(Blog) Bible Believers: The New Blacklist - Ep. 944 - July 15, 2026

Bible Believers and the New "Hate Speech" Blacklist

A criminal label can close doors long before a person enters a courtroom. When traditional Christian teaching is classified as "hate speech," the consequence may reach beyond a disagreement over beliefs and into travel, employment, public trust, and religious freedom.

On The Smith and Rowland Show, Allan Smith and Jeff Rowland examined the concern that Bible-believing Christians could face growing social and legal pressure for affirming what Scripture teaches about marriage. Their discussion centered on a Finnish case and the wider pattern they believe it reveals.

The issue is not whether Christian teaching will offend someone. The deeper question is whether offense will become grounds for punishment.

The Conversation Turned From Humor to Religious Liberty

The episode opened in the familiar, lighthearted style of The Smith and Rowland Show. Allan Smith shared that he is building a house in Moravian Falls, North Carolina, which led to jokes about building conferences, interior design, bathroom fixtures, couches, and chairs.

Smith and Rowland then invented two unusual sponsors for the show. One was a toilet plunger, presented as an overlooked but constantly needed bathroom tool. The other was a chair yoga and tai chi routine, based on their claimed experience sitting in chairs.

The humor established the friendly back-and-forth between the hosts. However, the tone changed when they introduced a report discussed by Prophecy News Watch about what they called a new blacklist for Bible believers.

The conversation moved from plungers and chair yoga to religious liberty and the future of Christian speech.

What the "New Blacklist" Means for Bible Believers

Smith and Rowland used the word "blacklist" to describe a process in which traditional Christian convictions receive a damaging public label. In their view, the danger begins when society no longer treats biblical teaching as a religious belief that can be debated, but as a threat that must be restricted.

The belief at the center of their discussion was the historic Christian teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman. Christians have held that position for centuries because of their reading of Scripture. Yet the hosts warned that some governments, institutions, and cultural leaders now treat that belief as discriminatory or hateful.

Could a biblical belief become a legal offense because society labels it "hate speech"?

The hosts described a progression that starts with social disapproval and can end in legal restriction:

1. A belief is called offensive.
2. Critics describe it as harmful to others.
3. The belief is treated as dangerous to society.
4. Restrictions are defended as protection for the public.

That sequence matters because labels often shape public reactions before anyone considers the actual statement. Once a person is called hateful, many people may stop asking what he or she said, whether there was a call for violence, or whether the statement simply reflected a traditional religious conviction.

For Smith and Rowland, the concern is not limited to one disputed issue. They believe the same approach could eventually target preaching, prayer, Bible reading, counseling, and other forms of Christian expression.

The Case of Finnish Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen

A 22-Year-Old Church Booklet Became a Legal Issue

A major part of the episode focused on Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish physician, former cabinet minister, and member of Finland's Parliament. According to the report discussed on the show, Räsänen faced legal consequences for statements supporting the biblical understanding of marriage.

The case involved two forms of expression:

• A church booklet published 22 years earlier that defended the biblical view of marriage.
• A 2019 social media post that quoted Scripture.

Smith read an account that described a lengthy legal battle. The discussion stated that Finland's Supreme Court unanimously acquitted Räsänen over the social media post, while a conviction remained connected to the older church publication.

The hosts found that distinction troubling. A 22-year-old religious booklet, they argued, should not be retroactively treated as criminal speech because public opinion or legal standards have changed.

Their concern was not only about the outcome for one public official. They viewed the case as a warning that past Christian teaching could be re-examined under new speech rules.

The Reported Heathrow Airport Restriction

The discussion also addressed a reported travel consequence. According to the article cited during the episode, Räsänen learned that she could not transit through London's Heathrow Airport because British authorities considered her a convicted "hate criminal."

She reportedly was not traveling to organize a protest, lead a campaign, or preach in Britain. She only wanted to change planes.

That detail gave the hosts a concrete example of how a legal label can follow a person beyond the courtroom. A conviction related to speech may affect border crossings, airline travel, and the ability to move through another country.

Persecution may begin with labels before it moves to legal punishment.

For Smith and Rowland, the point was direct: a person who voices a traditional Christian belief may face consequences that extend far beyond the original statement.

Why the Hosts See a Broader International Pattern

Smith and Rowland argued that the Finnish case should not be treated as an isolated event. They pointed to wider debates over hate speech, online speech, censorship, and misinformation rules in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United States.

The episode referenced several developments:

• European governments have expanded hate speech laws and discussed broader standards for combating alleged hate crimes and online speech.
• Canada has used human rights commissions to investigate speech complaints and has considered online harms legislation.
• Australian jurisdictions have expanded hate speech restrictions and pursued misinformation regulations.
• Some progressive politicians in the United States have supported stronger restrictions on speech, despite the protections of the First Amendment.

The hosts did not claim that the United States has adopted every restriction found in other countries. Instead, they warned that ideas accepted abroad can influence American institutions, political movements, and public expectations.

Jeff Rowland stressed that nations increasingly affect one another. In his view, Americans should not assume that policies first used in Europe or Canada will never gain support in the United States.

The First Amendment Concern

The First Amendment protects speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition in the United States. Smith and Rowland argued that those protections could come under greater pressure if traditional religious teachings are classified as hateful.

Their concern included more than pastors preaching sermons. They raised the possibility that expanded speech restrictions could affect:

• Bible reading and public prayer
• Christian counseling and education
• Church attendance and public ministry
• Sermons about marriage, sexuality, sin, and repentance

The hosts believe the central issue is whether government and cultural institutions will allow Christians to state biblical convictions without forcing them to endorse ideas they believe contradict Scripture.

