Okay.  I know that I get confused very easily, and I’m probably not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. So that may explain my utter confusion in understanding the politics and positions of The Tea Party. I would greatly appreciate it if a Tea Partier or two would respond to this article to enlighten this poor, ignorant soul!

First of all, The Tea Party says that they are a grass roots organization that sprung up almost spontaneously around July 4^th of this year because they were collectively frightened to death over the policies of the Obama Administration.

And all this time I thought that The Tea Party was the brainchild of billionaire plutocrats like the Koch brothers who were scared to death that Obama’s policies were going to cut into their huge reservoirs of cash and make them more responsible and accountable to The American People! (See my article titled Tea Party Logic.)

And now, we’ve got this woman in Delaware, who’s not a witch, running for the Senate.  She is a Tea Party endorsed candidate.  Caribou Barbie even personally endorsed her and called her a “patriot”. The woman’s name is Christine O’Donnell, and she, like all true Tea Partiers, believes that the land should be governed by absolute strict adherence to The Constitution. (You hear that refrain all the time at Tea Party rallies and from all of the Tea Party endorsed candidates.)

And, to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t know any true-blue American who thinks otherwise., except for, maybe, the billionaire plutocrats who are behind The Tea Party.

The problem is, when Tea Partiers say they want a strictly Constitutional government, I can’t help but wonder what Constitution they’re referring to, because their Constitution is really not all that familiar to me, I’m embarrassed to say.

In other words, if these good folks are pushing for the Constitution so strongly, don’t you think that a few of them would at least read the freaking document so that they know what they’re talking about?

A few days ago, O’Donnell was in a debate in Wilmington, DE with her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons.  At one point, Coons stated that he believed that Creationism was a religious doctrine, and teaching it in public schools  was a violation of The First Amendment, because the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

O’Donnell responded by saying, “You’re telling me that’s in The First Amendment?”

In other words, she was disputing Coon’s interpretation of the amendment. Either that, or she’s even more stupid than I give her credit for (which, I believe, is virtually impossible) and was asking a legitimate, school-girl question of discovery!

Okay, look. Here’s the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

See Christine? It says RIGHT THERE that Congress can’t make any laws having to do with an establishment of religion, just like Chris said. So I guess the answer to your question is, “Yeah! That’s in the First Amendment! Didn’t you know that? You who claims to be such a stickler for the Constitution?!”

When the debate was over, O’Donnell refused to answer reporters’ questions on the subject, but her campaign manager, Matt Moran, later issued a statement saying that O’Donnell wasn’t questioning the concept of separation of church and state. "She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution," Moran said.

And she’s right; it doesn’t.

 What started the whole discussion of the First Amendment in the debate was O’Donnell’s question, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”

The words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the Constitution. However, it is there in strong spirit, and the wording of the First Amendment was meant to be interpreted as such. Who says so? An insignificant little man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, that’s who.  (But you Tea Party Constitutional scholars knew that already, didn’t you?)

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, CT in which he stated,

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” – Source: Library of Congress

That sure makes it sound like Jefferson believed that the First Amendment established the separation of church and state to me.

Okay, so , personally, if I have to choose between Christine O’Donnell’s interpretation of the First Amendment  and Thomas Jefferson’s interpretation, I’m afraid I have to side with O’Donnell.

Why? 

Credentials, man, CREfreakingDENTIALS!!!!!

I mean, come on! O’Donnell is a Tea Partier! Ergo, she’s a Constitutional expert! AAAAANNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDD she’s backed by Caribou Barbie herself!
Can Thomas Jefferson even hope to hold a candle to that? Let’s get serious!