Christian Pastor on Trial in Finland

[kimpearson]

33 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Which case and precedent is this? Employment Division v. Smith? That's the current standard controlling government restrictions on religion, with important modification in Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Fulton v. Philadelphia. None of those hold that religion can be restricted "to the extent it limits the rights of others." In fact, Hosanna-Tabor directly rebukes this interpretation since it ruled that federal antidiscrimination laws have no power to dictate to religions who they can and cannot appoint as leaders. It should also be said that in the concurring opinions to Fulton v. Philadelphia (which was decided unanimously) 5 of the 9 justices signaled willingness to revisit Employment Division v. Smith and replace it with a precedent more protective of religious free exercise. 

Besides, "harm" is a term which is so broad and vague that per US constitutional precedent it cannot form the central definition of a law restricting First Amendment rights (or any Bill of Rights rights which have been incorporated to the states via the "rights critical to an ordered scheme of liberty" interpretation of the due process clause.) A law prohibiting preaching would MOST CERTAINLY DO exactly that. Religious expression is a right. This is not a conflict of preferences vs. rights but rights vs. rights and religious expression shall not be downgraded so cheaply. 

Not a lawyer but in the US there are limits to religious practices.  I realize there are no laws in the US against belief or speech but there are against religious practices such as illegal drug use or not letting children have access to medical care.  Europe has a different take and there are many countries with laws against hate speech.  Again I am not a lawyer but Finland does have a hate speech law of some sort which is what the pastor has been charged under.  I realized that many Americans would find laws against hate speech unacceptable but the US doesn't run the world.  Nor does the US have a corner on the best government in the world.  If the citizens of a democratic country have enacted hate speech laws through their system of government, then that law should be honored.  

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

If the citizens of a democratic country have enacted hate speech laws through their system of government, then that law should be honored.  

Why? In the name of social order the law should be obeyed (though advocates of civil disobedience would say otherwise), but majority vote does not a moral mandate make. I do not subscribe to the idea that "because the majority wills it, it must be right." Such a standard is absurd.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

(Do you even know where Finland is?) - quote from you!

My response - Wow, your biases are showing! Yes, I know where Finland is. I have traveled the country from top to bottom, have lectured in their schools and ministered in their Lutheran churches! I might also suggest that those who brought up this issue probably did so as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more so than as citizens of the United States. I am sure there must be some type of LDS work in Finland. Anything that would negatively influence the gospel as understood by the Finnish State Lutheran Church (which is very diverse, by the way) could also be assumed to negatively impact the opportunity for LDS ministry in that country. Knowing the mandate to spread the LDS gospel that drives church members, I would think that you (assuming you are a church member) would be concerned about that which restricts the tenets of that gospel as your church teaches it as well - regardless of your nationality which I do not know. Not sure why you made this a nationality issue? Me thinks the power of the gospel and the call to preach it in order to transform lives transcends borders and nationalities.

It probably goes without saying, but yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a strong and vital presence in Finland. 
 

And you make an astute point, one I wish some members of our church were more cognizant of. We ought to regard members of our church, wherever they reside in the world, as our precious brothers and sisters, and we ought to be duly concerned for their welfare. Including having their natural rights to free speech and freedom of religion safeguarded. 
 

Thank you for pointing this out so eloquently. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Why? In the name of social order the law should be obeyed (though advocates of civil disobedience would say otherwise), but majority vote does not a moral mandate make. I do not subscribe to the idea that "because the majority wills it, it must be right." Such a standard is absurd.

Article of faith 12, Section 134 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Article of faith 12, Section 134 

Note that I said the following: "In the name of social order the law should be obeyed." That is a critical point to get on the table.

Article of Faith 12 says "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." I don't see anything in there about being obligated to believe that the law is right. 

D&C 134 has several interesting statements which would render it inconvenient for your rhetorical purposes:

Quote

We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition or conspiracy.

Right there you have conditions for when a state has a right to act and when they do not, which contradicts your reading of D&C 134 as mandating ideological conformity with the dictates of the State. I would note that in Joseph Smith's day "the laws" governed sedition and conspiracy, not the species of harm that arises from social pressure and confrontation, so such laws cannot claim D&C 134's approval.

Another one:

Quote

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

How am I supposed to conclude from the above passage that whatever a government dictates regarding religion is okay?

You might be about to say that D&C 134 agrees that religion has no right to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; after all, it says so right there. I would argue that the definition of "rights and liberties" has shifted since the time of Joseph Smith and the only responsible interpretation is the interpretation most prevalent in his time which he would have actually intended. Eisegesis does not fly. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

And, who would do this “overhaul”? 

Maybe John Dehlin could crowdsource it?

[The Nehor]

Old news.

