How can this happen in America? Maine District Court Judge Jennifer Nofsinger issued a ruling that effectively prevented a young girl from attending church, reading the Bible with her mother, participating in Christian activities, celebrating certain Christian observances, and maintaining relationships with church friends.
The case arose from a custody dispute between divorced parents, but the implications reach far beyond one family.
The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Yet here we are in 2026, watching a court order place significant restrictions on a child’s exposure to Christianity while the case works its way through the appeals process.
Judge Nofsinger accepted testimony that participation in the church attended by the girl’s mother could cause psychological harm to the child. She ruled that the girl’s father had authority over the child’s religious upbringing and sharply limited the mother’s ability to involve her daughter in church life. The mother has appealed, arguing that the order violates both parental rights and religious freedom protections.
Religious liberty advocates from across the nation have rallied behind the case because they see something much larger at stake. When a court begins determining whether Bible reading, church attendance, Christian fellowship, or participation in religious activities is acceptable, it calls into question whether the court has crossed a constitutional red line. This case should concern every American, regardless of religious affiliation.
The issue is not whether someone agrees with the teachings of a particular church. The issue is whether government officials possess the authority to restrict religious practice based upon disagreement with those teachings. If a judge can decide that exposure to biblical beliefs is psychologically harmful, where does that authority end? Today, it may involve a Christian family. Tomorrow it could involve Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, or any group whose beliefs fall outside prevailing cultural norms or a judge’s biased opinion.
Religious liberty exists precisely because the founders understood that government should never serve as the arbiter of theological truth. Courts have a duty to protect constitutional rights, not redefine them according to contemporary social preferences or “expert” opinions.
The good news is that Judge Nofsinger’s ruling is now under review by Maine’s highest court. The appeals process provides an opportunity to reaffirm a principle that has guided this nation since its founding: religious freedom is not a privilege granted by government. It is a God-given right protected by the Constitution.
A nation that can restrict Bible reading, church attendance, and Christian fellowship through judicial decree risks weakening the very freedoms that distinguish America from places where government controls matters of faith.
The First Amendment deserves faithful application. Our constitutional freedoms remain strong when they are defended, and especially when they are tested.
Acts 5:29 says, “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said: We ought to obey God rather than men.” Indeed.
Sources
Decision Magazine (Billy Graham Evangelistic Association)
https://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/articles/mother-barred-from-taking-daughter-to-church-awaits-maine-high-court-ruling/
CBN News
https://cbn.com/news/us/judges-ruling-blocks-maine-mom-taking-her-daughter-christmas-church-services
Portland Press Herald
https://www.pressherald.com/2026/01/13/maine-courts-are-weighing-when-parental-rights-outrank-religious-freedoms/