Senior Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen has been acquitted twice after the Finnish government prosecuted her for quoting the Bible. Now, however, the Finish Public Prosecutor is seeking to appeal the November 2023 decision supporting her faith and free speech. Even with the widespread attacks on free speech across Europe, Finland is now a standout for its intolerance and extremism in defining opposing views “hate speech.”
We have previously followed the case and the chilling effort to criminalize religious speech as hate speech. It is equally troubling to see a leading politician subjected to such investigation and prosecution, sending a chilling message to all citizens that their own free speech will not be tolerated in Finland.
Räsänen is a long-standing member of Parliament, former leader of the Finnish Christian Democrats Party, and former national interior minister. She is also a physician and mother of five who is highly critical of homosexuality, which she describes as a “disorder of psychosexual development.”
In 2019, she questioned her church’s sponsorship of an LGBT pride event. On June 17th of that year, she proceeded to post a statement on Twitter questioning how the sponsorship was compatible with the Bible, linking to a photograph of a biblical passage, Romans 1:24-27, on Instagram. She also posted the text and image on Facebook.
She later said that “[t]he purpose [of] my tweet was in no way to insult sexual minorities. My criticism was aimed at the leadership of the church.”
She was charged under a law concerning “war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
In 2022, the District Court of Helsinki unanimously acquitted Räsänen on the hate speech charges and held that “it is not for the district court to interpret biblical concepts.” Rather than rethink its attack on free speech, the Finnish government then appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal. The government again lost unanimously.
Now the Public Prosecutor is appealing to the Supreme Court in what seems more like a blind rage than reasoned lawyering. It is a glimpse of the slippery slope that awaits this country if our own anti-free speech movement takes hold.
It all began back in “The Beginning…God…created man & woman!” Anything that goes against God’s Word …is absolute and sin.
Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko enacted a restrictive religious law, mandating re-registration of every religious organization in the country and broadening grounds for their banning, his press service reported on January 3. I’m sure that JT will express concern about this too. /s
https://kyivindependent.com/belarus-weekly-lukashenko-attacks-religious-organizations-broadens-grounds-for-their-banning/#:~:text=Lukashenko%20signs%20law%20tightening%20rules%20for%20religious%20groups&text=The%20law%20requires%20all%20religious,for%20banning%20a%20religious%20group.
Coutesy of the Kyiv Independent. Zelenskyy’s prpoganda arm. So Belarus bad, because they are supposed;y registering religious orgs, but Zelenskyy good because he imprisoned priests and banned the church of 70% of all Ukrainians?
Whatever.
Since the Roman catacombs were used for early Christian gatherings, the churches provided some protection against the authorities. Zelensky has banned Russian Orthodox Christian gatherings due to their connections with the KGB/FSB, and Lukashenko is concerned about the influence of Roman Orthodox Christianity, which is associated with the West. Ask yourself: are you for the KGB or for the West?
Zelenskyy provides no examples of any connection between the Orthodox churches and Putin. The great Democrat has also banned ALL opposition media only statements calling for peace (same thing I suppose to a fascist dictator), imprisoned foreign journalists (to their death in at least one case), imposed martial law, press gangs men into fighting, sought the extradition of all military age Ukrainian men up to 65, continues to send those boys to their deaths and is now using women to fight.
He ran on a platform to end this war and then escalated it and serves the interests of NATO and the Neocons to the detriment of his people. All without ever having the slightest chance to win.
“Speaking with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas, Obama emphasized the limits of his commitment to Ukraine. As Goldberg wrote: Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.’ Goldberg then cited Obama as saying, ‘The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.’”
Obama was correct then and he has been proven, and continues to be proven correct on an hourly basis.
Everyone who argues for a continuation of this senseless war is evil, uninformed, or idiotic. No Putin is not a nice man, but he will not lose this conflict. The people of Ukraine and the treasuries of the West together with their military capability’s will as well; and for what? A despotic regime full of Azov fascists and an anti-democratic kleptocrat.
