April 22, 2024

Ronald Reagan–and a Cranach subscriber–saved Israel (over Biden’s objections);  connection between the church slump and the surge in mental illness; and the Finnish Supreme Court will try the faithful Lutherans yet again.

Ronald Reagan–and a Cranach Subscriber–Saved Israel (Over Biden’s Objections)

Iran attacked Israel by launching hundreds of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones.  But 99% of them were shot down before doing any damage.  That is a remarkable success rate, saving countless lives.

Many of those were shot down by Israeli, American, British, and Jordanian aircraft–yes, pilots from the Palestinian state of Jordan, part of a coalition of Sunni Muslims opposed to Shi’ite Iran, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, that provided help and intelligence in thwarting the Iranian attack.  But the biggest factor in protecting Israel from the massive barrage of missiles was the so-called “Iron Dome,” the air defense system that launches missiles to intercept incoming missiles, the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet.

So the biggest hero of this defensive achievement has to be Ronald Reagan, whose Strategic Defense Initiative led to the development of this technology.  So says Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal.   Reagan’s 1983 proposal was mocked by Democrats as “Star Wars,” though the space-based elements of the project never materialized.  And one of its biggest critics was then Senator Joe Biden, who said,

“Star Wars represents a fundamental assault on the concepts, alliances and arms-control agreements that have buttressed American security for several decades, and the president’s continued adherence to it constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.”

Now President Biden is taking credit for the success of Israel’s missile defense.

Much more worthy of credit is one of our own, your fellow Cranach subscriber Bob Foote, engineer extraordinaire and my cousin, who was part of the team that invented and implemented this amazing life-saving military technology!

Connection Between the Church Slump and the Surge in Mental Illness

The United States is seeing a dramatic rise in mental health problems, particularly (as we have blogged about) among teenagers and young adults.  The conventional wisdom is blaming cell phones and social media, but a Harvard public health professor is making a connection to the decline in religious involvement.

Ira Stoll at The Editors Substack quotes an article by Dr. Tyler VanderWeele in the journal Harvard Public Health:

Extrapolations from the Nurses’ Health Study data suggest that about 40 percent of the increasing suicide rate in the United States from 1999 to 2014 might be attributed to declines in attendance at religious services during this period. Another study suggested declining attendance from 1991 to 2019 accounted for 28 percent of the increase in depression among adolescents.

Vanderweele says there have been at least 215 reliable studies that suggest that “weekly religious service attendance is longitudinally associated with lower mortality risk, lower depression, less suicide, better cardiovascular disease survival, better health behaviors, and greater marital stabilityhappiness, and purpose in life.”

The Wall Street Journal has published an article by Clare Ansberry that comes to the same conclusion, citing further research, including international studies.

Finland’s Supreme Court Will Try the Faithful Lutherans Yet Again

We’ve posted many times about the faithful Lutheran Christians Dr. Päivi Räsänen and Bishop Juhana Pohjola who were charged under Finland’s “war crimes and crimes against humanity” statute for citing what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Dr. Räsänen is a physician and member of parliament who in 2019 tweeted a criticism of the state church for being one of the sponsors of the LGBTQ Pride parade in which she quoted Bible verses.  Investigators also found a pamphlet on the Biblical teachings about marriage she had written in 2005 that disapproved of homosexuality.  The police also charged Bishop Pohjola, the leader of a confessional Lutheran church body with which the LCMS is in fellowship, for publishing the pamphlet.

The two were acquitted in their trial.  But in a country without the protection against “double jeopardy” that Americans enjoy as a constitutional right, prosecutors can appeal an acquittal until they get a guilty verdict!  The two were acquitted by the appellate court.  Prosecutors  appealed that ruling to Finland’s Supreme Court.

The hope was that the court would refuse to hear the case.  After all, two lower courts refused to convict the two, with the appeal court panel agreeing unanimously that they were innocent of the alleged “hate crime.”  Expressing a religious conviction does not constitute “hate,” and Finnish law does protect the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.  And yet the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, which to me is not a good sign.

