Christian Pastor on Trial in Finland

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

This is a risible slander.  Of course, I would caution anyone who would expect better of you that, invariably, he or she is apt to be disappointed.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Governments are transitory and transitional. They come and go. A government, bully, or powerful entity can take away almost all of my inherent rights as a human being made in the image of God. If they kill me, they take away all my human rights and usher in my spiritual rights as a child of the King of the ultimate unchangeable dominion.

However, assuming I were still alive, I could maintain hope that times, powers, empires will change and once again my natural rights will be restored to me. Arbitrary government has the power and resources to be . . . well - arbitrary! I accept Scott's statement that I believe natural rights to be in concept, rights that are not granted by a government but those which may be recognized or be taken away by a government through its utilize of law, arms, or other forms of coercive power. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This is a risible slander.  Of course, I would caution anyone who would expect better of you that, invariably, he or she is apt to be disappointed.

Slander requires the statement to be false.

[Navidad]

42 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

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?

 

I guess I have never met anyone who doesn't believe that race has an impact on society or who doesn't believe that society has an impact on race for that matter.

[Kenngo1969]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Slander requires the statement to be false.

Yes, it does.  

[OGHoosier]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

I'm familiar with Reynolds. That said, it's not a controlling precedent in this case. The Finnish case implicates not merely freedom to operationalize religious teachings (as Reynolds does) but the right to teach them at all. In other words, freedom of speech. Reynolds thus does not provide relevant precedent. In fact, nothing in the US does. The Court in Hosanna-Tabor ruled that federal antidiscrimination laws cannot govern religious self-government, in keeping with the government's avoidance of "excessive entanglement" with religion which was enshrined in Lemon v. Kurtzman. 

The long and the short of it is that a law which does what @kimpearson proposes thoroughly eviscerates freedom of speech. Freedom of speech restrictions must pass strict scrutiny, which means that they must be narrowly tailored for a specific and a compelling government purpose, and must place the least burden on speech possible to accomplish that purpose. The "compelling interest" designation means that government cannot restrict speech for a merely appealing or permissible purpose; they can only restrict speech when doing otherwise would render government unfunctional. A regulation banning the preaching of religious doctrine on the basis of negative, even classified as "harmful" reactions to it, does not meet that standard.

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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?

 

I'm not worried about the challenge to the right to express the idea that race has an impact on society, because I see absolutely no threat at all to the right to express that idea. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Chum]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This is a risible slander. 

Which part of his statement is a false statement purporting to be fact while unarguably beyond the scope of opinion?

So how about them brainworms?

Edited November 26, 2021 by Chum

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm not worried about the challenge to the right to express the idea that race has an impact on society, because I see absolutely no threat at all to the right to express that idea. 

Then what is all the uproar over any teaching about race inequality in Texas, Florida and many other states.  If you follow the discussion, anything having to do with race's impact on society is labeled critical race theory by the right.  Laws are be passed to ban almost any discussion of race in the classroom.  Books are being banned and pulled from shelves in schools.  But I guess that doesn't count in your book.

[OGHoosier]

51 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

If you follow the discussion, anything having to do with race's impact on society is labeled critical race theory by the right.  Laws are be passed to ban almost any discussion of race in the classroom. 

With respect, I don't believe this. If this is taken not to violate the politics moratorium, I'd request a CFR. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I’m sure I don’t know what you’re talking about. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Then what is all the uproar over any teaching about race inequality in Texas, Florida and many other states.  If you follow the discussion, anything having to do with race's impact on society is labeled critical race theory by the right.  Laws are be passed to ban almost any discussion of race in the classroom.  Books are being banned and pulled from shelves in schools.  But I guess that doesn't count in your book.