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginzburg’s anti-American comments notwithstanding, all nations must be compelled to replace their fundamental law with the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, 1789.
All people deserve the natural and God-given rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities revealed and prescribed therein.
Many nations will refuse.
Their adverse innate authoritarian despotism will be revealed and displayed.
The people in those nations must correct those nations.
Ha ! Ha ! Good one.
A lot of interesting content here, with room for commentary on various points. The referenced passage of Romans states as follows – this comes from the link the professor provided:
(24) Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. (25) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (26) Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, (27) and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
Since it starts with “Therefore,” it makes sense to ask: what preceded it? (In biblical interpretation, if you see a ‘therefore,’ ask: what is it there for?) The preceding passage refers to people who “suppress the truth by their wickedness” and then “exchange the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or snakes. (Romans 1:18, 23).
So we have a suppression followed by an exchange. That’s the key. But why suppress truth, and why is an exchange necessary or desirable?
In his book, If There’s a God, Why Are There Atheists? (1988), R.C. Sproul proposes a psychology of atheism that seeks to answer these questions. It’s too long to describe here, but to give you a very brief idea: Think of an encounter with the Holy that is traumatic (because of not being holy oneself). Now like any trauma, that trauma must be suppressed because it’s easier to deal with if it resides in one’s subconscious. It can’t stay there forever. This can be compared to an inflatable ball that is held underwater; the ball necessarily will resurface. But suppose that before resurfacing, it can be exchanged with another ball that is more attractive to the natural mind. People will naturally want to make that exchange.
“. . . a psychology of atheism . . .”
Ad hominem, psychologizing is a particularly vicious fallacy. While engaging in mad speculations about an individual’s alleged motivations, it also absolves dissenters of the need to engage the ideas and arguments.
Some versions use “Wherefore God also gave them up…” That is, because they were unwilling to retain God in their knowledge, and chose to worship idols, God gave them up as lost. This illustrates the practical tendency of heathen behavior, not as an innocent system of behavior, but one that ends up resulting in gross and shameful depravity. So, God abandoned them and gave them up – rejected and lost for eternity.
Hate can be inferred from every mode of speech, green eggs, and ham. For example, the rainbow in human context represents albinophobia. Technical terms of art such as “fetus” are used to deprecate human life and socially distance from the wicked solution. Spring is peace, exclusion is inclusion, diversity is individuals, etc. #HateLovesAbortion
Now the Public Prosecutor is appealing to the Supreme Court in what seems more like a blind rage than reasoned lawyering.
Atheists with an ax to grind are like that, especially the mentally deranged ones. Instead of performing an exorcism on the Finish Public Prosecutor, there might be another remedy. Perhaps exposing him to another atheist who also is guided by blind rage rather than reasoned discourse will cure the Public Prosecutor of his animus towards religion.
Alas Madalyn Murray O’Hair could not be reached for comment given she was murdered by, David Waters, a colleague and fellow adherent of Madalyn’s American Atheists group. It seems David Waters not only murdered, decapitated and de-limbed his fellow atheist Madalyn, but also her son, Jon Murray, and her granddaughter, Robin Murray O’Hair, all leaders of the cult group American Atheists. The reason? David Waters confessed to Federal law enforcement in Dallas that he did it all for several pieces of gold coins.
Clearly Judas Iscariot went on the cheap.
😉
Sadly nobody remembers Madalyn Murray O’Hair, likely because she died less than 30 years ago. OTOH, Jesus Christ died ~2000 years ago and atheists like the Finnish Public Prosecutor are still trying to prove how dangerous Jesus and His followers are.
“Where no guiding ideals are left to point the way, the scale of values disappears and with it the meaning of our deeds and sufferings, and at the end can lie only negation and despair. Religion is therefore the foundation of ethics, and ethics the presupposition of life.”
