XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump, alt.politics.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2025-11-20 10:04, NoBody wrote:   
   > The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is weighing whether a lower court   
   > overstepped constitutional limits when it barred a mother from taking   
   > her 12-year-old daughter to church services and restricted her from   
   > exposing the child to Bible teachings.   
   >   
   > The case, Bickford v. Bradeen, has drawn attention for its unusual   
   > scope and the broader questions it raises about parental rights,   
   > judicial neutrality toward religion and the evidentiary standards used   
   > in family-law disputes.   
   > Why It Matters   
   >   
   > At the center of the case is an unusually sweeping custody order that   
   > barred a Maine mother from taking her 12-year-old daughter to church   
   > or exposing her to Bible teachings—restrictions the mother argues   
   > violate her constitutional rights and exceed the authority of family   
   > courts.   
   >   
   > The state’s high court must now determine whether judges can curtail a   
   > fit parent’s religious practices based on findings of potential   
   > psychological harm, a question that could reshape how courts   
   > nationwide weigh parental rights, religious freedom and expert   
   > testimony in custody disputes.   
   >   
   > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/mom-battles-judge-s-order   
   banning-her-taking-daughter-to-church/ar-AA1QB83j   
   >   
   > Outrageous.   
      
   Did you read the entire article?   
      
   Do you even care about the details?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)