There was an investigation and the decision was made that it wasn’t worthy of prosecution but the prosecutor (think equivalent of the US attorney general) decided to push it through.

Spoke to someone about it from Finland a few months ago and was told there was more going on but she didn’t go into specifics. She seemed to thinkVirtually everything that made it into English is click-bait outrage porn so smac naturally loves it and defends it. I will get worried if it turns out to be what smac fantasizes about it being. I just doubt it is. This is a standard propaganda tactic. Play up persecution and unfairness and maybe 1% of those who hear you get the real story when the case comes out.

Have a rather dry piece that describes how this case is part of Finland ‘figuring out where it is going’ as things change from last year:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-56326-4_8

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It probably goes without saying, but yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a strong and vital presence in Finland. 
 

And you make an astute point, one I wish some members of our church were more cognizant of. We ought to regard members of our church, wherever they reside in the world, as our precious brothers and sisters, and we ought to be duly concerned for their welfare. Including having their natural rights to free speech and freedom of religion safeguarded. 
 

Thank you for pointing this out so eloquently. 

The United States First amendment and largely unqualified freedom of speech is not the norm in most of Europe. If admit I prefer the American model but I am embarrassed by it now as my friends in Europe wonder why the antics that have dominated over the last few years were allowed to happen. I still prefer the American model but I am more than ever convinced that it places more responsibility on the people and if it is abused it just becomes rope to hang everything with.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

we ought to be duly concerned for their welfare. Including having their natural rights to free speech and freedom of religion safeguarded. 
 

Maybe we should be even more concerned with learning who they are and seeing if they actually need our concern and help.  Reminds me of accusations that BYU has problems with academic freedom where a lot of BYU professors I have heard say they had more there than anywhere else.  BYU might not be seen as the bastion of academic freedom by many, but perhaps it is for the majority of its professors and efforts to change it to have similar standards of academic freedom like other universities might create an environment where the majority no longer feel the environment supports their academic freedom. 

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And you make an astute point, one I wish some members of our church were more cognizant of. We ought to regard members of our church, wherever they reside in the world, as our precious brothers and sisters, and we ought to be duly concerned for their welfare. Including having their natural rights to free speech and freedom of religion safeguarded. 
 

Scott: Thanks for pointing out that the rights to free speech and freedom of religion are natural rights, not civil rights. God grants natural rights while governments big and small grant civil rights. I dislike depending on any government for my rights. Governments are too fickle. I think we don't realize or appreciate how tied together are natural rights and the gospel. OK.....sorry for going on so. In my current work on the history of Critical Race Theory over the years I am writing on Derrick Bell's focus on the fragility of civil rights. So this is on my mind. It also impacts my belief in a wideness in Christ's mercy, especially on judgment day. Take care.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for pointing out that the rights to free speech and freedom of religion are natural rights, not civil rights. God grants natural rights while governments big and small grant civil rights. I dislike depending on any government for my rights. Governments are too fickle.

But governments can remove natural rights, can they not?  How then is it a natural right?

[Chum]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

But governments can remove natural rights, can they not?  How then is it a natural right?

In the case of China outlawing some speech for Gov's benefit or the cases of US prohibiting broadcasting or building w/o explicit permission - I believe those rights are still natural, even if Govs promise retaliation for exercising them.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Chum said:

In the case of China outlawing some speech for Gov's benefit or the cases of US prohibiting broadcasting or building w/o explicit permission - I believe those rights are still natural, even if Govs promise retaliation for exercising them.

What makes them natural when they may not exist at all in many people’s lives?

Edited November 25, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Maybe John Dehlin could crowdsource it?

No, lol. Just read the Bible with an open mind. And know that it could have been a thought from the man, not God. I guess, that's what makes the LDS church the most true for me, when they said as far as it's translated. That to me makes the Bible not everything from God. Like some faiths believe. And if so causes many abuses to occur. I guess an overhaul isn't feasible, more like an overhaul on how we look at it. 

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Which case and precedent is this? Employment Division v. Smith? That's the current standard controlling government restrictions on religion, with important modification in Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Fulton v. Philadelphia. None of those hold that religion can be restricted "to the extent it limits the rights of others." In fact, Hosanna-Tabor directly rebukes this interpretation since it ruled that federal antidiscrimination laws have no power to dictate to religions who they can and cannot appoint as leaders. It should also be said that in the concurring opinions to Fulton v. Philadelphia (which was decided unanimously) 5 of the 9 justices signaled willingness to revisit Employment Division v. Smith and replace it with a precedent more protective of religious free exercise. 