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
– Werner Karl Heisenberg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1932
Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory
“I have told Jon and Robin that when I die, they should gather me up in a sheet, unwashed, drag or carry me out and put me on a pyre in the backyard and burn my carcass,” wrote O’Hair in a 1986 article in American Atheist Magazine. “I don’t want any damned Christer praying over the body or even putting his hands on it.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20110721083846/http://www.dallasobserver.com/2001-02-01/news/dead-giveaway/2/
O’Hair had no Christian praying over her body. She had an atheist fellow cult member dismember, butcher and burn her bodily parts.
“Sadly nobody remembers” Giordano Bruno, the scientist who was tortured, then burned to death, by the Catholic Church — for the “crime” of heresy. Nor do they remember the countless other scientists and dissenters tortured, jailed, murdered by the Roman Inquisition — or any of the other religious Inquisitions.
The only thing waiting for scientists and dissenters at the bottom of that glass is — torture.
The Fins have been so close to the USSR and its terrible record of suppressing speech yet they want to mirror their ideology.
“Hate speech “ is a term, devoid of any precise definition, that is used as a noble sounding excuse for intolerant people to deny the essential freedom of others to hold and communicate deeply held beliefs. It’s use is, or should be anathema.
Is the public prosecutor in Finland part of the Soros team. This would make a lot of sense if Soros was involved.
Don´t be silly. The devil made him do it.
Here is the Finnish Grand Inquisitor (er, prosecutor) Anu Mantila rationalizing censorship:
“Citing the Bible is not forbidden. But insulting vulnerable groups is.”
So for the Left, “vulnerable groups” are the (secular) Gods. And “insulting” them is heresy.
We can see the evil wrought by vague terms used to establish crimes, e.g: “crimes against humanity”, “abuse of power”, “hate crimes”, “war crimes.” Such vagueness opens the door to the biased and arbitrary use of power.
Did not the Finns just recently join NATO in order to avoid invasion and oppression by the big bear that lives next door to them and whose more recent history has been to suppress religion at all costs. Are they trying to mimic their neighbor who they fought off to gain their independence and then fought again to maintain it. These sort of actions makes one wonder. Now even Vladimir Putin has the support of the Russian Orthodox in his “special military action” against Ukraine . Of course I suspect that support from the Russian Orthodox Church is well bought and paid for.
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion” and that is where most leftist leave the Constitution and totally ignore the second part of the sentence “Or Prohibiting the Free Exercise Thereof”. That darn Constitution, it just seems to keep coming up with these little catchphrases that people forget all about until it stands up and smacks them in the face. The longer I am around, the more I am awed by the brilliance of the men who wrote that document. There are few things in this world that are man made and still stand the test of time and remain salient to our lives after 2 1/2 centuries. The Constitution remains up to date whether you are a believer in a “living constitution” (I am not) or are an originalist.
I have found no group of people or politicians who have produced anything so brilliant in the centuries since. It can be subverted by corruption, or stupidity or ignorance but if you adhere to it and clear away the trash that has accumulated it is still there to light the way. I think it’s importance has only grown greater as time has passed. Thats why I remain an originalist because the world has never really put together a group of people since then that could surpass the constitution and it’s wisdom.
Remember. The federal constitution applies Only to the federal government. State governments did have official religions. In 1833, the final state, Massachusetts, stopped supporting an official religious denomination. There is no reason that practice cannot be brought back, keep that in mind as we as a nation openly solicit more Muslims to live here.
I believe the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States as well.
The Founders’ minds were unmuddled by movies, radio, TV, the internet & other time wasting devices. When JFK marveled to Gore Vidal about
the clarity of their writings, Vidal pointed out their lives lacked distractions. Also, read Max Picard’s The World of Silence about the use of the radio to promote the Nazis.
Excellent GEB!
The Establishment Clause should be reconsidered in light of modernity. At the time of the Clause’s writing, the Thirty Years War and religious persecutions were recent history.
The Founders hoped that by removing religion from government, it would end the misuse of government by intolerant factions.
