Comments on: Minnesota’s judicial races: Tingelstad runs for Supreme Court on “mission from God”

By: Kevin Van Dyck

Kevin Van Dyck — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:43:58 +0000

Bernice,
Please tell us what evidence you have that Justice Anderson “wants his own will to be supreme.”

By: Bernice C Buch

Bernice C Buch — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:22:48 +0000

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.

By: Lowell

Lowell — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:45:12 +0000

Gee. No God, therefore it can’t win. That leaves me right here. No problem.

By: Jim Larson

Jim Larson — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:19 +0000

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?

By: Michael Lubin

Michael Lubin — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:22:04 +0000

‘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.

By: hartman_john

hartman_john — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:12:11 +0000

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.

By: Steve Marquardt

Steve Marquardt — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:44:36 +0000

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;

By: Lowell

Lowell — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 06:52:42 +0000

“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.

By: John

John — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:53:15 +0000

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.

By: K.G.

K.G. — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:57:22 +0000

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.