Dr. Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola have been put through this ordeal for five years and now must go through the pressure of a trial for the third time.  This is a clear example of the weaponization of the legal system.  Even if they are ultimately acquitted–prosecutors would have one more shot at them at the European Court of Human Rights–the trials themselves are the punishment, with the apparent intention of deterring anyone else from refusing to go along with the LGBTQ party line.

 

 

 

January 22, 2024

October 8 Jews, Christian Civilizationism, and Finnish persecutors appeal to the Supreme Court.

October 8 Jews

American Jews for the most part (but not all) have been liberal Democrats.  Because of their own experience of discrimination and oppression, they were strong supporters of the Civil Rights movement, which gave equal rights to black Americans, and they continued to support other “rights” movements for women, gays, and other minorities.

Now, though, they are feeling betrayed.  After the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, in which 1400 Israeli men, women, and children were murdered and 240 taken hostage, the left has turned against not only Israel trying to defend itself but all Jews, to the point of attacking Jewish students and vandalizing Jewish-owned shops.

By the canons of woke progressivism, Jews are not included among the oppressed groups that are supposed to ally with each other.  Rather, they are classified with the oppressors, those with “white privilege” who are “colonizers” and “occupiers,” whether they are Israelis or not.

Bret Stephens has coined the term “October 8 Jews,” for those who identified with the left on October 6, had a rude awakening on October 7, then recognized their betrayal on October 8.

Adam Milstein has written a plaintive article on the subject published in the Jerusalem Post entitled As Liberal Jews Feel abandoned by the Left: What’s next?

See also this searing essay by John Podhoretz, who also refutes the false narratives taken up by Hamas and its woke allies (such as the Palestinians being the “indigenous” people of Judea).

Christian Civilizationism

You have heard of “Christian nationalism.”  Andrew Beck says that what is really needed–and what most Christian nationalists actually yearn for–is “Christian Civilizationism.”

His article for the American Mind has the explanatory deck “Prioritize the civilization that has always been over the nation that never was.”  America, Beck says, was never the kind of nation that could be “Christian,” as such, unlike perhaps European nations with a national church.  The United States never constituted a “nation-state” like Europe had, with a unified culture that made nationalism possible.  Christianity, though, has always influenced civilizations–and therefore nations–for the better.  This is what we have lost and need to recover, including he says by political means.  But, he says,

If harmonious Christian civilization is the destination, the wagon should not simply crash headlong into American political advocacy, capturing seats of power to codify Christian ethics, or using the power of government to evangelize. Rather, those who want Christian civilization should prioritize re-Christianizing America, not re-nationalizing Christianity.

Beck favors the American tradition of federalism, with a “loose union of localized states” that would allow Christians and other groups to live as they wish.  The overall political goals would be modest: “The freedom of association, limited government, and natural law are enough to bring about safety, prosperity, and growth for those who are capable of self-government.”

Beck believes that Christianity would then flourish and become culturally influential again:

We must prove the truth of our words by our own lives; by the way we care for the bit of civilization we have been entrusted with—our homes and land, our children and spouses, our churches and cities, our enterprises and institutions.

I want a civilization Christianized not by mere laws or cultural artifacts, but by the genuine faith of the people who live there.

I see his point, but I wonder if we should prioritize civilization at all, much less turn it into an -ism.  I’ve been thinking about C. S. Lewis’s point:  “You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.”  The Kingdom of Heaven is eternal, making it far more important than any kingdom of this world, all of which will pass away, though God reigns over them as well in a hidden way. But I suspect Christians who think in those terms will be, indirectly and ironically, the most, influential to nations, cultures, arts, and civilizations.

Finnish Persecutors Appeal to Supreme Court

In the continuing saga of the Finnish Lutherans being prosecuted for quoting the Bible on homosexuality, there has been another development.

