Finland’s highest court has taken up a case that could decide whether peacefully quoting scripture is now a prosecutable offense in the Western world.

The Finnish Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in the long-running legal saga of Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen, a former interior minister, who has already been acquitted twice for publicly sharing her religious views in a 2019 tweet referencing the Bible, as The Christian Post reports.

Räsänen, joined once again by Bishop Juhana Pohjola, faces charges of “agitation against a minority group,” stemming from her tweet that criticized the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland for promoting LGBT pride, sparking a legal battle that has dragged on for six years.

Six-Year Legal Fight Over a Bible Verse

Back in 2019, Räsänen tweeted a photo from the book of Romans to express her disbelief at her church's support of Pride Month. Alongside the image, she questioned how the church could celebrate what the Bible describes as “shame and sin.”

The post received backlash from progressive activists, resulting in citizen complaints and a drawn-out legal probe. Räsänen endured 13 hours of official interrogations over several months—hardly the response you’d expect in a nation that claims to respect freedom of conscience.

But the Finnish prosecutor general didn’t stop at one tweet. Charges were filed against Räsänen based on three separate pieces of expression: the original tweet, a 2004 pamphlet she co-wrote titled "Male and Female He Created Them," and a radio interview where she defended her view of Christian anthropology.

Bishop Also Targeted Over Old Pamphlet

Räsänen is not alone in the crosshairs. Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who published the pamphlet over 20 years ago, is being charged too—because apparently, printing a theological document before social media even existed is now suspect conduct.

Despite two previous unanimous acquittals—first by a Helsinki district court, and later by the Helsinki Court of Appeal—prosecutors have pushed forward. It’s her third trial for the same speech, the sort of judicial persistence that looks more like ideological persecution than a quest for justice.

At stake is not just financial ruin—fines could reach tens of thousands of euros—but also the forced censorship of materials still protected by constitutional speech rights. This case may very well set a precedent for whether European nations can still handle theological disagreement without calling in the state.

Räsänen Defends Religious Freedom in Court

Speaking outside the court, Räsänen stood firm. “I stand here not only to defend my own right to speak freely, but to defend the freedom of every person to express deeply held beliefs without fear of punishment,” she said.

She also warned of the broader implications: “If I were to lose, it would mean … starting a time of persecution of Christians in Finland and also in Europe. Because they are waiting for the result as well in other European countries.”

It’s not paranoia when the rest of the continent is watching. What happens in Finland won’t stay in Finland if free speech gives way to soft censorship cloaked in the language of tolerance.

Supporters Say Case Threatens Democracy

International observers have taken note. Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, which has supported Räsänen’s case, didn’t mince words: “Criminalizing peaceful speech through so-called 'hate speech' laws not only silences important conversations — it endangers democracy itself.”

It's a cynical irony that many of the same voices that once demanded tolerance and free expression now cheerlead state action against those who merely repeat centuries-old scripture. The speech police, it seems, now wear neckties and cite human rights law.

Räsänen, for her part, has used the opportunity to witness: “This whole process has opened up such chances... to speak in public about God’s Word and also about the Gospel … So I should be grateful to the prosecutor general,” she said, with both grace and defiance.

Supreme Court Ruling Expected Soon

Despite case fatigue felt across the ideological spectrum, the nation’s top court must now render a decision in what could become a symbol of European judicial overreach or a robust defense of individual conscience.

The Supreme Court justices are expected to issue their ruling in the coming months, which will determine whether the right to freely express religious beliefs—especially when those beliefs challenge modern identity movements—remains protected or becomes punishable dissent.

One way or another, the judgment won’t just affect one Finnish politician. It could ripple across the West, showing whether the state can force its citizens to choose between their faith and the law.