Judicial races: Meet Dan Griffith, stealth religious right candidate for the Minnesota Court of Appeals

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a good solid candidate that has my vote, thanks for letting your views be known.

Thanks for the heads up. I will be voting for this “dangerous man”.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

[...] god, god, other people’s sex lives and their private parts. He’s running to be one of those ”strict constructionalist” judges you keep hearing [...]

Dan’s got our vote. He’s exactly what Minnesota needs!

Griffith has my vote.

[...] Details here Please pass it along. .pm_tools_small .pm_tool {display:block;float:left;height:20px;margin:0 0.5em 8px;} (function() { var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0]; s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true; s.src = 'http://widgets.digg.com/buttons.js'; s1.parentNode.insertBefore(s, s1); })(); Find more posts in: Politics [...]

The problem isn’t Dan’s religion. The problem is how Dan appears to not want to make judgments based on the constitutions of the state and country, but on a particular religious text.

We don’t live in a theocracy. And whatever feeble arguments anyone wants to make about this being a ‘Christian Nation’, we have a secular constitution. We are not, for example, forbidden from working on any particular day of the week. Or from eating shellfish. Or wearing mixed cloth. Or swearing at our parents. We are NOT however, permitted to keep slaves. These are all positions in which our constitution and the bible differ.

When it comes to abortion there is no legal argument that can be made to ban it. Is it moral to have an abortion?? I can’t answer that for you. You will need to make that decision yourself. But if any of the anti-abortion activists can answer one question for me I would like to hear the answer.

How does an unborn fetus have more rights than a living human being?

Any judge that would strike down Roe v Wade is a hack and an activist judge.

From what I have read this man would use the gavel to force his moral beliefs on to other people completely abandoning the US constitution. This is text book unAmerican.

[...] Here’s an article from two years ago regarding Dan Griffith. He’s running again this year. The article seems a tad unfair to me, but the gist basically is that Griffith puts the bible before the constitution. [...]

Thanks Andy, for covering this guy as I make out my cheat sheet for the election.

Public Service !!

[...] begins a tale of religious corruption of the judiciary. But Griffith is also a servant of God. An evangelical Christian, he indicated on a Minnesota Family Council questionnaire (PDF) that he [...]