A mother from Maine is desperately fighting a district court ban on reading the bible to her 12-year-old daughter and taking her to church.

According to the Bickford v. Bradeen appeal launched by Liberty Counsel (LC),  the ruling violates the mother’s parental rights and US protections for religious freedom.

Liberty Counsel explained that the father, who has 50/50 visitation rights and hates Christianity, was horrified to learn his daughter was attending Calvary Chapel.

He was just as enraged to learn she had chosen to be baptised.

Supporting his case, the father found a district court judge with ties to far-left activist organisation ACLU, and “flew in, Dr Janja Lalich, a Marxist former sociology professor from California.”

Lalich then argued “that Calvary Chapel – and any church that believes the Bible – were ‘cults’ that cause psychological harm to children.” 

Apparently in agreement with Lalich, the judge (a former ACLU president) called the Evangelical church, “a cultic organisation.”

He then ruled on Lalich’s “expert opinion” in favour of the father.

This was because Calvary teaches about “hell, judgment, sin, anti-Christ, and that people are saved by God, on His terms and His terms alone.”

Consequently, Calvary Church was labelled as “homophobic, anti-science, and prejudiced against public schools.”

The mum was also accused of brainwashing her daughter, with “the so-called expert” suggesting that the daughter was being coerced and controlled.

As the mother’s post-judgement appeal recalls, 

“The district court concluded its findings of harm by contending that ‘the [alleged] ‘fear mongering,’ paranoia, and anxiety taught by Calvary Chapel has, more likely than not, already had an impact on [Minor Child’s] childhood development.”

Acting on Lalich’s “expert opinion,” the judge additionally concluded that prayer was also “harming the child.”

Such as when the pastor “led the congregation in a prayer regarding what the district court noted was “the custody battle” between the Parties.”

The prayer, which is transcribed verbatim in the appeal, shows the pastor stating, “This isn’t really an attack on the mother, daughter, or Calvary Chapel.”

“This is really an attack on God’s word, and so our prayer would be that the judge would have a little bit of a, I don’t know, conscious conflict and realise this.”

“If fundamental means that we stick to the scripture, and we believe that God is the head of the church, then fundamental we are.”

The pastor then prayed for justice to prevail, noting that courthouses have Bible verses on their walls.

Taking issue with the prayer, the judge found fault with the implication that the Pastor was advocating a “good and evil side.”

Read through the judge’s apparent far-left lens, the pastor was abusing prayer to demonise the father and glorify the mother.

Slamming what he described as “sermonising,” the judge called the  “pastor’s prayer “sad.”

He then observed that “at no point did the mum remove the child during it.”

Further implying neglect, the judge determined that the mother’s religious beliefs were likely to hinder her daughter’s medical needs.

This is because the mother “did not want her daughter to receive” the COVID-19 [experimental] drug.”

Although the daughter lives with her mother, the judge in question gave the father the right to make final decisions about faith and medical care.

Appealing to the State Supreme Court, Liberty Counsel are alleging that “the custody order” violates constitutional protections for the freedom of religion.

The order, LC explained, “even prevents Ava from studying the Bible, “religious philosophy, or discussing her faith with her own mother!”

LC’s feisty summary asserted that “the judge found that the mother is a fit parent except for the fact that she is a Christian.”

Worse, “the order is so broad the daughter cannot associate with any of her church friends or any member of Calvary Chapel Portland.”

This means that all “Christmas events are banned.”

Additionally, the ruling bans the daughter from serving at a food bank, homeless shelter, or crisis pregnancy centre.

Hope for the appeal rests on the State Supreme Court justices’ viewing the “custody order as hostile toward religion.”

Arguing that the judge overreached, LC intimated that he went ‘nuclear on Christianity, by taking all decision-making away from an unquestionably fit mother.”

Particularly regarding the mother’s right to freely share her faith with her daughter.