Please don’t judge me!

Or a least, never be the judge that I have to face.

Tim TIngelstad is running for Supreme Court Justice in Minnesota, he made it through the primary process (2 of 3) and will face incumbent Justice Paul H Anderson in the general election.

Now it is very likely that Paul Anderson will remain a Supreme Court Justice, but I want to point out why I am concerned about Tim Tingelstad.

First there is his Gideon’s Army web page,

The same is true of the people of God today.  We the people of God, have done evil in the sight of the Lord, as we have allowed generations of our children to turn from knowing and worshiping the true God, to accepting the new religion of the day, Secular Humanism.  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.

Now this pisses me of, which is probably no surprise to anyone.  First, I am probably a Secular Humanist, and I don’t like being blamed for things, especially when I think they are baseless accusations.  Second, how does Tingelstad know that he the one hearing God’s Word?  I mean there are so many types of Christians, many that think other so-called Christians are not Christians, how the heck is anyone supposed to know which one is right.  Is this some sort of perverse joke by God to have religious diversity be an evolutionary attempt at religious belief to find the strongest faith?  I just don’t get it.  And what is wrong with allowing all faiths to thrive in the private sphere, why does it have to be in the public sphere where the tyranny of the majority (apparently the Secular Humanists these days) may stifle smaller faith groups?

Then there are the prayer clocks, these stun me regularly.  It is almost as bad as Stuart Sheperd asking people to pray for it to rain on Obama’s acceptance speech at the DNC.

Please select and sign up for a daily 5 minute time period to commit to pray for Tim Tingelstad and his 2008 campaign for the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Prayer Requests:

  • Pray for the Primary on September 9th, that people will exercise their right to vote, and that Tim will get the votes necessary to proceed to the general election.
  • That we will get volunteers to work our booth at the MN State Fair.
  • For people willing to participate and contribute to additional Liberty Auctions around MN.
  • That we can get volunteers to make phone calls to spread the word about our campaign message.
  • For people to sign the petition and for people to gather signatures from others.
  • For people to commit to pray daily for Tim’s campaign and to preserve the people’s right to vote in Minnesota.

If there is a God, do you really think that he is taking interest in an smaller election like this?  Is setting up people to pray (sort of like lobbying) that God help this one candidate.  How about pray for world peace or ending world hunger?

What I do get, is that many Minnesotans will not have heard the same Word from God as Tingelstad, whether they are other types of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Atheists.  I don’t want someone with such a worldview, to make decisions, crucial judicial decisions for our varied citizenry!




  1. Linners said,

    September 25, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Are you familiar with what Anderson believes? He believes in a committee that wants to take your right to vote for judges away. He wants the supreme court judges to pick a committee that in turn picks the supreme court judges. Where is the accountablity? Doesn’t that concern you? Tingelstad believes in the original intent of the constitution and that his job is to fear God and love the people. I want a judge that looks out for the best interest of me, and not the best interest of himself.

    Also, its not baseless accusations. Since the Bible has been taken out of schools our schools have had a lot of problems. Multiple school shootings and disrepect for students and teachers are just a couple of those problems. In keeping with the previous title,if “secular humanists” would have left the Bible in schools, maybe things wouldn’t be so bad.

    Thank you for allowing me to comment on your blog.

  2. Josh said,

    September 25, 2008 at 10:11 pm


    Thank you for reading and posting. Unfortunately I don’t think either of us are going to agree on these issues.

    First question, as you seem to know more about what concerns you have with Anderson, does he or the other justices have the power to make what you describe happen? Or would it require legislative action or a constitutional amendment (I am just guessing here)? Because what he wants, but can’t do (if that is correct), concerns me less.

    Regarding the bible in the school, I struggle to see the cause and effect. I went to school, and other than the one year (6th grade) my school did the pledge of allegiance, I can’t recall a reference to God or the bible. Well there was that one trimester class I had on comparative religions, but that wasn’t exclusive to Christianity. But I don’t recall any school shootings. Decent respect between the students and teachers, and I am not that old, I graduated in 1989.

    And how would you feel, assuming your Christian, if your children were forced to listen to Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoism, Shintoism, Hare Krishnas or Wiccan faith on a regular basis in the classroom?

    Why should sex-ed be taught at home (a common wish among people I assume you are like) but you think the schools should teach religion. Shouldn’t that be taught in the home, as it is more personal, like sex-ed. Or isn’t your religion a better place to teach it (Sunday School)?

    Or what about the different types of Christianity, which would you like a Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Christadelphians, Pentacostal, Baptist, Lutherans, or Catholics, which one is the right Christianity to be in the school. See the slippery slope I am looking at.

