I previously wrote about Finland’s prosecution of Christian Democrat MP Päivi Räsänen for raising objections to homosexuality. She has now been convicted with a decision this week from the Finnish Supreme Court. Free speech is now in a free fall in Finland.
Räsänen is a Christian Democratic member of parliament and former Minister of the Interior. Räsänen is also a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and is married to a pastor.
She was critical of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland for its support of the Helsinki LGBT Pride events in June. She spoke out against the involvement while highlighting a quote from Romans 1:24-27 , which reads:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
In the United States, this would of course be entirely protected as the exercise of religious freedom and free speech. However, the former Interior Minister was accused of “hate speech” against LGBT+ people over a 2004 publication, a 2018 radio appearance, and a 2019 social media post that included a Bible verse.
While she was acquitted by the District Court of Helsinki and the Court of Appeal, the case was eventually brought to the Finnish Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now voted 3-2 to convict her for being “derogatory towards homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”
In a statement, the Court declared that “Räsänen’s statements were in this way derogatory towards homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation. However, certain other passages referred to in the charge were not held to be derogatory.”
The Court imposed fines on Räsänen and the manager of Luther Foundation Finland. Notably, the other person named in the filing is bishop Juhana Pohjola, who published the pamphlet. Pohjola reportedly leads the 2,749-member church, as well as being the chairman of the International Lutheran Council.
It also ordered both to take down the “unlawful passages” in the publication.
The Court did uphold Räsänen’s acquittal on a charge stemming from a 2019 social media post in which she posted a picture of Romans 1:24–27.
Räsänen stated that she may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, stressing:
“Freedom of speech is needed precisely when we disagree on things. I hope that despite this decision, constructive discussions can be held, even on difficult issues, under the protection of freedom of speech and religion.”
In Rage and the Republic, I have a chapter on “Why Big Fierce Rights Are Rare” that specifically discusses the collapses of free speech and other rights in Europe. This case is just another example of how our European allies are abandoning core Western principles from free speech to free exercise.
Given the sweeping economic changes unfolding in this century, those rights will be even more important in the years to come. In countries like Finland, the population will enter these uncertain times with even more uncertain rights.
Despite my conviction that homosexuality is the work of nature and not a moral failing, revulsion too is a work of nature, as evidenced by our revulsion to a great many natural things. Experience tells me that a great majority of heterosexuals find homosexual acts, especially those between males, so revolting that they resist imagining them, and certainly don’t want them celebrated publicly. Silencing the voicing of this very natural objection is no more justified than would be silencing objections to celebrations of murder, rape, or public defecation — acts considered mala en se, inherently immoral.
The Fins are heading in a very dangerous direction.
George, do you want to come over to my place and get drunk with me?
Then I can really show you how well-endowed I am by our Creator.
BAN FOR LIFE!
Unauthorized OT and egregiously uncivil, inane, insolent impudence.
“That’s disgusting! I’ll be right over.”
It would be interesting to chart the instances of pro-homosexual cases in European countries compared after the Obergefall vs. Hodges decision in the US Supreme Court in 2015, reversing the popular sentiment of 2000 years. Have we encouraged them to recognize and specially protect homosexual rights or have we come to that position together with them? It would be unfortunate if we have played leading role in paving the way for today’s politicized, aggressive and militant homosexuality in the western world.
“Freedom of speech is unqualified and absolute. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech and nothing but freedom of speech.” So says the guy who likes to post “BAN FOR LIFE!”
This ban may be imposed by the owner of this private property, which he may not be deprived of. Read the 5th and 14th Amendments.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
Next up, NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
_________________________________________________________________________
“If they don’t stand for something, they will fall for anything.”
– Dr. Gordon A. Eadie, “Mental Hygiene,” 1945
Googled it and Google is AI generated so it may contain errors. The woman was acquitted partially. She made 2 statements about psychosocial disorder and another medical term (I can’t recall) for which she was convicted. She couldn’t claim religious exemption. She was fined 1800 Finnish currency. Classified as agitation speech.
Finland has a partial separation of church and state but recognizes Lutheran and orthodox . These entities comingle to a limited degree with parliament. Perhaps it’s like churches in the US filing tax returns? Tax exempt status?
In one post She criticized the church for participating in gay festivity event. She was acquitted on that, too.
Idk if that helps… I didn’t proofread either nor have I read Aquinas or the Talmud…the punishment idea smacks of blasphemy as if. Maybe God just doesn’t like being reminded of his mistakes. 😏
I’ll listen to Obergefeld.
1A is separation due to Theocracies. The ayotollah is modern example. Base arguments on reason. Christianity is based on reason. Imo
Fascism.
Living next to the former USSR has taught them something.