Though the physician and member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and the Bishop of the confessional Lutheran church Juhana Pohjola were acquitted of all hate crime charges by both the district court and the appeals court, Prosecutor General Raija Toiviainen is appealing those rulings to Finland’s Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has not announced if it will take up the case.  Paul Coleman of the Alliance Defending Freedom and part of the legal team defending the two thinks it is unlikely.  He said in a statement,

“The state’s insistence on continuing this prosecution despite such a clear and unanimous ruling by both the Helsinki District Court and Court of Appeal is alarming. Dragging people through the courts for years, subjecting them to hour-long police interrogations, and wasting taxpayer money in order to police people’s deeply held beliefs has no place in a democratic society. As is so often the case in “hate speech” trials, the process has become the punishment.”

Exactly!  “The process has become the punishment.”  If found guilty, the accused would be punished by fines and a short jail term.  But, as it is, they are being punished by a much more costly legal defense and legal proceedings  that have extended for five years!  This is surely calculated to have a chilling effect on any other Christian who dares mention publicly what the Bible says and what Christians have always taught about the sinfulness of same-sex intercourse.

And, as I keep saying, this is reason for Americans to be thankful for the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which states “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”  Forbidding “double jeopardy” means that Americans found guilty of a crime may appeal the court’s decision, but if found innocent, the prosecutors may not appeal that decision.  Rather, the acquittal is final.  Not all countries have this protection of civil liberties, which prevents prosecutors from just continuing to try a case  in different courts until they get a conviction.

Dr. Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola are now facing triple jeopardy.  And the prosecutor is reportedly considering the possibility of appealing an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling to the European Court of Human Rights.  Which would subject them to quadruple jeopardy!

 

November 20, 2023

Finnish Lutherans acquitted–again; the two most vocal Christians pull out of the presidential race; and the American Medical Association says “no” to euthanasia.

Finnish Lutherans Acquitted–Again

Finnish legislator Dr. Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola were acquitted for a second time of charges of “hate speech” for citing the Bible’s disapproval of homosexuality.

Prosecutors charged Dr. Räsänen under Finland’s criminal code for “war crimes and crimes against humanity” for tweeting a Bible verse in response to the state church’s sponsorship of a gay pride march, for appearing on a radio debate over the morality of homosexual behavior, and writing a pamphlet on the Biblical teaching about sexuality.  Bishop Pohjola of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland, with which the LCMS is in fellowship, was prosecuted for publishing that pamphlet.

For more, see our other posts on the subject.  A district court ruled unanimously that the two were innocent, but because Finnish citizens have no protection against double jeopardy, the prosecutor appealed that verdict.  Now the Court of Appeals has ruled unanimously that the previous acquittal should stand.

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the pair,

Throughout the cross-examination, Räsänen was asked multiple times by the prosecutor if she would update or remove what she had said about marriage and sexuality in her 2004 church pamphlet, titled “Male & Female He Created Them”.

“At the heart of the prosecutor’s examination of Räsänen was this: would she recant her beliefs? The answer was no – she would not deny the teachings of her faith. The cross-examination bore all the resemblance of a “heresy” trial of the middle ages; it was implied that Räsänen had “blasphemed” against the dominant orthodoxies of the day,” said Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, serving on Räsänen’s legal team.

She would not recant.  Sound familiar?

The Federalist‘s Joy Pullman quotes Bishop Pohjola on their five-year ordeal:

“This is not only a cultural or legal battle but also a spiritual battle,” Pohjola said, noting their prosecution raises the “question of [whether] pastor and church can teach publicly what we understand to be the word of God and the created order and the natural law. There have been difficult moments, but I understand this is my calling as a Christian and a pastor to guard the faith and teach it publicly and carry the cross.”

That cross, he said, is not a physical cross like the one he wears around his neck, “It’s to pay the price in this age to be a witness for Christ.”

But the ordeal may not be over yet.  Pullman reported that the prosecutor plans to appeal the ruling again, taking it to Finland’s  Supreme Court, putting the accused in triple jeopardy!

The Two Most Vocal Christians Pull Out of Presidential Race

The two presidential candidates who were the most open and vocal about their Christian faith have dropped out of the race.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) said, in announcing that he was suspending his campaign, said, “I think the voters, who have been the most remarkable people on the planet, have been really clear. They’re telling me ‘not now, Tim.'”

