Tea Party of the Religious Right?

Being unusually interested in the idea of government of the people, by the people I sometimes find myself drawn to movements who purport to express such sentiments. I would basically define my political leanings as moderate to libertarian, depending on which particular issue I happen to be pondering at the moment. I reserve the right to be proven wrong and jump at the chance to learn something new with the reservation that I don't like smoke being blown up my ass, no matter what particularly fine blend it might happen to be.

Recently I have noticed some excitement over a grassroots movement known as the Tea Party Movement. Portraying itself as a movement of the "we're mad as hell and not going to take it any more" type I have noticed it has a decided leaning to the right of the political spectrum judging by its loudest proponents but as it defines itself as a movement of the people I found the idea interesting. Anything that can stir the American public beyond its lethargy of an American Idol Dancing with the Stars induced coma could be a step in the right direction. Of course the original Tea Party which illegally dumped what in today’s terms would amount to some one million dollars worth of private property into the sea can be construed many ways depending on what perspective you have. Still, it is a little ironic that so many right wing conservatives with their mantra of private property rights would seize upon an incident whereby private property was randomly destroyed to make a political point as the fulcrum upon which to leverage their arguments.

On a recent edition of a local morning talk show that I sometimes listen to I was interested to hear two of the founders of the Tea Party Movement here in Huntsville discussing their movement. One of the basic tenets they were espousing that day had to do with trying to force candidates for office to stand on their principles. In other words, the representative of the group on the show was asking that politicians simply stand up for what they believe in rather than pander to whatever idea seems the most likely to get the most votes. I have long held the opinion that this would be a marked improvement over the way elections are currently carried out so I was interested to learn more about this movement. I was directed to their website to further my education about their purpose.

The website proposed that the purpose of the group was to promote their core principles in each and every level of government:

“fiscal responsibility, limited government, individual freedoms, and the free market system”

I found these principles to be much in line with most of my own core principles so I did a little more perusing of the website. It occurred to me that these principles are about as vague and general as one could possibly get but I liked them just the same. Still, I wonder if a group that is interested in getting a candidate for political office to stand up for his principles would accept these as a statement of his purposes. I decided that if the group was incredibly naïve and vacuous they probably would but most intelligent individuals would require more information about a candidate before deciding whether to throw their support his or her direction. Maybe there is a difference in a candidate and a political group as far as how specific they should be in espousing their principles but I suspect there probably shouldn’t be.

One of the sections of the Huntsville Tea Party website listed books that presumably would further the reader’s understandings of what the movement’s core principles are. After all, if I am being asked to contribute money and support to such a group I would like to know what I am contributing to in a little more detail than such a vague statement of values. An alarm bell went off when I saw some of the books on the recommended reading list. “Original Intent” and “America’s Godly Heritage” by David Barton were the first two that seemed to be noticeably out of place on a website considering “individual freedoms” to be one of their main tenets. I am pretty familiar with Mr. Barton and his ideology. Mr. Barton is founder of a movement known as “Wall Builders” which is dedicated to tearing down the wall between church and state in our constitutional government. His movement seeks to inculcate Christian ideology into our school systems through the means of historical revision and outright deception by numerous dubious and disproven claims among which one is how the Supreme Court has misquoted Jefferson in making its separation of church and state a part of our legal edifice. Mr. Barton himself claims that he received a message from God to study SAT scores and compare the decline in said scores with the removal of religious prayer in public schools. Evidently, God is punishing us for no longer praying in school by making morons out of our children. I presume all the locusts and frogs were too busy elsewhere or he was too busy causing earthquakes in Haiti to punish them for making deals with the devil to remove the French so he just decided to make our children stupid instead. Besides, it would be a more directly cause and affect relationship so that such brilliant oracles as Mr. Barton could more easily make the connection between the terribly devastating effect of removing prayer from school and the fact that our education system is failing. Forget all that stuff about more money and better teachers; just start praying in school again and we will instantaneously turn a failed system back into the shining example of education it was in the good old days.

As far back in history as you care to look you will be hard pressed to find many instances where conservative religious leaders have been champions of “personal freedoms” and it doesn’t appear that they are today either. Mr. Barton’s group lists their goals as follows:

WallBuilders' goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.

I suppose this could be construed as championing personal freedom; provided of course you either don’t understand anything at all about what either term actually means or you are simply so ignorant of history that you never heard of inquisitions or dark ages.

The second author on the list is a man named H. L. (Bill) Richardson who is the founder of Gun Owners of America amongst other things. Mr. Richardson is an ex Senator from California who is also the author of “Slightly to the Right” which is somewhat of a conservative primer for taking on the Communists and Socialists amongst us. In June of 2009 he posted the following in a blog in response to a question as to what could be done to correct the political problems we have today:

“No matter what the response, I have to tell them anyway. Why? Because the Scripture tells me that if I know the answer, I should give them an ear full. In Ezekiel 3:18, the prophet Ezekiel was told to inform the people to shape up or else. The Lord commanded him to tell the impudent and stubborn children, both the good and the bad ones, to repent and ask for forgiveness. God told Ezekiel that if he didn't tell them, their blood was on his hands. What was good advice for Ezekiel was meant for all of us today. If we know and don't tell, the blood is on our hands as well.”

Presumably, this message was delivered from something less than a burning bush but with no less authority. Mr. Richardson later in the same blog goes on to describe Darwin as “thoroughly discredited and debunked my modern science, logic and time.” I would surmise that he is also a proponent of the same “intelligent design” theories that Mr. Barton is pushing so hard to have inserted into our public school system. Once again, an agenda that seems somehow diametrically opposed to the core belief of “personal freedom”.

I was concerned to find such rabid Bible thumpers on the Tea Parties recommended reading site but more concerned that the group itself couldn’t seem to recognize the disparity between what they say they promote and the thoughts contained in their recommended reading section so I contacted the local leader of the group via email to point out these discrepancies. This leader was kind enough to respond to my email with an email that included the following:

“The purpose of the Huntsville Tea Party is not at all to promote specific religious agenda. It is to teach, promote, and secure our core principles: limited govt, fiscal responsibility, individual rights, and free market.”

She explained that she hadn’t actually read any of these books but the “core leadership” of the group recommended them. Because this seems to be very much where I started in researching their site I responded by asking how it is possible to promote such an agenda while simultaneously recommending literature which is diametrically opposed to one of these basic principles. I have yet to receive a reply to my last question but I will be glad to pass it on when I do.

It seems that the Huntsville Tea Party is pretty good at saying one thing while simultaneously doing something else. Maybe they should run for office. No wait… I have a better idea; they shouldn’t actually run for office or put an agenda out there so that everyone knows what they stand for because they could easily gain more power by simply telling everyone else who to vote for while simultaneously hiding their own agenda.