Not really. Finns were ardent Nazis in WW2. At least they didn’t run concentration camps for the Germans, as the Estonians and Ukrainians did.
The Lilliputians are running the place, and it is falling apart. Jonathan Swift, where are you?
He is in my colon.
We are canceling our vacation plans to include Finland which we were led to believe is worth the visit. Not anymore it isn’t
You can join the other snowflakes there.
It was fun 25 years ago. F the rainbow idiots
Freedom of speech is unqualified and absolute.
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech and nothing but freedom of speech.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
If someone is allowed to harm you through their own carelessness, but they still have to compensate you for the harm they did, does that infringe their freedom?
You are obligated to compensate people for ACTUAL harm – that is damaged cars., broken bones, it is NOT hurt feelings.
You are responsible for your own feelings.
When you – directly or through a government inflict ACTUAL HARM – deprivation of rights, or liberty or property because of alleged hurt feelings or political offense YOU are the onwe engaged in doing ACTUAL HARM
Is a Mexican harmed when the law won’t let him eat American women?
ACTUAL harm – that is damaged cars., broken bones, it is NOT hurt feelings
With defamation, the harm alleged by the plaintiff is economic harm. That counts too, doesn’t it? The question I’m trying to pose to someone who claims free speech rights are absolute and without any exception (let’s assume that’s true for now), is: suppose you have complete freedom of speech but still have to compensate for the (economic) harm your speech causes? They never stop to think about that or address that question, they just ignorantly proclaim their ignorant rant that freedom of speech is absolute.
Seek help soon.
George, would you like to come over to my place and have dinner with a Mexican?
There is a bottle of wine in the fridge. I will teach you some Spanish phrases.
The first paragraph in the article characterizes the MP as “raising objections to homosexuality.” But I wonder if that is simplistic in failing to understand that her objection is to the church’s approval of homosexual conduct as contrary to its foundational book, the Bible. A person who has no desire to be derogatory towards a group of people can still object when their faith strays from scripture.
Another point on the scripture quoted above: a careful reading of Romans 1:18-32 reflects that while homosexual conduct is portrayed, it is not cast as the foundational sin. Rather, suppressing the truth and worshiping creation rather than the Creator is. As judgment for that, God “gives them over” to unnatural lusts. In brief, homosexual desires are portrayed, not as the sin itself, but as a judgment for a sin. Giving people over is a well known phrase in the Bible that means after a certain amount of stubborn rebellion towards the things of God, God eventually says “okay, have it your way, I won’t try to restrain you anymore, you may continue on without me, and reap the consequences of that kind of life.” The sin (purposeful alienation, initially from God) results in a fitting judgment (alienation from self).
So if someone says, “will God judge society for all the homosexuality?” say, “no, all the homosexuality is God’s judgment on society.”
Gosh, thanks omfk. Is that Judaic commentary? Interesting
No, it is not Judaic commentary.
It is the mindless and incoherent ramblings of religious zealot who would much prefer to live in a theocracy where can impose his religious extremism on everybody else.
Extremists of his ilk are the primary cause of all the evil and suffering in this world.
^ posted from a psychiatric ward ^
ATS – I have no idea whether omfk’s remarks meet the definition of a “Judaic Commentary”.
But the rest of your post is both nonsense and irrelevant.
In omfk’s remarks – it is not “religious zealots” imposing religious extremism on everyone – it is GOD.
That is a religious perspective we should ALL encourage.
While I am not sure that god plays an active role in the world as many religious beleive, it is still far preferable that those who are as you claim – religious zealots or religious extremists, rely on GOD to impose punishment rather than Government.
The Theocracy in Iran would be far less dangerous if they were patiently waiting for God to strike down “the great Satan and the lessor statan”, then they are when committed to do so themselves. by force – potentially by nuclear force.
What is the danger that ANY religious extremism of any kind poses if that religion relies on God to punish sinners ?
The dangerous zealots are those who are prepared to use the FORCE of government to impose “the will of god” or of their ideology. The difference is not important.
Today those in the US willing to impose their views using FORCE are nearly entirely on the left. They are nearly as dangerous as the Theocrats in Iran – whether they believe in a god or not, they certainly beleive in imposing their will and warped morality on others by force.
In the above article we are seeing exactly that in Finland. Homosexuality has become a sacred cow. I am not sure if the left beleives it is too fragile to hold up to criticism or if it believes it is too sacred to be criticized – the difference does not matter.
Whether in Finland or the US selecting some group and giving them some prefered or protected status where FORCE is used to protect them from criticism is INHERENLTY evil.
It is also inherently stupid. There is no difference between today’s DEI preferences and Jim Crow in the past – except the specific choices of who to protect.
We protect the rights of Nazi’s to free speech, because doing so protects the rights of jews, and gays and republicans and communists, and ….
