William Kilpatrick – February 25, 2022
Päivi Räsänen is a member of the Finnish Parliament, a former minister of the interior, a public speaker and the mother of five grown children.
She faces a heavy fine and two years in prison for quoting the Bible. In response to the Evangelical Lutheran Church’s affiliation with the Helsinki LGBT Pride event, she posted the Bible passage from Romans 1: 24-27 which condemns homosexual behavior.
Finnish prosecutors stated that the use of the word “sin” could be harmful, and alleged that Ms. Räsänen’s comments were made to cause intolerance, contempt, and hatred toward homosexuals.
But couldn’t the prosecutor’s remarks cause intolerance, contempt and hatred toward Ms. Räsänen? If criticizing another person’s beliefs or behavior is a hate crime, then isn’t she the victim of a hate crime?
The court prosecutors worried that the word “sin” could be harmful. One supposes they mean harmful to one’s self-esteem. And, indeed, the list of sins in Romans 1: 24-32 is meant to make you feel bad about yourself. From a Biblical perspective, acknowledgment of sin, followed by repentance, leads on to salvation. In other words, feeling bad about your behavior is, in some cases, a good thing. It’s not only homosexual behavior that is condemned in Romans I. The extended passage condemns all manner of sins including idolatry, deceitfulness, envy, gossip, slander, and disobedience to parents.
From one point of view this is highly offensive and insulting to those disposed to deceitfulness and slander. From another point of view, it can be looked upon as highly therapeutic—a moment of self-recognition that leads on to change.
Prosecutors should have no difficulty understanding the concept. After all, they apply painful therapeutics as a matter of course. They hope that a heavy fine or a dose of prison will force the criminal to recognize his crimes and put himself on the road to rehabilitation.
Increasingly, however, prosecutors are prosecuting “thought crimes” rather than real crimes, and courts are using hurt feelings as a criterion for making decisions. Take the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian woman who was found guilty of “inciting hatred” by an Austrian Court because of her assertion that the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile. In 2018, the ruling was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights which held that her right to freedom of expression was outweighed by “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.” In short, feelings trumped facts, and the alleged pain caused to Muslims by the “slander” of their prophet became the deciding factor.