The Pulpit, the Pew, and Internal Church Conflict

Smith and Rowland also argued that pressure on biblical teaching does not come only from outside the church. They drew a sharp distinction between churches that hold to traditional Christian doctrine and churches that have adopted progressive approaches to culture and sexuality.

Jeff Rowland said he believes many pulpits have already shifted toward progressive, liberal, or socialist-minded views of society. Allan Smith agreed that some churches no longer stand firmly on the Word of God.

At the same time, the hosts criticized many church members for apathy and complacency. In their view, people in the pews often want to be left alone, avoid conflict, and protect their personal comfort rather than address larger changes around them.

The hosts framed the problem this way:

Smith criticized Christians who spend energy arguing over minor disputes while greater issues develop around them. He used the example of arguing about "T-shirts" while much larger threats are taking shape.

Their message to believers was urgent. If churches remain silent, they said, public institutions may define biblical truth for them.

Possible Consequences of a Hate Speech Conviction

A conviction or public accusation of hate speech can affect far more than a court record. Smith and Rowland raised several questions about what could happen if governments, employers, or professional boards treat biblical teaching as evidence of extremism.

Travel, Employment, and Public Life

The reported Heathrow restriction in Räsänen's case showed how travel could become difficult for a person labeled a hate criminal. The hosts asked whether similar labels could eventually limit a person's ability to transit through airports, cross borders, or travel internationally.

They also raised concerns about employment. If an employer sees a hate speech conviction on a record, the employer may refuse to hire that person without ever considering the facts behind the case.

Professional licensing raises another serious question. Smith and Rowland asked whether pastors, counselors, teachers, physicians, attorneys, and other licensed workers could lose their ability to practice because they refuse to affirm views that conflict with their beliefs.

The show referenced Jordan Peterson in Canada as an example of professional pressure. The hosts said Peterson faced consequences because he would not repeat statements he believed were untrue to satisfy demands from the woke movement. Their point was that professional sanctions can affect people outside the pulpit.

Public Office and Daily Survival

The hosts also asked whether people convicted of hate speech could be barred from holding public office or from speaking in public settings. A damaging label might make voters, organizations, schools, and employers unwilling to associate with someone, even if the person never called for harm or violence.

Smith and Rowland extended the concern to ordinary life. If someone loses employment because of a hate speech designation, that person may struggle to pay bills, buy food, or support a family.

These were warnings about possible consequences, not claims that every restriction is already in place. Still, the hosts urged viewers to consider how quickly a social label can become a practical barrier.

The label may become more damaging than the original statement.

Historical Examples of Labels Before Persecution

The article discussed during the show connected current speech debates with earlier periods of religious persecution. Smith and Rowland emphasized that governments have often used labels before they use force.

The Roman Empire branded Christians as enemies of the state. During the French Revolution, authorities labeled faithful clergy as enemies of the people. Communist regimes called believers counterrevolutionaries.

The language changed with each era. However, the hosts argued that the method stayed similar: portray a religious group as dangerous, convince the public that the group threatens society, then defend restrictions as necessary for public safety.

Their warning can be stated in four steps:

1. Traditional belief is redefined as a public danger.
2. Believers receive a negative social or legal label.
3. The public accepts restrictions as protection.
4. Punishment becomes easier to defend.

Smith and Rowland connected this pattern to the present use of the word "hate." They argued that once that charge gains traction, many people no longer care whether the accused person acted violently, broke a law, or simply stated a religious belief.

The Power of Accusation

Near the end of the discussion, the hosts turned to a biblical theme: Satan as "the accuser of the brethren." They connected that description to the power of accusation in public life.

An accusation can damage a person's reputation even when the facts remain disputed. Employers may hesitate to hire the accused. Community groups may withdraw invitations. Parents may fear placing children near someone labeled hateful. The label creates suspicion before any full conversation takes place.

Smith put the matter plainly: people do not need to be guilty of violence or wrongdoing for an accusation to harm their lives. In that sense, the hosts saw public accusation as a tool that can silence believers without requiring a formal ban on Christianity.

The danger, as they described it, is not only legal punishment. It is a culture in which Christians are pressured to hide, soften, or abandon biblical convictions to avoid personal loss.

What Christians Should Consider

Smith and Rowland urged American Christians not to assume that the religious freedom they have enjoyed will always remain untouched. They acknowledged that believers in the United States have received greater freedom than Christians in many parts of the world. Yet they questioned whether American churches have become too comfortable to recognize growing threats.

Their call was for Christians to remain faithful to Scripture rather than changing biblical teaching to avoid criticism. They also urged church members to move beyond lukewarm faith and pay attention to what is happening in schools, workplaces, courts, government, and churches.

The discussion leaves believers with difficult questions:

• What happens when biblical teaching is labeled hate speech?
• Should Christians remain silent to avoid public criticism?
• How should churches respond when cultural values conflict with Scripture?
• Can religious freedom endure if believers fear speaking openly?
• Are Christians prepared to stand by their beliefs if doing so carries a personal cost?

A Warning About Freedom and Faithfulness

The case discussed on the show illustrates why speech labels matter. When traditional Christian teaching is treated as proof of hatred, the penalty can reach into travel, work, public service, and personal reputation.

Smith and Rowland's central warning is that religious freedom can narrow through social pressure before laws fully change. Christians who hold to biblical convictions must recognize the difference between speaking truth with conviction and surrendering truth because a hostile culture demands silence.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Bible Believers: The New Blacklist - Ep. 944 - July 15, 2026"