I vastly prefer the religious zealot who claims that God will punish us with Fire and Brimstone, than the left wing nut – religious or not, who seeks to have Government punish us for Wrong think.
No, wait, Judaism doesn’t have Romans. How did you interpret it?
The Old Testament has the same idea. The clearest example is Psalm 81:11-12, which states: “But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels.”
Paul, who wrote Romans, was undoubtedly familiar with that concept as he was a highly educated religious Jew.
I always take interest when a devout Jew comments on the New Testament. So thank you for that.
Paul had 2 literary personas: the polemic and the irenic. Much of his writings are rich in theology in part for the reasons you noted. Paul (Saul) was a disciple of Gamaliel who, as you know, was grandson of one of the greatest Jewish scholars of all times, Hillel. Paul was tormented. He stated he had a “thorn” in his side. What that thorn was, no one knows but some scholars have argued it was homosexuality. In spite of his thorn, he was a model Christian and Jew.
The Old Testament is a treasure. I pray the Psalms every morning (Liturgy of the Hours). The Psalms provide great insights on everyday living like human suffering, loneliness, hope in God and the importance to praise God. Still both the OT and NT were never meant to be taken literally. Slavery was a running theme in OT and NT scriptures, with little of the Scriptures, particularly NT, condemning it. Women were chattel. Mercy is constantly mentioned in both books but rarely practiced by Jews and Christians. The lack of mercy by these is truly criminal, e.g. conservatives on undocumented immigrants. I find Catholics-in-name-only to be the worst group of Christians anywhere.
Some so called “Christians” use the above Romans quote with gusto to condemn homosexuals. Christ was very clear, not about homosexuals, but about adulterers, divorce, wrath, acedia, gluttony, pride and sin. Those same so called “Christians” ignore the aforementioned stridently. This is why Hillel’s quote matters regarding the Torah:
Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.” – Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a
https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rabbi-hillel-quotes-on-judaism-and-israel
We would all do well to turn to God, seek His mercy, and serve Him by caring for each other.
When hell freezes over, I know, but it was a societal guide for millennia and worked well for our civilization.
Estovir
When you say ” both the OT and NT were never meant to be taken literally”, what exactly does that mean.
Obviously what you are saying is that if it it is not to be taken literally, then the reader is free to read into it any interpretation that takes his fancy. This renders the bible to be meaningless. If we cannot read the bible as being literal then anyone can interpret it in any way they see fit.
So why do you keep quoting the bible if it is essentially without inherent meaning ???
What possible use is a something that can be interpreted in any way to suit the whims of the reader??
Why is your interpretation any more valid than a non-believer who dismisses the bible as a work of fiction??
If, as you say, the bible is not to be taken literally, then that would seem to argue in favor of a non-believer’s assertion that it is in fact a work of fiction.
Estovir, there is no such thing as Mercy without Justice, nor Justice without Mercy. While you rail against all others, you stare fixed on one side of the coin, without recognizing how the Torah lessened the brutality of the ancient world to an extent only realized in the modern West today. You should read the Torah with the intent of damnation put aside and try to understand what it says about slavery, women, Mercy, Justice, and a lot more. Much of it will not be in written form exclusive to the Torah itself, as there is an Oral Torah passed down and written in the Talmud, with further discussions as time passed.
The proof of what I am saying was clearly demonstrated in 1776 and the ensuing years, as the ideas laid down in those ancient texts were realized to create a great nation.
Omfk, God can change it all in the blink of an eye. He has no need of punishment because people are very good at that. The argument that God is punishing is misleading.
Thanks for this insightful comment. I read it the same way.
Right.
Off Topic
Breaking News – Martha Stewart’s officially back on the market!!!
Martha Stewart, 84, details what she’s looking for in a man
Martha Stewart, rightfully so, has high standards when it comes what she’s looking for in a partner.
The 84-year-old lifestyle maven said in a new interview that “lots of things” could make a man a “catch” for her — including “nice teeth and a nice smile.”
By: Audrey Rock ~ March 27, 2026
https://pagesix.com/2026/03/27/celebrity-news/martha-stewart-shares-what-shes-looking-for-in-a-man/
Oh Happy Days!
BAN FOR LIFE!
Unauthorized OT and egregiously uncivil, inane, insolent impudence.
WHAT! ^^^ Are You Blind ^^^ Martha’s totally Hot 🔥❤️🔥
BAN FOR LIFE!
Unauthorized OT and egregiously uncivil, inane, insolent impudence.
Would you like to have dinner with a Mexican man?
Martha looks delicious.
