And therein lies the problem

The Tea Party movement is all the rage in the media these days and, depending on the source, it’s either a long-overdue raising of voices by fiscally responsible, small-government Constitution supporters or it’s a ludicrous outcry of misinformed, ultra-right-wing, white Christians.

The problem, it seems, is that the Tea Party seems to be a bit of both. This charge is almost always vehemently denied, usually by those of the latter group who fancy themselves part of the former. The differences show up fairly clearly when various Tea Party leaders are interviewed.

For instance, Toby Marie Walker, the cofounder and president of the Waco Tea Party, said the following when asked about the issues on which they focus:

Well, we focus around three main issues; constitutionally limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility. A litmus test that we use is about taxes or spending, and we focus on those issues because that’s what we were founded under.

It’s hard to argue with that. That’s the kind of Tea Party that I can support wholeheartedly and it’s what I’d always loved about the Republican Party in the past (somewhat distant past, sadly). If that were the main message of the Tea Party, then you could call me Mr. Lipton.

However, let’s take a look at the focal points of another Tea Party leader. Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association in Mississippi, says the following when asked what issues he presses. First, his more nebulous response:

Well, the American Family Association, part of why we got involved in this is we believe the country needs not only to be called back to constitutional government, not only back to physical responsibility, but also to the same cultural and social values that were embraced by the founders.

When asked about those “cultural and social values,” Mr. Fischer elaborates this way:

They said that the first of the inalienable rights that was granted to us by the creator is the right to life. So we believe sanctity of life has got to be central to any genuinely conservative movement, belief in a creator and to defending natural marriage and resisting the homosexual agenda.

So Mr. Fischer has an outwardly religion-based focus. Ms. Walker has a strong fiscal-policy-based focus. From what I’ve seen and read, neither of these two positions are uncommon in the Tea Party. Just looking at images of signs from any Tea Party rally will give plenty of examples of both sides; sometimes to the extreme of both sides.

Despite some claims that the Tea Party is not a religious movement, it seems that the preponderance of evidence points to its being decidedly, though not necessarily essentially, religious… specifically Christian… sometimes Mormon. Even those who focus on the issue of fiscal responsibility tend to lean toward the notion of “restoring family values,” which is almost always code for “imposing Christian values,” something for which there is no concrete definition, varying widely from sect to sect.

Fischer represents the religious aspect of the Tea Party perfectly, if not mildly in the above interview. Based on some of the signs at Tea Party events, many supporters are far more fervent in their belief that the United States should be a theocracy. Of course, they’ll deny they do want a theocracy. Instead, as Rob Boston of Americans United says, they want to see…

…a flock of “Christian statesmen” who will “align the public policy of the United States with the will of God.”

…which, of course, would be a theocracy.

While the Tea Party represents the laudable ideas of fiscal responsibility, small government, and adherence to the Constitution, it is tainted by the incessantly vociferous bigotry of the religious right and their need to entwine their twisted values around our secular government. While those like Ms. Walker work to keep the message focused on the economy and criticism of government spending, people like Mr. Fischer undercut that message with their insistence on mixing (Christian) church and state, ironically contradicting the very Constitution they so vehemently espouse.

And therein lies the problem.