Last month, former Vice-President Mike Pence made a similar announcement, saying, “It’s become clear to me: This is not my time. . . .So after much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to suspend my campaign for president effective today.”

This isn’t to say the other candidates aren’t religious too, but Scott and Pence were very up front about their evangelical faith and how they were motivated by it in their governmental service and in their policies.

There was a time when a candidate’s open profession of faith might have helped their appeal.  It didn’t seem to do much this time, and it may have hurt them, even among conservative Republicans who might have been sympathetic.

Does this mark the end of Christian political clout?

American Medical Association Says “No” to Euthanasia

The American Medical Association has pretty much caved to the abortionists and the transgender advocates.  But it has taken a strong stand on another life issue, reaffirming its opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Wesley J. Smith for National Review reports that the AMA had been asked once again to change its policy against doctors killing their patients and has voted for the fourth time to continue its opposition.  He quotes the policy that has been reaffirmed:

Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Euthanasia could readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations.

The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition. The physician who performs euthanasia assumes unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient’s life.

Instead of engaging in euthanasia, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the
end of life. Physicians:

(a) Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that a cure is impossible.
(b) Must respect patient autonomy.
(c) Must provide good communication and emotional support.
(d) Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control

 

October 10, 2023

We have been following the case of the Finnish member of parliament Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola (whose church is in fellowship with the LCMS) who were indicted for the crime of hate speech for articulating what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.  (See this list of posts.)

The good news is that the two were found “not guilty” at their trial.  The bad news is that prosecutors have subjected them to double jeopardy–that is, trying them again despite their having been acquitted, an act of judicial tyranny not allowed by the U.S. Constitution)–by appealing their acquittal!

That second trial is over, and we await the verdict.

In her article for Real Clear Religion, entitled How a Bible Tweet Led to a Battle for Free Speech, Sofia Hörder recounts how it all began with a tweet from Dr. Räsänen that was critical of the state church of Finland for being a co-sponsor of the Gay Pride Parade, accompanied by Bible verses.  Prosecutors then combed through other things that she had written and said in the past, including material from before same-sex marriage was legalized and before the hate crime with which she was charged went into effect.  A key bit of evidence was a pamphlet she had written, for which not only was she prosecuted but so was Bishop Pohjola for publishing it.

Hörder comments,

“If state prosecutors, with all the resources of the state available to them, were to comb through every statement and piece of writing that any of us have ever publicized for something that could be construed as offensive by someone, any of us could find ourselves in Räsänen’s shoes.”

She also points to an article published in European Conservative by Rod Dreher who calls this “the trial of the century.”  He gives some details from the appeal trial:

In her opening statement on Thursday, the Finnish prosecutor said, of a 2004 pamphlet authored by Dr. Räsänen, “The point isn’t whether it is true or not, but that this is insulting.”

Think about that: The point is not whether these words true or not, but that someone’s feelings were hurt by them.

This is the essence of totalitarianism: the demand to control reality. The Finnish state attempts to outlaw not simply expression it does not like, but facts it finds offensive. This little statement by grim-faced prosecutor Anu Mantila is what makes this two-day legal proceeding the Trial of the Century.

It’s like this: If, in a liberal democracy, the state has the power to declare truth subordinate to ideology, then you live under totalitarianism. It might be a soft totalitarianism—fines for thought criminals like Päivi Räsänen, instead of the gulag—but it is totalitarianism nonetheless.

It is telling that Mantila initially asked the appeals court not to let Dr. Räsänen and her co-defendant, Lutheran bishop Juhana Pohjola, even testify. It was as if she only wanted her allegations heard, with no defense from the accused. The court denied the prosecution’s request, but that it was even made tells you the kind of tyrannical mindset we’re dealing with.

Dreher explains why this is the most important trial of the century:

Again, it might seem overblown to call a two-day appeals hearing the Trial of the Century. It’s not. The ability of people in every society of the West to speak freely about what they believe is true is on trial, either legally or culturally. As old-fashioned liberalism dies, its successor ideology is a militantly illiberal leftism that sees all social relations as nothing but power struggles. It also regards truth as whatever serves to advance the interests of its favored factions. . . .