Oh, boy, if they could see us now. Eliminating religion from small government doesn’t eliminate cultural tyranny from BIG government–it only exiles the main voices for traditional values. CRT, DIE, trans-activism, and that filthy slime–Howard Zinn–were the primary beneficiaries of the Establishment Clause in modern times. Freedom is starting to suffer.
Voters have to respect all voices and dethrone any group, religious or otherwise, that can’t do that; otherwise, big government is just a threat. Maybe that threat is inevitable. The Founders thought so.
“The Founders hoped that by removing religion from government, it would end the misuse of government by intolerant factions.”
Diogenes, you are correct, but didn’t the founders seek to prevent one established religion or religious sect from dominating over others? Did they really want to separate government from religion? The later interpretations ended faith-based religion from the government. However, that left a vacuum, and we now face a destructive faith-based religion where Leftist idol worship is likely.
S Meyer, the Establishment Clause was aimed at preventing an official national religion, to prevent the federal government from interfering with individual states’ official religions. In the 20th century it was reinterpreted to prevent individual states from having an official religion (by use of the 14th Amendment due process clause). So kind of the opposite of the original meaning.
I’m sure you’re both right. I appreciate the detail you both brought to the discussion.
S. Meyer writes, “The later interpretations ended faith-based religion from the government. However, that left a vacuum, and we now face a destructive faith-based religion where Leftist idol worship is likely.”
Correct on both points. Your first point is a more nuanced history than the crib notes I presented. Your second is exactly my main argument. The argument against religion in government has been taken too far, even by conservative courts.
The thing I’ve learned is that the Left can abuse the courts, just like they’re doing now. If voters don’t appreciate religious and minority protections, the Left will twist and bully the courts to get what they want.
That’s not what I expected from the ACLU, the SPLC, or the courts for that matter, but now we know the Left better. They were all for political minorities when they thought they were one of them, but now their inner Stalin is showing.
Joe Biden (alias Joseph Stealin) wasn’t against court packing because it violated his principles. He was against it because he didn’t have the votes or the middle on this issue. His “principles” were his excuses to shield himself from his own party. Had the voters not balked, Laurence Tribe would be sitting next to John Roberts right now. Joe is very short range when it comes to principles.
On second thought, I thought (feel free to correct me) that at least some originalists on the Supreme Court agreed with liberals that the the Founding Fathers intended a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
If I’m correct, then I would amend my comments to say most jurists believe the Founding Fathers favored a strict interpretation of the separation of church and state.
I would concede we’re starting to get into some pretty tall weeds of interpretation on this question.
Regardless of what the Founding Fathers may have intended, I maintain that secular cultism within the federal government is becoming almost as divisive as religious bigotry of the 17th century. This is not something Thomas Jefferson anticipated when he wrote the Bill of Rights.
“On second thought,”
Diogenes,
Did not historical practices include religion?
DOI: Endowed “by their creator”
Constitution: “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord ”
Later: In God W(w)e Trust
Invocations opening legislative sessions
#1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:”
The word, establishment, seems clear to me and doesn’t call for the elimination of religion. However, it cannot favor one religion over another or excessively favor religion over non-religion, even though religion cannot be removed entirely for that would favor non-religion.
I look at the court decisions well distanced from 1787 as merely adjustments, but I don’t have the familiarity to conclude that is entirely so.
In the end, I look at the Establishment Clause as a way for an individual to maintain their freedom of conscience. Good people should respect those feelings and not impose their own on others.
Maybe your knowledge of the court decisions can bring more light to the discussion.
Alan, my knowledge would always be inferior to yours. I’m sure you’re right.
I confess–without shame or embarrassment–I’m too lazy to read court opinions. They’re about as interesting to me as my opinions are to those judges. I usually skip over such quotes when I read the Professor’s blog. To a dilettante like myself, his opinion is far more succinct and reliable than that of most black robes.
As an amateur philosopher, I’m more interested in the ramifications than anything else. Whoever shot John when it came to religion in public life, what’s now happening in our federal government seems both wrong and unexpected to me.
“Alan, my knowledge would always be inferior to yours.”
