Tag: religious freedom

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

Supreme Court to Decide If Colorado Ban on ‘Conversion Therapy’ Violates Free Speech

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on Oct. 7 a free speech case involving a Colorado law that bans therapists from providing so-called conversion therapy to minors experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.

A therapist challenging the law argues that it violates her First Amendment rights. On the other side of the debate, Colorado contends that it has the right to regulate mental health treatments for minors that it deems harmful and ineffective. It is among more than 20 states with such bans.

Colorado’s Prohibit Conversion Therapy for a Minor law, passed in 2019, prohibits licensed therapists from trying to “change an individual’s sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Therapists who violate the law could be stripped of their licenses and face fines of up to $5,000.

Colorado has stated that its regulation was enacted in response to “overwhelming” scientific evidence that conversion therapy for minors is unsafe and not effective in the long term.

A practitioner of such therapy told The Epoch Times that the therapist’s work focuses on mending psychological wounds and is not coercive or harmful.

Opponents of conversion therapy, including the American Medical Association, point to practices such as electric shock and negative feedback methods such as smelling salts or chemically induced nausea to create a psychological aversion to the unwanted behaviors or attractions.

However, according to licensed counselor Christopher Doyle of the Institute for Healthy Families, modern therapists avoid these methods and instead favor exploring clients’ attitudes on sexuality, trauma, self-perception, and relationships.

Keep reading

TDF secures legal victory for Amish client in Quarantine Act challenge

The Democracy Fund has achieved another significant win in its ongoing efforts to defend members of the Amish community facing convictions under the Quarantine Act. The convictions arose from tickets received by the Amish upon crossing the border during the COVID-19 pandemic: Crown prosecutors alleged that the Amish failed to provide information required by the ArriveCan app.

On September 25, 2025, the Niagara Provincial Court issued a suspended sentence with no fine ($0) for an Amish client whose conviction was previously overturned and reopened by TDF lawyers. The outcome ensures that a member of the Amish community is spared undue hardship caused by financial penalties and credit problems.

As previously announced, TDF filed reopening applications in Niagara Provincial Court on behalf of two Amish clients. The court granted the application for one client, overturning their conviction and scheduling a new trial, while denying the second application.

The clients, originally from an Ontario Amish community and now residing in the United States following marriage, were charged with non-compliance with COVID-19 regulations and failure to complete the ArriveCan app. These requirements posed significant challenges for the Amish, whose religious beliefs prohibit the use of modern technology. Many of TDF’s Amish clients face substantial fines and property liens, threatening their farms and traditional way of life. TDF remains unwavering in its commitment to safeguarding their homes and livelihoods.

TDF Senior Litigation Counsel, Adam Blake-Gallipeau, stated: “Obviously, the Amish have limited access to modern technology and live a Biblically-based lifestyle: this outcome upholds their religious freedoms. We’re pleased with the result since it ensures that our client is no longer threatened with the destruction of his credit rating and financial penalties.”

TDF proudly represents over 30 Amish clients across Ontario, advocating tirelessly for fair treatment under the law for these peaceful communities.

Keep reading

UT-Battelle to pay $2.8 million in COVID-19 vaccine requirement settlement

UT-Battelle agreed to pay more than $2.8 million to employees after a lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine requirements, said the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

UT-Battelle is the managing contractor of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. During its investigation, EEOC said it found reasonable cause to believe that UT-Battelle had discriminated against ORNL employees by denying them religious accommodations from the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. This would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, EEOC said.

“I am grateful for the field’s hard work in this investigation, and UT-Battelle’s commitment to voluntarily rectifying its alleged Title VII violations by compensating its employees and agreeing to injunctive relief is commendable,” said EEOC Acting Chair Lucas. “While COVID-19 vaccine mandates were a novelty, our long-standing civil rights laws remain unchanged — absent an undue hardship, employers must provide a reasonable accommodation to its employees for their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Per the agreement, UT-Battelle will provide back pay and compensatory damages to those affected and train its human resources personnel on religious accommodation requests.

“UT-Battelle has always respected the religious beliefs and practices of its employees,” said Stephen Streiffer, president and CEO of UT-Battelle. “The COVID-19 pandemic required extraordinary measures to protect staff members’ health and safety while they worked together to keep the lab open. During unprecedented times, their dedication allowed us to continue fulfilling our national missions, including the production of medical isotopes to fight cancer and support national security. We appreciate the assistance of the EEOC in resolving these disputes, which allows us to move forward fully focused on our work for the nation.”

Keep reading