Court forbids mom from taking her daughter to church. Beware contributions with a pre-checked box. And the bias of Nature (the journal, not the creation).
Court Forbids Mom from Taking Her Daughter to Church
A court has forbidden a mother to take her 12-year-old daughter to church or to expose her to teachings from the Bible.
In a custody ruling, a district court in Maine gave the child’s father exclusive rights over her religious upbringing. Though the mother had been given custody in the divorce proceeding, the father brought in an expert who testified that hearing about demons and eternal punishment is psychologically harmful and that the church they attended–the evangelical mega-church Calvary Chapel–is a cult. The judge agreed with those characterizations and issued his ruling. The mother has appealed to the Maine Supreme Court, which recently heard the case, Bickford v. Bradeen, but has not yet released its decision.
Here are details from Liberty Counsel, which is representing the mother:
According to the custody order, issued by Maine District Judge Jennifer Nofsinger, the father took issue with his daughter attending Calvary Chapel Church in Portland because it teaches the Bible “verse by verse, chapter by chapter,” including teaching on the Bible’s descriptions of hell, demons, and spiritual warfare. He hired California sociology professor, Dr. Janja Lalich, an “expert on cults,” to help convince Judge Nofsinger to stop his daughter attending this church. Dr. Lalich told the judge that cults usually have a charismatic, authoritarian leader who teaches about a “transcendent belief system” that offers answers, and “promises some sort of salvation.” She further testified that she had “studied” Calvary Chapel Church and found that the church’s pastor was a “charismatic” speaker, spoke “authoritatively” in his messages, and that he asserted his messages were objective truth. Because of this, Dr. Lalich perceived the church to be a “cultic” organization.” Despite not being a psychologist, Dr. Lalich testified it was “evident” that the church posed a potential for psychological harm to the girl.
Relying on both this interpretation and the “expert” testimony, the court order states that this church is “psychologically detrimental” to the girl. The court decided the remedy was giving the father the sole authority to make “final decisions” regarding the girl’s religious instruction even during the mother’s custodial time.
In the appeal, Liberty Counsel stated the decision makes a dogmatic assertion without any proof that the Christian religion is “psychologically harmful.” In so doing, the order adopts a “heckler’s veto” over the mother’s fundamental religious rights to take her daughter to church.
Comments the head of the Liberty Counsel Matt Staver, “The breadth of this court order is breathtaking because it even prohibits contact with the Bible, religious literature, or religious philosophy.”
This issue is not just Calvary Chapel. The complaints against it–that it teaches the Bible, that it believes in devils and eternal punishment, that it has a “transcendent belief system,” that it “promises some sort of salvation,” that it has a minister with authority, that it claims that its teachings are “objective truth”–would apply to any orthodox Christian church.
HT: Steve Bauer
Beware Contributions with a Pre-Checked Box
As the end of the year approaches, we are always deluged with fund-raising requests, usually for a good cause. And as we move into 2026, the year of the midterm elections, we will be hearing from a lot of political campaigns trying to raise money.
Often, we may feel moved to donate a few bucks. Sometimes, though, your one-time gift might be transformed without your knowledge into a regular monthly or weekly contribution that never ends.
You need to be aware of a particular tactic used by a number of politicians and political action committees. You fill out the contribution form and probably don’t notice that it includes a box to check if you want to make your donation a recurring gift. The thing is, the box is already checked! You have to uncheck it, if you want your contribution to be a one-time donation. Otherwise, your credit card will be billed over and over, for weeks and months and years, until you finally notice and contact the fundraiser. A $10 gift thus can turn into thousands of dollars without the giver’s knowledge or intention.
I came across a story about a local election in which one of the candidates–who has run for multiple offices over the years and raises money from all over the nation by running “issue ads” that don’t even state his name–has been pulling this scam.
This has been going on a long time. I found an article from 2023 on how this approach has been operating nation-wide. There is even a name for it: the “dark default.” we found was that about half of the top Republicans had this pre-checked checkbox on their web page that if you didn’t notice it, then your donation would repeat every week.
The article quoted a marketing professor who researched the practice: “What we found was that about half of the top Republicans had this pre-checked checkbox on their web page that if you didn’t notice it, then your donation would repeat every week.” Republican politicians, he said, tend to do this more than Democrats. In fact, President Trump’s 2020 campaign returned $12.8 million to donors that had been raised in this way.
This makes me wonder if non-profit charities–particularly, Christian ministries–use this same tactic. I searched the internet and found no evidence of this happening.
Still, be on the lookout for pre-checked boxes.
The Bias of Nature (the Journal, not the Creation)
The journal Nature, along with its portfolio of related publications, is considered the leading academic journal of the scientific profession.
In recent years, though, it has left its scientific focus to become increasingly political. Nature endorsed Kamala Harris because she supports abortion, pushes DEI initiatives, and has been shown to impose its political ideology in accepting or rejecting articles.
Now a scientist who has worked with Nature as a peer-reviewer has cut ties with the journal because of its ideological bias and preoccupation. Chemist Anna Krylov of the University of Southern California has gone public with her action in her Free Press article Why I Cut Ties with Science’s Top Publisher.
She writes,
In an October 8 editorial, Nature Reviews Psychology, one of the publishing group’s journals, urged scientists to counteract Trump administration efforts by voluntarily demonstrating their “commitment to DEI.” How? By confirming “that they made efforts to cite publications from a diverse group of researchers.” In other words, authors are urged to practice “citation justice,” or to socially engineer their manuscripts’ bibliographies to promote scientists of favored identity groups, even if their work lacks the requisite merit or relevance. Choosing a study based on who wrote it rather than what it demonstrates is not science—it is propaganda in footnote form.
This is called “citation justice.”
As part of the practice of citation justice, Nature Portfolio encourages authors to include a diversity statement in their papers. A sample that it provides should alarm any serious scientist:
The authors acknowledge that research by scholars from historically excluded groups is systematically under-cited. Every attempt has been made to reference relevant research in a manner that is equitable in terms of racial, ethnic, gender, and geographic representation.
This is not a factual claim but an ideological pledge. The notion that “equity” demands proportional research citations across demographics is incompatible with objectivity. The proper rule is simple: Do a thorough literature search and cite the most relevant and reliable work, period. The immutable characteristics of the authors are irrelevant to the validity of their findings.
No wonder much of the public has become skeptical, not so much of science but of scientists.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In