On this blog there are really two kinds of participants. Some add substantive arguments to the debate; others merely critique the debaters with no real engagement on the merits. If we take free‑market principles seriously, the simplest remedy is not more rules or more outrage, but the selective withdrawal of our attention. Those who wish to argue in good faith can engage one another and build on each other’s points. Those who offer only content‑free sneers can be left to speak into the void. We will soon see who is as interested in feeding the trolls as they are in providing substance.
For my part, I intend to stop feeding them, even when I am tempted to make a point. If something is worth saying, it can be framed as a general comment to the readership rather than as a direct response that rewards bad‑faith behavior with attention.
OLLY
Of course, your suggestion is premised on the idea that you are one of those who make “substantive arguments”.
From my perspective, most of your comments are convoluted and nonsensical gibberish that are largely self-contradictory and disconnected from reality. You appear to use terminology that you have invented for yourself, the meanings of which are completely opaque to any rational, informed observer, and thus you construct a monumental edifice of your understanding of the Constitution and governance that completely escapes any reasonable discussion because no one else can understand what you are actually saying.
Of course your fellow MAGA cultists lap up your nonsensical diatribes in the belief that you are making profound observations about the state of the Republic. Unfortunately this is a reflection of the stupidity of the regulars here who are incapable of rational, intelligent thought, which of course also explains why they have fallen into the MAGA cult, rather than a recognition of your “profundity”.
ATS – you prove Olly’s point.
What constitutes a substantive argument ? Am actual argument for a start.
One based on FACTS, Logic Reason.
Not fallacies – like insult – ad hominem.
We have spent many millennia developing logic and argument and their rules. Trying to sort out what means of argument are legitimate and what and mearly efforts to deceive.
These distinctions exist regard to the merits of the argument being made.
You can make a legitimate and substantive argument that the earth is flat. You would be wrong, but your argument would still be legitimate and absent fallacy, and by arguing substantively the rest of us would be far better able to judge your arguments on the merits.
Converseley when your argument is endless fallacies like ad hominem, your argument itself is illegitimate and regardless of any possible merits to your point of view,
you do not deserve to be take seriously, because you do not take making your own argument seriously or legitimately ciritcizing the arguments of others seriously.
Olly, That’s a load of BS.
Most of you that post here do not want to engage in substantive conversation or even an argument, you only want to humiliate (and within that humiliation) Win. You cannibalize the Other’s commentary to stroke your ego. For Y’all it’s about beating down the opponent, proof yet have I never seen a concession of point on your part, or an admission that you were wrong. Yet blindly you peruse Others with unsupported and un-referenced citation as statements of fact. Your lack of bibliography underwrites the pure BS that is eschewed constantly on a daily basis. Humor, you haven’t a Humorous bone in your body (not the ‘Humerus bone’ bone head).
You have been reduced to an expired Bot (retired). New Agentic Agents have taken your place, that quite frankly, enhance the blog commentary in a much more superior way.
Happy Retirement Olly.
Olly, good points. One can usually tell if an anonymous is a low-IQ garbage troll whose moronic comments are not worth one’s time, as there are several giveaways they’re too stupid to avoid using, such as “MAGA cultists” and “Turls” (to pick a couple at random).
oldman
Clearly, you are not taking Olly’s advice about not feeding the trolls.
You also reveal your own stupidity by complimenting Olly on his “good points” about not feeding the trolls, then doing exactly that.
“Stupid is as stupid does” as that great philosopher, Forrest Gump so incisively observed.
Forrest makes a lot more sense than Olly, you and the rest of the MAGA cult, and he has a lot more intelligence and common sense.
Do you have an actual argument ?
John Say
My argument is perfectly clear to any intelligent observer.
My argument is that oldmanfromkansas is an idiot.
The supporting evidence is that he compliments Olly for his “good points” regarding not feeding the trolls, then he explicitly feeds the trolls by calling them moronic.
He also indulges in ad hominem remarks that you apparently do not approve of.
Conclusion: both you and oldmanfromkansas are idiots.
OldManFromKS,
I agree with you and OLLY.
Good points indeed.
Oh, just wanted to say, I enjoyed you, OLLY, and S. Meyer comments yesterday in the Louisville column. Very interesting conversation.
Thanks, I agree that it was a very good discussion. After a lot of back and forth, I believe I finally understood his point. It gave me another view to consider.
Good discussion, based on what? Seriously , grow a pair. The criticism is legitimate. You want respect, EARN IT.
Are you serious? Your comment is juvenile. Anons have to kiss your B or else I won’t respond. Well, respect is earned. Ever hear of that?
Your opinions are by any measure specious, questionable, lacking sources, quotes.. Blarney at best.
Many times have you resorted to anon memes to respond with insults; So don’t pretend to be above it all. You are as dirty and nasty as anyone here.
Take it like a man… troll.
Is it lawful in Finland to derogate heterosexuals? They do sinful things in the bedrooms and other places. But I only know this second hand.