This is quite false. There are no laws being passed to ban discussion of the fact of racism or slavery in American history. What is objected to is indoctrination in critical race theory and its elements as an ideology that would permanently brand people as oppressors or victims solely by dint of skin color. 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

https://yle.fi/news/3-12168750

https://yle.fi/news/3-11960299

The two above links speak about the situation in Finland from the Finnish news in English. The US became involved when US professors involved themselves in the case. And the first link has something to say about the case itself. The woman is a Finnish politician who has been the leader of the Christian Democratic Party. Also, she has been in the news earlier in 2019.

https://yle.fi/news/3-10907898

Finland is a rather 'woke' country when it comes to such things. And it seems being a conservative Christian can be a problem if one speaks out in political terms about  LGBT issues if one does not go with the flow. Best to keep the mouth shut.

The Christian Democratic Party does not have much support:

https://yle.fi/news/3-12173704

 

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by why me

[Calm]

From the third link:

Quote

Ethnic agitation is a crime in Finland. The law defines it as a person who makes available to the public an expression of opinion or another message where a certain group is threatened, defamed or insulted on the basis of its race, skin colour, birth status, national or ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation or disability.

Quote

The third request for police investigation centres on a statement from Finns Party MP Juha Mäenpää, who gave a speech on the floor of the Parliament in mid-June in which he equated immigrants with alien or invasive species

Interesting links

Edited November 26, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

One of the others investigated:

Quote

Among other things, the new MP from Vantaa appeared to compare Israel to the extremist group Isis and to endorse content posted by a pro-Russia advocate who was sanctioned by Ukraine over his apparent support for the illegal annexation of Crimea, according to reports last Thursday by STT news agency.

 

 

https://yle.fi/news/3-10750028

Quote

The Supreme Court said Halla-aho’s posts, which likened Islam to pedophilia and said Somalis are predisposed to stealing and living off welfare, qualified as inciting hatred against an ethnic group. In its ruling, the judiciary said hate speech does not fall under the protection afforded by the freedom of speech.

https://yle.fi/news/3-6171739

I actually believe that politicians should be held responsible for their comments. They are trying to influence others, which gives them more power in government, etc. There should be a higher standard among those who work in government not to use inflammatory speech. 
 

Laypeople expressing their behaviour I view differently. 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is quite false. There are no laws being passed to ban discussion of the fact of racism or slavery in American history. What is objected to is indoctrination in critical race theory and its elements as an ideology that would permanently brand people as oppressors or victims solely by dint of skin color. 

Do you know what critical race theory is? I ask because it has been pretty well established that 95% of those opposed to CRT cannot define it or explain how this obscure graduate level legal concept has infiltrated elementary, middle, and high schools.

They don’t need want to define it though. If they did the whole movement could be exposed as stupid and nonsensical. Thankfully their supporters aren’t curious enough to care what things actually mean. They prefer vagueness and thinly veiled insinuations. The Lee Atwater approach is alive and well.

[why me]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

One of the others investigated:

https://yle.fi/news/3-10750028

https://yle.fi/news/3-6171739

I actually believe that politicians should be held responsible for their comments. They are trying to influence others, which gives them more power in government, etc. There should be a higher standard among those who work in government not to use inflammatory speech. 
 

Laypeople express their behaviour I view differently. 

I think that endorsing the annexation of Ukraine is a position that should not be sanctioned. One should have the right to have that opinion. However the Somali comment should be a problem. The person in question seems to be a very popular political figure in Finland. And his party is high in the polls, The Finns Party as can be seen from my link in a previous post. What is happening to the Christian Democrat politician seems to be at a different level of prosecution.

Edited November 26, 2021 by why me

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, why me said:

the Christian Democrat politician

I wonder if they did that to be seen as still capable of influence, purpose, as well as heroes, so the lost sheep would come back to the fold.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Calm

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Then what is all the uproar over any teaching about race inequality in Texas, Florida and many other states.  If you follow the discussion, anything having to do with race's impact on society is labeled critical race theory by the right.  Laws are be passed to ban almost any discussion of race in the classroom.  Books are being banned and pulled from shelves in schools.  But I guess that doesn't count in your book.