Besides, "harm" is a term which is so broad and vague that per US constitutional precedent it cannot form the central definition of a law restricting First Amendment rights (or any Bill of Rights rights which have been incorporated to the states via the "rights critical to an ordered scheme of liberty" interpretation of the due process clause.) A law prohibiting preaching would MOST CERTAINLY DO exactly that. Religious expression is a right. This is not a conflict of preferences vs. rights but rights vs. rights and religious expression shall not be downgraded so cheaply. 

How about this case:

 

 

George Reynolds was a party to Reynolds v. United States (1879), in which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a federal law prohibiting polygamy did not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The Court’s decision was among the first to hold that the free exercise of religion is not absolute. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain)

In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a federal law prohibiting polygamy did not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The Court’s decision was among the first to hold that the free exercise of religion is not absolute.

he case began when George Reynolds, a resident of the Territory of Utah, was sentenced to two years at hard labor and assessed a $500 fine by a federal court for violating a federal anti-bigamy law. Congress had passed the statute against polygamy because it perceived that such a practice contravened good order and peace.

By practicing polygamy, Reynolds, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormon Church), was following what was then one of the central tenets of his religion. Appealing his case to the Supreme Court, Reynolds argued that the anti-bigamy law was in direct violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

Court said government could regulate actions that violated "police powers"

Although the Court agreed with Reynolds that the free exercise of religion underlay the founding of the United States, it also held that government officials have a right to regulate behavior as part of religious practices that are considered odious and violate basic notions of morality. Until the inception of the Mormon Church, the Court noted, the northern and western nations of Europe and every state had criminalized polygamy.

The Supreme Court's ruling in 1879 that a federal law prohibiting polygamy was not a violation of religious liberty led to its important belief-action dichotomy for free exercise clause cases. A government can't interfere with a person's religious beliefs except when the religious practice violates certain notions of healthy, safety and morality. Polygamy continues to be prosecuted in the United States. In this photo, attorney Bill Morrison consults with four of his five clients, the wives of polygamist Tom Green, Thursday, June 29, 2000, in Nephi, Utah. Tom Green was convicted of four counts of bigamy and one count of child rape. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac, used with permission from The Associated Press.)

More important, the Court created a belief-action dichotomy for free exercise clause cases. It held that the federal government cannot interfere with a person’s religious beliefs, except when a religious practice violates certain notions of health, safety, and morality — commonly called police powers. Reynolds, therefore, had the freedom to believe in polygamy, but he could not practice it, because the action violated national police powers.

If the federal government could not regulate certain religious actions, the Court concluded, religious doctrines would become the superior law of the land. Indeed, in oft-cited language, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Belief-action dichotomy has become a central principle of free exercise jurisprudence

Since this case, the belief-action dichotomy created by the Court in Reynolds has become a central principle of free exercise clause jurisprudence.

Justices have cited this principle in cases such as:

•  Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), in which the Court prohibited one state official from determining whether public solicitation by Jehovah’s Witnesses was a legitimate religious practice;
• Sherbert v. Verner (1963), in which the Court ruled that the denial of unemployment benefits for a Seventh-day Adventist who could not work on her Sabbath violated the free exercise clause; and
• Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), in which the Court decided that the denial of unemployment benefits to Native American church members for using peyote, an illegal drug, in their religious ceremonies was not a violation of the free exercise clause.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/493/reynolds-v-united-states

[mgy401]

On 11/23/2021 at 9:48 PM, Duncan said:

yes, killing Jews is the same as a pastor in Finland. Talk about an "emotionally fragile jack booted thug", is that where the trend of US politics has gone? Who knew you and these others all of sudden care so much about gay people in Finland, Do you even know where Finland is? 

I have a solution why doesn't the US allow all the  Finnish gay people to live in the US, that way all you so called "freedom loving" people can love them and take care of them and not feel threatened by a pastor in their home country. Would you help them move in to your city/town?

You seem to be misreading my post, and going off half-cocked over your (correct) conclusion that I disagree with you.  Perhaps you’d like to re-read it and adjust your remarks?

For the present I’d simply point out:

a)  Finland apparently wants noncomplying pastors to be publicly prosecuted, which means if they resist, they go to jail.  Comparisons to fascism or other forms of totalitarianism are not overblown.

b)  So . . . not only is America a place where there should not be a free exchange of ideas; but we have a solemn duty to protect people the world over from the free exchange of ideas?

President Xi?  Is that you?

On 11/24/2021 at 1:39 AM, Calm said:

Just because countries aren’t following the example of laws protecting American style of freedoms doesn’t mean they are headed to be ruled by emotionally fragile jackbooted thugs. 
 

Given the percentage of Americans who are incarcerated, America isn’t seen as a bastion of freedom in all eyes of the world. 
 

US may be top in freedom of speech, but there are other freedoms and overall the US isn’t in the top ten. 
 