Diogenes, I don’t believe so. You are always measured in what you say, so I value your opinion. It takes an excellent constitutional lawyer to understand what the SC Justices are saying, so I don’t know if anyone on this blog, except Turley, meets the need. Even Turley will leave openings in the interpretation of the law and decisions because that is the nature of the beast. The Constitution was a compromise that left things hanging.
Like you, I am interested in the ramifications. What I have learned from the blog is that we cannot trust people, especially those who wish to distance themselves entirely from God or, if one prefers, the Creator. Such distance leaves some people believing they are Gods themselves, leaving them to interpret laws and events in a constantly changing fashion satisfactory only to their self-interested desires.
The above was mine.
SM
🙂
My understanding from writings of Madison was that the founders, who had carefully studied all preceding forms of governance before, note a problem that destroyed peace and destroyed governments. Indeed, it was the arising of factions in society with different ideas and philosophies. If they included some laws respecting religious observance, which religion would they chose because religions were divided into a number of factions? Do you choose Catholics or Muslims or any number of others which were not even created yet? so, the very fabric of our government was designed to deal with factions. They chose a constitutional republic because a significant number of people would be involved in deciding issues – people interested in governing, who were up on all the issues of the day that the young colony faced. The constitutional republic form of government made the formation of factions more difficult because more people with varied ideas were involved in decisions. This also avoided a serious deficiency with a pure democracy that occurred when a faction just slightly over a majority could ride roughshod over all the others, called the tyranny of the temporary majority. The founding fathers were on record as supportive of religious, civil people who would honor the governing authority. Thus, they included the admonition in the amendment that Congress could not make any rule or law that established a religious philosophy nor prohibited the citizens of the United States from freely exercising their religion. Very nicely done. It has worked just fine in the past up to the presenter era. I fear our society has been dumbed down without education on our government that they will destroy what has resulted in one of the finest countries on earth.
“from writings of Madison … it was the arising of factions in society.” “If they included some laws respecting religious observance…”
I can only assume you are referring to Federalist #10, written by Madison. Yours is an excellent reply demonstrating an understanding of how our Constitutional Republic works.
It is a shame you place yourself with a group of stupid people all carrying the same anonymous moniker that many delete without reading. I prefer to read more of yours than the junk and stupidity others think represents their brilliance.
You are discussing the problem of factions and relating them to religious factions or other powerful factions that are created because of our human inclinations. Madison recognized that the appropriate structure of government could replace the attempt to change human nature.
He was trying to convince the anti-Federalists that with such a Constitution, we did not require a Monarchy or run the risk of Republican failure (Montesquieu) due to our large population. He showed how a large population would create a counterbalance to one powerful faction (religious or other). Madison provided the combination (Republic and Monarchy), adding strength and resilience to the nation.
Your fear of the destruction of our society is justified because Leftism has taken hold, and it eats our nation from the inside out.
“The Establishment Clause should be reconsidered . . .”
And thus, theocracy pokes its nose under the tent.
“The Founders hoped that by removing religion from government, it would end the misuse of government by intolerant factions.”
No.
They were combatting “all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.” (Jefferson) With the worst offender being a combined power of church and state.
At the time, the worst offender was the combined power of the church and state. Times have changed.
I’m not calling for theocracy, but rather inclusion–inclusion of people of faith in our government institutions. I admit, it’s a tricky issue, but the Left has already tripped all those wires with their cultural tyranny over faith, parenting, etc.
The only alternative is to exclude all cultural and religious factions from government. I think that is practically impossible.
The Moscow Patriarch was a good friend of Putin in St. Petersburg.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Second Amendment, in the context of your originalist stance.
I commend her for sticking to her faith and principles and for her courage to face this bizarre and evil contagion of insanity that is spreading like wildfire. This is insanity and a loss of reason of once fair minded people which is propagated by activists who have intent to destroy the fabric of society and decency.
Z’KHARYAH
14 will apply to them on that day.
Coming soon!