    As a non-Christian, it concerns me that I might not get a fair shake with someone whose personal perspective is so rooted in Christian beliefs. I think that is a fair concern, although could be unwarranted.


  3. linners said,

    September 26, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the first question, but Anderson signed Doe vs Gomez which allowed for tax funded abortions. This is not right. The Constitution gives EVERYONE the right to life, how can Anderson make me pay (through taxes) for someone’s abortion? (the taking of life) This in my opinion is unconstitutional. And so yes he, (Anderson or Tingelstad) can make things happen.

    When I was in school, I was taught about Native American and Greek gods, but not about THE God. I find it interesting that everyone is to be tolerant of everything, but not God. In my opinion it is because Satan is working so hard to harden the hearts of everyone towards God, that they don’t realize their own intolerance. Does that make sense?

    As for the list of “Christianity’s” –the one to be in the school is the one the Bible talks about. The Bible is the only book inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    You would be treated in court like any other person, Christian or not. Tingelstad will not treat you differently because you may or may not be a Christian. He will look at your case strictly on the premise of the facts and how they relate to the constitution. What you won’t have to worry about with Tingelstad is that your money will go towards abortions and that you will lose your right to have a vote in future judicial elections.

    What is worse, voting for Tingelstad who believes in God, (which in turn puts him in a position of accountability to more then himself) and will vote to let you keep your right to vote in the future


    voting for Anderson which may very well end your ability to have a say in future judical elections?

    The very fact that we can debate between two judges will be taken away if Anderson gets his way, and yet that is the candidate you support, isn’t that ironic?

    Tingelstad firmly believes that his job as MN Supreme Court Justice would be to UPHOLD the Constitution-as it was intended. I encourage you to listen to the debates that will be upcoming between him and Anderson. I realize I do not know you, but I would be surprised if you did not decide you liked Tingelstad after hearing him talk.

  4. Josh said,

    September 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm


    To clarify, what or how would Anderson take away my right to choose a supreme court justice? How would that work, and who can make that happen? Please provide a link if you can to has stated views on this topic, but also if you have anything on how it can happen. Do the justices have the power to do it, or do they want something that can only happen via the legislature, or a constitutional amendment. On this I am willing to be persuaded, and even criticize his position.

    Back to the question about which Christianity, I believe there are different versions of the Bible also. How do we know which one to use? Or that the school will teach it in a way that you feel is the correct interpretation. Just within the Lutheran faith, there are three very different interpretations in the US, ELCA, Missouri Synod (LCMS), and Wisconsin Synod (WELS). Looking at the WELS web site, it looks like they think the Papacy is the Antichrist.

    We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.

    So who is right? Would a Catholic feel comfortable being instructed by someone who follows the WELS faith and is telling them their faith follows an institution that is the Antichrist? I don’t think they would, I think their parents would be outraged by this.

    What about the Blaine Amendments that exist in many state constitutions to block the public funding of religious schools, which in many cases were to specifically block Catholic schools.

    On the question of Doe vs Gomez, I did not address this topic, you brought it up as a reason against Anderson. Yet, you can tell that for me, this isn’t MY deal breaker. My concern is lies elsewhere. Are you for comprehensive sex-ed in the schools? As a way to limit unplanned pregnancies which are the most likely to be aborted?

  5. linners said,

    October 2, 2008 at 11:53 am

    I am working on getting you the info you requested, just wanted to let you know I’m not coping out 🙂 It’s been busy around here lately.

  6. linners said,

    October 2, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Justice Anderson supports changing the Minnesota Constitution to take away the people’s constitutional right to elect judges. He and the rest of the current Minnesota Supreme Court Justices are joining forces with the Minnesota Bar Association to pursuade the people of Minnesota that they should give total control of our courts to unelected and unaccountable committees. This will require legislation by the State Senate and House, and then a majority vote by the people. The problem is that Justice Anderson and those who believe as he does, are failing to give the whole story to the people. I have attached a more detailed response for consideration. I do not believe that Justice Anderson has the specifics of MSRE on his website, but he is clearly on record as supporting it. Justice Anderson is one of the four current Justices who served on the Judicial Selection Commission prior to being appointed to the Court.

