Tim Tingelstad’s challenge to current Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson has flown under the radar in a year in which contentious presidential and congressional races in Minnesota have captured mainstream attention. Declaring that “judges must be God-fearing men and women,” Tingelstad is running a quiet campaign to bring radical Christianity to Minnesota’s Supreme Court.
Because 2008 is a change election, Tingelstad might have a shot. On the statewide ballot, the voter knows which candidate is the incumbent — it’s marked with an “I” next to the incumbent’s name. Tingelstad beat out one other primary challenger in September to ensure that he’ll be one of the top two vote recipients to advance to the general election. (He garnered 22 percent of the statewide vote to Anderson’s 63 percent.)
Officially, Tingelstad says his campaign is mainly concerned with maintaining the election of judges in Minnesota, a process that has been under serious criticism for years. But his campaign web site tells a different story.
“As God’s Word has been removed from our public lives, the resulting darkness has led to our present social disorder and political divisions,” his website, Highest Hill, reads. “The correction of these problems will only begin when the Light of Truth is returned to our land’s highest hills, the Supreme Courts. Until our highest courts return to an acknowledgment of the existence of God and His Truth, the people will continue to walk in the confusion of darkness.”
The separation of church and state, Tingelstad argues, is a myth. Justices should rule from the “Word of God” first, and from sources such as the constitution, statute and case law second.
The church that Tingelstad advocates injecting into the judiciary is not quite mainstream Christianity, either. Until mid-September, his campaign website had a section for volunteers called “Gideon’s Army.”
Today’s Secular Humanists, like the Midianites, appear to have the upper hand in our culture. When we sow the seeds of faith from God’s Word into our children, the Secular Humanists come against us and destroy the crops by teaching against the things of God in our schools. The people of God are being told to retreat into the caves and dens of our church buildings and homes.
The primary weapons used by the Secular Humanists have been our schools and our courts, which have indoctrinated the people into a belief in a false wall of separation between church and state.
Gideon’s Army refers to a battle in the Book of Judges where 300 Israelites vanquished 100,000 Midianites. It is also the name of a rebranding effort by members of the Joel’s Army movement.
“There is a commonly held belief in the church that the army of Joel and the army of Gideon both represent the same end time, militant and victorious church,” wrote Robert Holmes, a prophetic visionary in the Pentecostal movement, back in 1995. (For a glossary of terms related to Joel’s Army and Pentecostalism, see the Minnesota Independent report, God’s Army: A short guide to Sarah Palin’s extreme religious worldview)
In contrast, incumbent Justice Paul Anderson’s re-election campaign centers on judicial fairness for everyone. His campaign web site says:
Justice Anderson has participated extensively in professional and civic activities, particularly those involving court interpreters, multicultural diversity and racial fairness in the courts, legal education and writing, the selection and performance of judges, and access to justice.
Among other activities, he has served as chair of the Court Interpreter Advisory Committee, member of the Implementation Committee on Multicultural Diversity and Racial Fairness in the Courts, member and chairman of the Minnesota Judicial Selection Commission, and adjunct professor of the University of Minnesota Law School.
Anderson is also a Christian; he attends the House of Hope Presbyterian Church in St. Paul. Anderson has not made his faith an issue in his campaign nor made it a litmus test for judicial office.














10 Comments »
Comment posted October 9, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
From a “Christian” perspective, the “Kingdom of God” and the “World” are two different places.
When a person chooses Christianity, they choose to live by Kingdom principles. When they insert themselves into the World as a leader and try to demand that the World live by Kingdom principles, they do not become a just leader, they become a tyrant and a dictator. You can not be fair and just to all if you make judgments based on your own perception of how you want to personally live. Judgment needs to be based on the laws of the land, just as laws need to be made for the good of all, not the good for you.
I will pass on this guy. We don’t need a tyrant judge.
Comment posted October 10, 2008 @ 12:53 am
This is not entirely surprising to me, as I’ve long considered the justice system itself to be akin to a mainstream religion, with certain cult-like attributes added in. Central to this religion is the belief in incarceration as penance ritual — concrete and steel cages being religious artifacts wherein non-violent offenders have been locked away alongside those who may pose a danger to others.
Comment posted October 11, 2008 @ 1:52 am
“The separation of church and state, Tingelstad argues, is a myth. Justices should rule from the “Word of God” first, and from sources such as the constitution, statute and case law second.”
Consider the words of James Madison, who WROTE the Constitution: “The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State” (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)
This perfectly illustrates Tingelstad’s ignorance of Constitutional law and utter unsuitability to serve. If he thinks he can apply religious law in a secular court, he needs a reality check, fast. He would never have time to sit on the bench due to all the lawsuits and impeachment proceedings against him.
Comment posted October 11, 2008 @ 8:44 am
If judges were to “rule from the “Word of God” first, and from sources such as the constitution, statute and case law second,” would that be ruling as the original radical Christian did, when he said, “Let him who has sin cast the first stone” followed by this sentence imposed upon the accused: “Go and sin no more”?
Or would it be the Word of God from the Old Testament, for example the following from Deuteronomy?
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die;
Comment posted October 16, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
If Minnesotans vote for this freak, then the entire nation is in danger. These christian-facists seek power so they can then impose their facist-whacko-christian beliefs on everyone. Minnesotans have elected enough creeps – Coleman, Ventura and others. Gather up your thinking caps, Minnesotans, and vote for someone with compassion…someone who thinks beyond the old testament…someone, ANYONE who is not a facist like this guy Tinglebrains.
Comment posted October 20, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
‘The separation of church and state, Tingelstad argues, is a myth. Justices should rule from the “Word of God” first, and from sources such as the constitution, statute and case law second.’
This is nothing less than a promise to violate his oath of office mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Here is most of Article VI of that document:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Comment posted October 22, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
Awesome!! Another Christian I can get behind. Folks, read the end of The Book (that is the Bible for all you atheists). God wins in the end. Where does that leave you?
Comment posted October 25, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Gee. No God, therefore it can’t win. That leaves me right here. No problem.
Comment posted October 27, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
I’ve read all of these comments and find those who aren’t Christians to be downright mean in thought. I’d rather vote for a christian candidate who I know wants God’s will to be supreme than vote for a candidate that wants his own will to be supreme. Neither kind of candidate may make all the right decisions but it goes with out saying the christian candidate has better chances of making the most right decisions.
Comment posted October 29, 2008 @ 12:43 am
Bernice,
Please tell us what evidence you have that Justice Anderson “wants his own will to be supreme.”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment