Holy Week Miscellany, 2026

They were acquitted of violating the country’s hate-crime law, but because Finland doesn’t have our constitutional protection against double jeopardy (that is, being tried more than once for the same charge), prosecutors appealed the decision (unlike in the U.S., where if you are found innocent, that settles the matter and only guilty verdicts can be appealed). The appeals court also acquitted them.  So the prosecutors appealed to the Finnish Supreme Court.

Here, though acquitted of some charges, on one of them, they were found guilty!  The court threw out the complaint that started the prosecution,  a tweet from Räsänen in which she quoted the Bible to criticize the state church for being a co-sponsor of a gay pride parade.  She had also been charged for participating in a radio debate on the issue, but that charge had been dropped earlier.  When prosecutors discovered that she, in her capacity as a medical doctor, had written a booklet entitled Male and Female He Created Them: Homosexual Relationships Challenge the Christian Understanding of Humanity, they further charged Bishop Pohjola for the crime of publishing it.

The Supreme Court found both Dr. Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola guilty of violating the provision of the hate crime law forbidding “insult.”  From the Alliance Defending Freedom, which was defending them in the case:

The Court found Räsänen and the Bishop guilty for having “made available to the public and kept available to the public opinions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation”. It held that: “it must be taken into account that the text forming the basis for the conviction did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred. The conduct is therefore not particularly serious in terms of the nature of the offense”.

The document was published in 2004, before the hate-crime law was passed, but the court ruled that since it is still available, the author, publisher, and publishing company  should be punished.  Both of the accused will be fined 20 days wages (1,800 euros=$2,078) and the publisher, Luther Foundation Finland–which is connected to the Lutheran Heritage Foundation (a Recognized Service Organization of the LCMS)–was fined 5,000 euros ($5,772).  In an Orwellian twist, the court also ruled that the offending statements must be “removed from public access and destroyed.”  (This being America, you can still read and download an English translation, courtesy of the Lutheran Heritage Foundation, at the LCMS website here.)

Since Finland is a member of the European Union, Dr. Räsänen is considering appealing the verdict to the European Court of Human Rights.

She wrote about her “criminal conviction” at National Review, where, among other hard-hitting points, she says this:

If a decades-old church publication can be erased by judicial order, then no one who has ever expressed a belief in the public square can assume their words are beyond reach. This is what “hate speech” laws allow. Past expression can be revisited, judged, and suppressed.

Ask yourself: What have you written over the years? A blog post, a comment, a paper for school, a pamphlet for your community? Under a standard like this, any peaceful expression could become the subject of a criminal investigation.

Joy Pullman at The Federalist puts it even more strongly:  “The decision could tacitly ban orthodox Christianity in Finland by banning Christians from speaking about what the Bible clearly says.”

We recently blogged about Finland being the happiest country on earth, but it is not the freest.  It is said to be the best place in the world to lose your wallet–your freedom of speech, your freedom of the press, your freedom of thought, and your religious liberty, not so much.

Americans’ Opinions about AI

“There are basically two ways to know you have a future,” said Palantir head Alex Karp of the impact of AI. “One, you have some vocational training. Or two, you’re neurodivergent.”

He himself has dyslexia, so he lauds “neurodivergent” folks who can “think differently.” AI will eliminate white collar jobs, so only the trades will be left.

I’m glad the trades–electricians, plumbers, construction workers, etc.–are getting more of the attention they deserve and that they are thought to have a bright future, as AI takes over the other sectors of employment.  Too bad white collar jobs comprise 62% of American employment.

The prospect of a 62% unemployment rate might be a factor in Americans’ overall disapproval of the impending AI takeover.

In his article for National Review entitled The More Americans Use AI, the More They Fear It, James Lynch lists study after study documenting Americans’ opposition to the new technology.  A sampling:

A poll from NBC News released last week found AI has a -20 approval rating, with 26 percent rating it positively compared to 46 percent who were negative.

–The latest poll taken by YouGov and The Economist found three times as many Americans have negative expectations for AI’s impact on society compared to those with a positive outlook. The poll showed 47 percent expect AI to have mostly or entirely negative effects on society, compared to 16 percent who said AI would have mostly or entirely positive effects.

–Blue Rose Research, a Democratic research firm run by respected liberal pollster David Shor, recently released data which show 67 percent of people distrust the claim that AI will not create widespread job loss. Fifty-six percent of Americans also distrust the claim that AI will create economic productivity to everyone’s benefit.

–Blue Rose’s study found that 57 percent of Americans think AI is advancing too fast and 77 percent are worried about the emergence of AI technology eliminating entire industries. A large portion of Americans, 72 percent, believe AI will change the job market in ways that drive down wages, and 56 percent fear the possibility of themselves or their family members losing their job because of AI.

The big corporations are excited about AI, mainly because they believe AI will let them decrease their workforce and thus make more money.  But the workforce that will be decreasing does not share that excitement.

People love technology when it makes their lives better–as in the automobile, electric lights, X-rays, telephones, air conditioning, television, the internet–but why would people want technology that they think will make their lives worse?

Must we adopt technology if its social impact would be harmful, just because it is feasible?  We developed nuclear weapons, but since we could be annihilated by a nuclear exchange, we draw back from using them in war.  We can bio-engineer deadly diseases.  We can clone multiple copies of ourselves.  We can monitor citizens’ every activity.  But, though some people or the government would like to do some of these things, American citizens have pushed through laws restricting them.

AI may have its uses, but do we really want to accommodate it by coming up with a completely different socio-economic order?

The Olympics Won’t Allow Transgender Athletes to Compete as Women

The International Olympics Committee will no longer allow biological males to compete as females in women’s sports.  The sex of athletes will be determined by a genetic test. The ruling will apply to both individual and team sports.

The IOC statement about the new policy quotes its president Kirsty Coventry:

“As a former athlete, I passionately believe in the rights of all Olympians to take part in fair competition. The policy that we have announced is based on science and has been led by medical experts. At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports it would simply not be safe.”

Transgender athletes will, however, be eligible to compete in categories corresponding to their biological sex and in events that do not classify participants by sex.