    To secure this “liberty and justice” the Minnesota Constitution gives the people the right to hold our courts accountable through meaningful judicial elections. But our Minnesota Supreme Court Justices want to replace judicial elections with “Merit Selection and Retention Elections” (hereinafter MSRE). Minnesotan’s should reject MSRE because:

    Meaningful, contested, non-partisan judicial elections keep our courts accountable to the people. MSRE would make the judicial branch accountable to the executive branch, rather than to the people.
    Under MSRE, the people never elect a judge. An “election” is the act of selecting one or more from others. A “retention election” does not include a second candidate, so it is not an “election.”
    MSRE would not remove politics from judicial selection, it would simply hide the politics from the people. The politics would be condensed into small, unelected and unaccountable committees.
    Retention elections would be the most extreme examples of negative campaigns. The Retention Committee would be required to make public the negative information about the judge that the committee determines to be unqualified.
    MSRE would not eliminate special interest groups from the judicial selection process. Instead, our courts would be ruled by two very powerful special interest groups: (1) the Selection Committee, and (2) the Retention Committee.
    History raises strong concerns about the judicial appointment process. Of our six appointed Minnesota Supreme Court Justices, four were appointed only after serving on the Judicial Selection Commission. Committees serve themselves, not the people.

    I hope this helps.

  7. linners said,

    October 7, 2008 at 9:51 pm


    Just wondering what your thoughts are on my last comment.


  8. Liz said,

    November 3, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Hi! I stumbled on your blog while I was researching my judicial candidates for tomorrow’s ballot. Some of your comments caught my attention, and I wanted to reply. Before I go any further, please note that I have good intentions in writing this–no malice intended. I hope this helps.

    I would like to comment on your statement/rhetorical question about God not caring about the smaller elections. I must tell you that God certainly DOES care about even the smaller elections/offices. God is the Creator, and He is the Omnipotent, all-knowing God. He cares about, and cares for, every little detail in our lives. In fact, the Bible even speaks to God’s attention to detail in Psalm 139. God even has “…the very hairs on our heads numbered.” Could a God who knows every little detail of our lives–and even knit us together in our mothers’ wombs–be indifferent about elections that would appoint officials into positions where they would have an impact on so many lives? God is a very personal, personable, and caring God who wants us to pray (simply talking to God). He loves to hear what we have to say. He wants to hear what’s on our hearts. He wants to hear about anything we want to talk to Him about. So when someone asks for prayer, I do believe that if someone else decides to pray about whatever the issue(s) are, that God does indeed hear our prayers, and also helps us to interpret, understand, and decide what to do in situations in our lives. I believe in the idea of praying to God about certain issues (and anytime, for that matter!:)), and have literally seen situations turn around after people have prayed for things, situations, health issues, leadership concerns, etc. Please also consider this: Tim Tingelstad’s request for prayer on his website is not as much of a lobby-istic kind of thing as it is a surrendering kind of thing. What I mean is, that even if someone (Tim, in this situation) asks for specific prayer requests that might look like it would only serve their desires and/or interests, asking for prayer can go in many directions. For one, people could pray exactly what the asker has asked them to pray for. And God hears those prayers. Another might hear the asker’s heart, but feel like they should pray in a slightly different direction, based on what they feel they hear God’s heart telling them to pray about. God also hears those prayers. Maybe a third person could have a totally different approach. They could pray the prayer request as the asker has asked, but while praying, they feel like they’re hearing God’s heart on the issue at hand, and end up praying they feel God’s heart is leading them to pray about instead. And God hears that prayer, as well. I guess what I’m saying is that asking for prayer is not lobbying. God knows what needs to happen and when and with or without whom. I think Tim’s purpose for praying and asking for prayer about this election is not so much of a ‘ploy’ to try to trick God into letting him win the judicial election. ….because God can’t be tricked. Ultimately, God’s will/purposes will be done. As one who believes in praying about things myself, I think that ultimately, Tim Tingelstad wants God’s will to be done–whether he gets elected or not. I think that’s what anyone asking for prayer would want ultimately–for God’s will to be done. And in this case, for the judge to be elected that needs to be in office for this time and/or season. So how do these two things go together? Well, God’s will will ultimately prevail. But, because God is a very personal and relational God, He wants us to be involved; He wants us to talk to Him about what our concerns are; He wants us to participate. And all of this is because He wants a personal relationship with Him. He is interested in every little detail of our lives–even down to every hairs on our heads. God hears our prayers, and He is moved by them. All I can say is that God is a very personal, relational God who wants to be involved in every part of our lives. Not just the big parts. So for Tim to ask for prayer is a good thing….because God isn’t just interested in the big ticket items, but in the smallest of the small details, too.

  9. Josh said,

    November 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm


    Thanks for reading and taking the time to make a comment.

    As an atheist who does not believe in God, I really struggle with these prayer clocks as a general concept. I believe that we can make a difference in individual lives and society, for the better, through action, not some belief in a higher power.

    And reading Tim Tingelstad’s writings, I am very concerned that his religious beliefs, those that he are running on, are not well suited to our very religiously diverse society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: