While candidates hash it out for the executive and legislative branches every four years, little attention is paid to the election of judges in Minnesota. Dan Griffith is running for the Minnesota Court of Appeals seat currently held by Judge Terri J. Stoneburner, and because positions and party affiliations are not part of the campaign process for judicial candidates, most voters don’t know that Griffith is a right-wing evangelical Christian who would make rulings based on his faith.
Griffith attends Evangelical Covenant Church in International Falls, and his faith is part of his judgment. “I believe in God. I think every judge should,” he says on his campaign Web site. “Then they will not think they have become God once they get into office. I believe that God is real and that ultimately we will be accountable to Him when we die and that should affect how we treat others on earth. That may be why John Jay, our First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said, ‘We should elect of all people Christians.’”
Since Griffith has never been a judge, voters can’t look to case law to determine how he would make judgments. Fortunately, the Minnesota Family Council has provided voters with a judicial questionnaire. Two judicial candidates have answered the council’s questions. Griffith is one. Church and state separation for Tim Tingelstad is the other (Read more in the Minnesota Independent’s report on Tingelstad’s run for Supreme Court).
For cases that have been decided, a judicial candidate can indicate whether they agree or disagree with a court’s decision.
The council’s questionnaire (PDF) asked, “Do you agree with the result in the Doe v. Gomez decision in which the Minnesota Supreme Court said that the Minnesota State Constitution contains a constitutional right to abortion that requires taxpayer funding of abortion?”
Griffith said “No.” Griffith’s background provides more information about how he gets to that decision. He is a board member for the “Life Care Center” in International Falls. Life Care Centers are a network of abortion alternative clinics sponsored by anti-abortion and religious right groups. The Life Care Center in International Falls does not have a web presence, but the one in Woodbury does.
“Our caring community provides a God-centered vision of human sexuality, promotes the merits of abstinence until marriage and offers free services in support of this vision. through this local organization, teens, adults, parents and families have ready access to medical services education and resources promoting healthy, life affirming choices,” reads the mission statement of the center.
The Web site continues, “Abortion is often presented as an issue of ‘women’s rights.’. It is seen as something desirable for women, and as a benefit to which they should have as much access as possible. In fact, to be ‘pro-life’ is seen by some as being ‘against women’s rights,’” it says. “You will see that, in fact, abortion harms women, ignores their rights, and exploits and degrades them. Anyone concerned about women will do well to know these facts.”
Griffith also disagreed with court decisions that banned the Ten Commandments from public schools and disagreed with decisions that made oral sex between consenting adults legal in Minnesota. He agrees with court decisions that allow religious landlords to deny housing to unmarried couples and agrees with decisions that outlawed same-sex marriage in Minnesota.
Earlier: Minnesota’s judicial races: Tingelstad runs for Supreme Court on “mission from God”













16 Comments »
Comment posted October 17, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Thank you for letting us know about the judicial candidate. I wish I knew about the others. It is so hard to find information. I am so sick of the courts deciding that they can get by with making laws instead of upholding our constitution. I am glad to have someone finally willing to stand up for the rights of ALL human beings. Love it.
Comment posted October 17, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Someone should explain to Dan Griffith that both the US and Minnesota Constitutions bar religious tests for public office and that both require a separation between church and state. Further, while a judge may hold and live by his religious convictions, he or she may not impose them on other citizens, and the view that abortion should be prohibited is a religious opinion that, as it happens, it not supported by either the Bible or science.
Comment posted October 17, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
I’d also like to thank you for informing me of this dangerous man. This information should be reported by our major news media. We shouldn’t have to search for it on the web. This man’s religious beliefs disqualify him from holding the position of a judge.
Comment posted October 18, 2008 @ 12:03 am
I feel glad I saw this before filling in an absentee ballot. I hate skipping judicial elections when I don’t know anything about the candidates, but it seems more honest than just guessing. This makes two races now where I won’t have to guess. Thanks.
Comment posted October 18, 2008 @ 8:48 am
This is a good solid candidate that has my vote, thanks for letting your views be known.
Comment posted October 22, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Thanks for the heads up. I will be voting for this “dangerous man”.
Comment posted October 25, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Thanks for letting me know what a great candidate that Dan Griffith is for judge. By keeping humble, and knowing his place in the larger scheme of life, Dan will be a great resource for our judicial system.
I will be voting for him with confidence.
Comment posted October 26, 2008 @ 12:10 am
Dan Griffith is to be commended for being open and honest. Notice that there is only one other judicial candidate that answered the survey (Tingelstad). What are the others afraid of? What do they have to hide? Why would anyone want to vote for them? Should we be concerned about what they hold true?
Thanks, Dan! You’ve got my vote!
Comment posted October 28, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
Stan Johnston,
“What do they have to hide?”
Maybe they realize that their personal views on “hot-button issues” have no bearing on how they should decide individual cases. There is nothing wrong with holding such views, and even speaking and debating them in a public forum; we all do, and it is one of the founding principles that makes America great. But in our judicial system, a judge is not just another citizen in a robe: he or she is supposed to be an impartial arbiter, weighing individual cases on the merits of the opposing sides in that particular case. Displaying an independence from strong personal views is vital in this occupation. What is the point of our society even having a judicial system if we demand to know exactly how justices will rule before they are even allowed to hear a case?
