholas decided he was now trans and wants to be called Sophie. Boardman essentially threw all legal jurisprudence out the window and came up with this for justification.

Keep reading