And by one measure US is 5th in freedom of religion. 
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries

So far I haven’t seen one measure of freedom Canada didn’t beat the US on.
 

The US being more influenced by other countries, looking to them for ways to improve US freedoms might not be a bad idea.  

Calm, unless we’re missing a significant degree of context, it appears they want to put people in jail for quoting the Bible.  It doesn’t take an American to find that concerning.  Or at least, it shouldn’t . . .

I trust you didn’t mean it; but given that the *only* American civil liberty I’m talking about is free speech/free exercise of religion, I can’t help but get the impression from this that you’re suggesting that America’s other failings could be remedied if we’d only get over our obsession with that pesky first amendment thing.  Surely that wasn’t your intention?

As for mass-incarceration, maybe Canada can take a page from Duncan’s playbook and offer asylum to America’s prison inmates.  🙂 

Edited November 25, 2021 by mgy401

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What makes them natural when they may not exist at all in many people’s lives?

Off the top of my head:  I'd say a natural right is an action that is performed without meaningful harm to others.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Scott: Thanks for pointing out that the rights to free speech and freedom of religion are natural rights, not civil rights. God grants natural rights while governments big and small grant civil rights. I dislike depending on any government for my rights. Governments are too fickle. I think we don't realize or appreciate how tied together are natural rights and the gospel. OK.....sorry for going on so. In my current work on the history of Critical Race Theory over the years I am writing on Derrick Bell's focus on the fragility of civil rights. So this is on my mind. It also impacts my belief in a wideness in Christ's mercy, especially on judgment day. Take care.

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But governments can remove natural rights, can they not?  How then is it a natural right?

I think what Navidad is saying — and, if so, I agree with him — is that natural rights exist IN CONCEPT outside the authority of any government. That it is the duty of government not, per se, to grant such rights, but rather, to safeguard rights that already exist in concept. Even when government fails to safeguard, or even itself violates, such rights, they continue to exist conceptually. Why? Because they were granted in the first place by God, not government. 
 

This idea is rooted in the philosophy of John Locke, whose writings are among the sources that inspired the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly enunciates that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. See the link below about natural rights. 
 

https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe we should be even more concerned with learning who they are and seeing if they actually need our concern and help.

I don’t think I need to interview people personally to recognize and decry forces that potentially threaten their well-being. If they can take care of themselves, more power to them, but I don’t think it intrusive at least to offer moral support by raising my voice in opposition to the threat. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The United States First amendment and largely unqualified freedom of speech is not the norm in most of Europe. If admit I prefer the American model but I am embarrassed by it. …

I don’t think one can properly be so cavalier about the “American model” when one recognizes that, conceptually, it has divine approbation, as elucidated in Doctrine and Covenants, wherein it is stated that the principles undergirding the U.S. Constitution were inspired for the protection of “all flesh.”

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think one can properly be so cavalier about the “American model” when one recognizes that, conceptually, it has divine approbation, as elucidated in Doctrine and Covenants, wherein it is stated that the principles undergirding the U.S. Constitution were inspired for the protection of “all flesh.”

where in the Doctrine and Covenants does it say "all flesh" in regards to the US? it says that "all flesh is corrupted", "all fresh is in my hands" but I can't any reference to say that the principles of the US whatever is for all flesh 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

where in the Doctrine and Covenants does it say "all flesh" in regards to the US? it says that "all flesh is corrupted", "all fresh is in my hands" but I can't any reference to say that the principles of the US whatever is for all flesh 

Doctrine and Covenants 101

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

(Emphasis mine)

Edited November 25, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[kimpearson]

Just curious.  A lot of you seem to be worried about the freedom to express the idea that homosexuality is a sin.  Are you equally worried about challenge to the right to express the idea that race has an impact on society?

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think one can properly be so cavalier about the “American model” when one recognizes that, conceptually, it has divine approbation, as elucidated in Doctrine and Covenants, wherein it is stated that the principles undergirding the U.S. Constitution were inspired for the protection of “all flesh.”

Observing the weaknesses of a particular form of democracy is hardly being cavalier about it. I think you know that. The Lord hints at those weaknesses in the Doctrine and Covenants section you are referencing. The Book of Mormon is much more explicit.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think I need to interview people personally to recognize and decry forces that potentially threaten their well-being. If they can take care of themselves, more power to them, but I don’t think it intrusive at least to offer moral support by raising my voice in opposition to the threat. 

It would not surprise me at all to find out that she deliberately provoked this somehow for the publicity. Or that the prosecutor did. Or that both of them did. If so, well played.

These aren’t ‘innocent’ cake bakers running a small shop. These are politicians who want publicity. This is publicity on the world stage with offers of support from all quarters. This outrage porn is the puppetmasters entreating the puppets to dance. And dance they shall!