It must be possible to face and understand that so small (and, in world politics, so unimportant) a phenomenon as the fate of a Finnish pamphleteer and a cleric, on trial for affirming what the Bible says about homosexuality, could become the catalytic agent for far worse persecutions in this century, at the hands of a soft-totalitarian ideology that seemingly overnight has already captured all the institutional and cultural heights in Western democracies.

 

Photo by Mohamed Hassan form PxHere

August 16, 2023

As I was trying to think through the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms and the competing schools of conservatism, Anthony Sacramone alerted me to an interview he did with Rev. Dr. Gregory Seltz.  The former Lutheran Hour speaker is the current head of the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty. the voice of the LCMS in Washington, D.C.

The interview is from back in 2021 and was published at Religion & Liberty Online, with the perhaps surprising title Lutherans are on the front lines of the battle for religious liberty.  Read it all, but here are a couple of responses from Dr. Seitz:

What are the biggest religious liberty issues facing churches today?

With the federalization of virtually every aspect of healthcare, the government is intricately woven into issues from the beginning of life to its end. The temptation of the government to stand against clear moral teachings that are fundamental to many Christians and religious people of the country is one thing, but the coercive capability of such an expansive intrusion into areas of conscience is another. We’ve seen that in the Obamacare mandates and more recently in the COVID-19 restrictions on the Church, virtually reclassifying it as a secondary institution. Such a reclassification stands in stark contrast to the constitutional protections of religious liberty enshrined in the First Amendment.

While those issues are troubling, the most pressing issue is the reclassification of gender identity as a protected class like race, sex (male/female), ethnicity, or religion. Differences of opinion are one thing, but the notion that the Church must change its teaching regarding marriage and the healthy, biblical directives for sexual expression within the marriage bond now stands not merely as a different understanding of sex, sexual practice, and intimacy—it may become “hate speech,” defining one side of the equation as constitutional and the other as not. We are seeing this already in Europe with the prosecution of Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Paivi Rasanen in Finland merely for publicly teaching that marriage is defined as the lifelong union of a man and woman and sex is part of the marriage bond. . . .

Lutherans have a reputation for political quietism, standing on the sidelines during the great social churnings, focusing strictly on gospel proclamation. Is that reputation deserved? If so, do you see yourself as trying to alter that image, opening up a space for Lutherans as Lutherans to enter the political arena?

I’m biased here, of course, but I think that the representation isn’t well deserved. Some would point to the German Lutheran state church and Hitler, but there were plenty of churches speaking out and even acting against the secular takeover of the state church and the state itself. Here in America, many of the foundational Supreme Court cases—Hosanna TaborTrinity Lutheran, and others—are the result of Lutheran churches standing up to government encroachment when the time is right. I think the label of “quietism” comes from a misunderstanding of our teaching of “Two Kingdoms.” Richard Niebuhr’s book Christ and Culture is a good example. There the Lutheran position is defined as Christ and culture “in tension” rather than in the proper differentiation of God the Father’s preserving work (through Caesar, through people’s vocations) and God’s unique saving work in Christ for all.

Differentiation does have a limited view of what “good” government can do, and that may be why we are not leading the charge on many of the political issues of the day. Such a view also supports a healthy limitation of what government “should do.” But that doesn’t imply nonaction.

Notice the difference between this and Christian nationalism.  Dr. Seitz is indeed taking a strong position on the moral issues of our day, but he isn’t saying that Christians should rule.  Rather, he is saying that the government must stay in its lane.

With the federalization of virtually every aspect of healthcare [and, we might add, virtually every other aspect of our lives], the government is intricately woven into issues from the beginning of life to its end.

The temptation of the government to stand against clear moral teachings that are fundamental to many Christians and religious people of the country is one thing, but the coercive capability of such an expansive intrusion into areas of conscience is another.