I know of no uproar about teaching about race inequality anywhere. Race's impact on society is an important topic of discussion, whatever it is called. What people are concerned about is what I call "Postclassic critical race theory." Postclassic CRT is as different from Classic CRT as was Postclassic Mesoamerica different from Classic Mesoamerica. Send me a PM if you would enjoy reading a blog on the subject.  I know of no laws being passed to ban discussion of race in the classroom, especially where such discussion is relevant to the subject matter such as sociology, history classes, and most all of the social sciences, civics, etc. Tropes and canards abound in this discussion. Those are what count in my book. Speaking of which, it should be out by spring! I do not believe this is a political discussion, but it may be deemed so by the moderators. I have worked in and with over 100 public school districts. I am happy to have informed positive discussion and dialogue about this subject. Not sure however it really fits on a Mormon dialogue discussion forum, except perhaps a discussion about the theological implications of identity. Even then it might be a stretch. It certainly would deserve its own thread if someone cares to start one.

[Calm]

Got to get back to sleep, why me or anyone, have you come across a list of Finnish hate crimes, prosecuted and unprosecuted?  Interested in seeing how such are evaluated.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Calm

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Do you know what critical race theory is? I ask because it has been pretty well established that 95% of those opposed to CRT cannot define it or explain how this obscure graduate level legal concept has infiltrated elementary, middle, and high schools.

They don’t need want to define it though. If they did the whole movement could be exposed as stupid and nonsensical. Thankfully their supporters aren’t curious enough to care what things actually mean. They prefer vagueness and thinly veiled insinuations. The Lee Atwater approach is alive and well.

I would be happy to have the discussion with you about this, either privately or on the forum. CFR for your 95% data point. If you would like I can explain to you how an obscure graduate level legal concept has impacted schools. I don't like the word "infiltrated." That has an ominous connotation that is not appropriate or helpful. Who are "they" and what is "it" in your thinking?

Your obscure graduate level concept began in the Preclassic or Formative period of CRT back in the 1920s. What folks are complaining about is Postclassic CRT, a new phenomenon of the 21st century, very different from the Classic Period CRT of the law and graduate school of the 1960s-late 1990s.

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Got to get back to sleep, have you come across a list of Finnish hate crimes, prosecuted and unprosecuted?  Interested in seeing how such are evaluated.

It is 3:18AM here in Chihuahua. I gave up sleep an hour ago! Gotta keep writing!

[Hamba Tuhan]

One of my best mates is a Finn who lived here for a while. I sent him the link in the OP and asked if this matter was being discussed in his personal world, including the Church. He said he was already familiar with one of the cases but had never heard of the other one. He then added that many Finns, including himself, find it much more interesting to follow what is happening in America because Finnish media are so controlled by an editorial commitment to 'progressivism' and/or an existential fear of saying the wrong thing on topics such as this one that the reporting is thin gruel at best and predictably monovocal.

FWIW.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is 3:18AM here in Chihuahua. I gave up sleep an hour ago! Gotta keep writing!

Are you in the same time zone as Argentina? I was surprised, when my son arrived there a couple of weeks ago, to learn how far ahead of us the clocks are there. I wonder if it’s because they don’t get involved in the twice-yearly daylight-saving-time rigamarole. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would be happy to have the discussion with you about this, either privately or on the forum. CFR for your 95% data point. If you would like I can explain to you how an obscure graduate level legal concept has impacted schools. I don't like the word "infiltrated." That has an ominous connotation that is not appropriate or helpful. Who are "they" and what is "it" in your thinking?

Your obscure graduate level concept began in the Preclassic or Formative period of CRT back in the 1920s. What folks are complaining about is Postclassic CRT, a new phenomenon of the 21st century, very different from the Classic Period CRT of the law and graduate school of the 1960s-late 1990s.

Is that because of socialism? Seems like that spoils anything it touches — like the Midas touch in reverse. (You needn’t respond if it’s going to pull this into a discussion of politics. I don’t want to see this thread closed.)