A Hate Crime for Quoting the Bible! By Richard Miller (London)

 The case of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen illustrates a genuine and growing tension in Western societies between longstanding traditional Christian beliefs on human sexuality and marriage, and modern hate speech laws that prioritise protecting certain identity groups from perceived offense or "insult."

Case Details

Räsänen, a long-serving Christian Democrat parliamentarian, doctor, and former interior minister, faced prosecution for:

A 2004 pamphlet she authored for her Lutheran church, titled "Male and Female He Created Them", which articulated biblical teachings on sexuality.

A 2019 social media post quoting Romans 1:24-27 (describing same-sex relations in traditional Pauline language as contrary to God's design) while questioning her church's sponsorship of a Pride event.

Lower courts had acquitted her and co-defendant Bishop Juhana Pohjola. However, in a recent 3-2 split decision by Finland's Supreme Court (as reported in March 2026), they were convicted on charges related to the pamphlet under provisions against "agitation against a minority group" or making public opinions that "insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation." The court ordered the pamphlet removed from public access and destroyed. They were acquitted on the social media post charges. The ruling acknowledged the content did not incite violence or hatred and was "not particularly serious," yet still imposed criminal liability. Räsänen has indicated plans to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing it violates freedom of expression and religious belief.

This is not an isolated prosecution but part of a multi-year legal ordeal (district court, appeal, Supreme Court) for simply restating centuries-old Christian doctrine in public.

Christian Conservative Perspective

From a Christian conservative viewpoint, this case exemplifies how "multiculturalism" and associated equality/hate speech frameworks — enforced through state power — create a direct, zero-sum conflict with traditional religious convictions:

Core Christian anthropology: Scripture (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, etc.) presents a consistent view of humanity as created male and female, with sexual relations ordered toward the complementary union of husband and wife, open to life. Affirming this is not "hate" or "insult" toward any individual but a claim about objective moral and created order, rooted in love for God and neighbour (including calls to repentance and redemption for all sinners, heterosexual or otherwise). Christians are commanded to speak truth in love, not to affirm behaviours the Bible describes as sinful.

The shift in law: Post-1960s Western societies, influenced by secularism, individualism, and identity politics, have reframed sexual orientation and gender as protected characteristics akin to race. "Hate speech" laws, originally aimed at preventing incitement to violence (e.g., against ethnic groups), have expanded to criminalise moral disagreement or religious teaching that causes subjective "insult" or "contempt." Quoting the Bible verbatim or expounding it can now be treated as group defamation. The state's role flips from protecting free exercise of religion and conscience to enforcing a new orthodoxy of sexual autonomy and affirmation.

Multiculturalism's illusion of neutrality: Official multiculturalism (or pluralism) promises to accommodate diverse cultures and beliefs equally under law. In practice, it often privileges a progressive, secular-liberal ethic — treating traditional Christianity (and sometimes orthodox Judaism or Islam on similar issues) as backward or bigoted, while shielding newer or favoured identity claims from critique. Traditional Christian views, once culturally dominant in Europe, are recast as "majoritarian" threats requiring suppression to protect "vulnerable minorities." This creates asymmetric enforcement: criticising Christianity or quoting certain religious texts against it may face less scrutiny than Christians affirming their own scriptures. True multiculturalism would allow robust public debate, including religious dissent, without criminal penalties. Instead, it risks becoming a tool for cultural replacement or homogenisation under secular terms.

Freedom implications: Religious freedom classically includes the right to believe, worship, teach, and live out one's faith publicly — including evangelising or critiquing prevailing morals. When the state deems biblical sexual ethics "hate," it subordinates Article 18-style religious liberty (UN Declaration) and free speech to equality claims. This chills not just MPs or bishops but pastors, teachers, parents, and ordinary believers. Räsänen's case shows even polite, non-violent expression of faith can trigger state power. Supporters like ADF International argue it undermines the foundation of free societies by punishing peaceful moral discourse.

Similar patterns appear elsewhere: UK street preachers investigated for quoting Leviticus or Romans; Canadian debates over removing "good faith" religious defences from hate speech bills, with ministers questioning whether certain Bible passages are inherently "hateful"; or pressures on churches to affirm same-sex marriage or risk losing public recognition. These are not abstract — they test whether liberal democracies can tolerate deep moral pluralism or will impose a new state-enforced consensus.

Critics of the conservative view counter that such teachings contribute to stigma, mental health harms, or discrimination against LGBT individuals, justifying limits in a diverse society (e.g., dignity-based restrictions on speech). They see hate speech laws as evolving protections against real social exclusion, not attacks on faith. Christian conservatives respond that dignifying people does not require affirming all behaviours; empirical debates on outcomes of sexual lifestyles exist apart from theology; and history shows suppressing religious speech rarely leads to harmony but to resentment and further division.

Ultimately, this conflict reveals multiculturalism's challenge: when cultures and belief systems hold incompatible visions of the good life (e.g., on sex, family, and human flourishing), the state cannot remain perfectly neutral. It must prioritise some goods over others — either classical liberties (speech, religion, conscience) with room for disagreement, or a managed equality that polices "wrong" thoughts. The Räsänen prosecution leans toward the latter, treating traditional belief as actionable offense rather than protected conviction. For many Christians, this is not progress toward inclusion but a form of soft establishment of a rival worldview, forcing believers to choose between fidelity to Scripture and compliance with law. Appeals to higher courts like the ECHR may clarify boundaries, but the underlying cultural rift runs deep.

https://www.lifenews.com/2026/03/26/christian-mp-convicted-of-hate-crime-for-quoting-bible-verse/