Differentiation does have a limited view of what “good” government can do, and that may be why we are not leading the charge on many of the political issues of the day. Such a view also supports a healthy limitation of what government “should do.” But that doesn’t imply nonaction.

Many of these problems and the way they impinge on religious liberty are due to the expansion of government into nearly every area of life and its coercive power to force Christians to comply with its moral dictates even when they violate Christian teaching.

To be sure, Christians believe that the government is responsible to follow the moral law, which applies to God’s temporal kingdom.  This is why they oppose legalized abortion for everyone, not just Christians, an abdication of the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens, no matter how young.  The other big cause of Dr. Seltz’s institute is to lobby on life issues.  Christians have the right to persuade and influence by political and legal means, just as all citizens do.

The government should use its coercive power for good, but the church, as such, has no coercive power.  It has power–the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Word to change hearts–but not power over the state.

This would seem to accord better with small government conservatism, rather than big government conservatism.

 

Photo:  Rev. Dr. Gregory Seltz (LCMS/Erik M. Lunsford)

August 24, 2022

We have blogged quite a bit about Dr. Päivi Räsänen, a medical doctor and member of parliament, and Rev. Dr. Juhana Pohjola, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland, a church body in fellowship with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, who were prosecuted for hate speech for putting out a booklet on what the Bible says about homosexuality.

A court found them innocent, but, in a country that doesn’t have the American Constitution’s protections against double jeopardy,  prosecutors are appealing the verdict, so the two are still in danger of being sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of one-third of their income.

While she awaits the decision of a higher court, Dr. Räsänen was a guest speaker at the Issues, Etc., conference at Concordia University-Chicago this summer.  Joy Pullman of the Federalist was there and interviewed her, leading to her article Prosecuting Paivi Rasanen For Quoting The Bible Is Making Her An International Star.

She notes that the booklet, Male and Female He Created Them, had few readers when it first came out in 2004 (seven years before the law they are charged with violating was passed), but the trials have caused it to be read throughout the world, in many translations.  (Click the link for the English version.)  Prosecutors discovered the booklet after she tweeted criticism of the state church for participating in a gay pride parade–a tweet that is one count of her indictment–subsequently trolling through decades of material searching for more “crimes.”  She was charged in 2019, her case dragging on for four years and counting.  As her lawyer commented after her acquittal was appealed, “As is so often the case in “hate speech” trials, the process has become part of the punishment.”

I urge you to read the Federalist story, which tells much more about Dr. Räsänen’s background, personality, and faith.  Here are some excerpts:

This woman of science also firmly believes in supernatural revelation. In her pamphlet on Christian marriage that Finland’s top prosecutor is seeking to ban as “hate speech,” Paivi writes that “Jesus’s death and resurrection is the core of the entire Christian faith. On this the Bible stands or falls. If one does not believe it, there is nothing left of Christianity. And … if I believe this, it follows logically that I must believe everything else Christ teaches in the Bible through the Apostles and Prophets.”. . .

Rather than rejecting homosexuals, as she’s been accused in court, Paivi glows with happiness when relating that gay people have disclosed her “Bible trial” has brought them to faith. In speeches and court testimony, Paivi has emphasized she not only bears no animosity toward homosexuals or transsexuals, she earnestly desires them to join her Christian family by receiving the eternal life that Jesus Christ offers freely to every person. . . .

“In all my career I have been known as a Christian and as a biblical Christian who doesn’t accept abortion and homosexual acts and so on,” Paivi told The Federalist. “And that’s why I think that perhaps it is the reason why the prosecutor has targeted just me.”. . .

“It is important that we have the freedom of speech and freedom of religion,” Paivi told The Federalist in Chicago. “Freedom of speech because it is important for everyone. It is important for every minority and majority. For Christians, it is crucial because we have the commandments of Jesus to tell the good gospel to all people…Also I think that it is important to respect in society also everyone’s right to speak and argue and oppose you,” she continued. “So this is [a] fundamental issue.”

 

Photo:  Päivi Räsänen by Eurooppalainen Suomi ry, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons


Browse Our Archives