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the rate of social progress — not just religious, gender, and racial equality, but also economic progress — has greatly accelerated since the advent of the independent judicial system in the founding of our nation. I may not personally agree with every judicial decision handed down, but my response is to keep working in the public sector to help change things, not to change the very idea of the independent judiciary. This system, for all of its perceived flaws, has enabled our nation, and our world, to experience a time of social progress unmatched in human history. That can’t be ignored.
Comment posted November 2, 2008 @ 1:07 am
Are you kidding me?? Dan Griffith has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe, and I also commend him for at least sharing his beliefs. Why is it that religious freedom is only denied to those who fought for the concept in the first place? Honestly, it is ignorance to believe that progress can only be achieved by depriving our courts of any intelligent opinions. Griffith’s values align with those outlined in the Constitution, and if one is willing to open-mindedly study the Constitution, he will be forced to agree that our Founding Fathers would not have denied a Christian from holding a prominent judicial office.
Comment posted November 3, 2008 @ 3:13 am
So Andy Birkey, am I to understand that you are doing us a service by “impartially” discussing these judges? It seems you may have just the slightest bit of anti-Christian bias. Perhaps we should rid our state (and nation?) of all Christians. Need I remind you that the “separation of church and state” does not appear in our constitution? However our Bill of Rights does say “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Has Dan Griffith said he wants to create a state-run religion? No? Oh. The Bill of Rights goes on to say that congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So apparently Dan Griffith is actually ALLOWED to be a Christian. Interesting. Furthermore, need I remind you that our nation and laws were built upon Judeo-Christian values? God said we shouldn’t steal or murder, so perhaps we should remove those laws from our books lest He be given undo influence in our society. Ah… a God-free society where we rely on our own human wisdom — brilliant. Andy, you’ve proven with your article that you are vastly wiser than He. Congratulations.
Incidentally, if I believe abortion is wrong how could it possibly be “constitutional” to make me pay for them with my tax dollars? Can I use tax dollars to get rid of a bully or boss who may be “inconveniencing” me, like we’re doing for those poor unfortunate women? It breaks my heart to hear how calloused some people are to killing human life. Take a look at the “silent scream” video on youtube. It shows ultrasound imaging of a baby while it’s being aborted. The baby squirms and tries to get away while it’s being dismembered by the “doctor” (doctors take the hippocratic oath not to harm patients from fertilization to natural death). I think it’s hardly “empowering” for a woman to choose to kill a child her own body is naturally trying to take care of. Please watch the video and let your heart be softened. I know it’s cliche, but I’ll pray for you Andy. Despite all of my sarcasm, you’re a child of God just like the rest of us, and we Christians want nothing more than for you to come to salvation.
Comment posted November 3, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
We ALL have a perspective we judge from. Some of us admit this fact and can articulate our perspective. I like that Dan Griffith seems honest–he knows what his perspective is, and humble regarding the limits of his authority as a judge. It is foolish to dismiss Christians from political office simply because they are willing to admit to and articulate their perspectives. And, what if the tables were turned, and only Christians were accepted as reasonable candidates for office? I’d rather know what candidates for any office think and believe than have them hide it–because that tells me something, too: they don’t really hold convictions if they are unwilling to stand up for them. A candidate who claims to be completely impartial, unaffected by their own knowledge and experiences is a liar.
Comment posted November 4, 2008 @ 1:21 am
Thank you very much for telling us about Dan! He sounds like a great person for the Court of Appeals. I will definitely vote for this fine man! I hope that more “dangerous men” like him will find their way into our court system. It would be great to have more judges that will actually uphold the Constitution rather than creating law based on their ideologies.
Comment posted November 4, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
AMEN BRO! It’s so refreshing to find a candidate who is forthright about his views. An easy vote this time, unlike the other judges I’ve been researching and basing my decision on which one seems less stinky! GOD BLESS YOU, DAN! And Godspeed to you, man of God!
Comment posted November 4, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
It is too bad that you all do not know Dan personally. He has done a ton of work for people that can not afford a lawyer. He stands up for people and their rights no matter who they are or where they are in life. He fights for YOUR right to have a voice. If I lived in Minnesota, I would have voted for him.
To the person who states that Dan’s faith makes him a bad candidate for judge, I’d like to know what they would say about a person who was a KKK member, or member of a Satanic cult? He does not force his values on others, he leads his life the way he believes God wants him to. He would be a fair judge and you would never have to worry about him being unethical or influenced by people. Saying Dan is dangerous makes me wonder what it is you are afraid of.
Comment posted June 16, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Andy Birkey,
I laughed out loud today when I ran across this article on the internet. I never saw it before today. You found a reference that I believe in God and attend a church and that made me a, “stealth religious right candidate?” WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? If you want to know about me and why I ran please call me and look at my website http://www.griffithforjudge.com. You have a right to free speech, not false speech.
Don’t be afraid. Give me a call. I strongly believe that our public servants need to be accountable to the people. That judges should APPLY the law, not rewrite it. I hope to hear from you.
Dan
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment