Profiles in Theocracy: Touched by an "Angle"

Rick Santorum, "Jesus Candidate", was endorsed by 150 prominent evangelical leaders today , including hate group leader Tony Perkins. I don't know who all else comprised the 150 Evangelicals, but I imagine this endorsement comes as something of a surprise to TX Gov. Rick Perry, to whom many things probably come as a surprise. After his "Response" shindig last August, I had figured he sewed up the Evangelical support, and I think he might have been counting on that, too. As yet, Perry hasn't gotten much in the way of religious endorsements, but Newt Gingrich has--in the form of Tim LaHaye, a fellow speculative fiction author, and the ghost of Jerry Falwell.

The endorsement of any candidate by religious figures or groups strikes me as a quaint situation that doesn't exactly mesh with the spirit of church/state separation. The leaders and groups aren't necessarily promoting a given candidate from the pulpit per se, but when a candidate gets such an endorsement, it's kind of hard to read it as other than, "We think this candidate is more reflective of our church's values." It can be presumed then, that the endorsement carries the promise of votes by co-religionists. So GOP hopefuls go after those endorsements, which seems to imbue the religious wing of the right with even more influence.  It's like a positive feedback loop. The religious right has influence, so they are courted, so they have more influence, and so on.  But also, an endorsement by some of these figures can also be problematic--John McCain experienced both sides of this issue, first, by rejecting the religious right with his "agents of intolerance" comments in 2000, and then in having in 2008 to renounce the endorsements of  Revs. John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

I don't know if Rick Santorum will be overmuch impressed-upon to renounce the endorsement of the Family Research Council or any similar organizations who are likely to throw in with him due to his long-standing opposition to LGBT* issues.  For what it's worth, whether he accepts such an endorsement or not, I think people who follow LGBT* rights know enough about his record to know not to support him--but it strikes me as curious that to this day, the FRC or the Family Leader or Focus on the Family or any of the little religious right organizations that have turned "family" into a suspect word when used in the name of any institution, might be seen as a valuable endorsement, when in their way, they are as much institutions of bigotry as, say, CCC or Stormfront.

And the reason they still have any real influence would likely be religion--thus, the people who to this day maintain that allowing marriage equality to all, or even granting to all just the simple day-to-day courtesy of not being bullied or threatened with violence and slurs, is viewed by some as a curtailment of the religious freedoms of bigots.  Because they are bigots who vote and donate money to candidates. And that is seen as enough to tolerate their intolerance--and to even welcome it.

I think it would be very positive if the endorsement of, say, a Tony Perkins, poisoned the view the majority of people had of a particular candidate. Then again, I think it would be great if people simply saw a candidate like Santorum as unelectable in the first place due to his extreme views and his ridiculous-sounding justifications for them, without needing an endorsement of anyone else to cement that view.

But right now--the Evangelicals looked at superannuated altar boy Rick Santorum, homophobic See'N'Say and unGoogleable sweater-vest afficionado, and saw a viable candidate with which to rest their hopes.  Their theocratic and homophobic hopes.  And in return, perhaps he will be just a little more viable for a few primary contests more.

They will still have to vote for a Mormon in the general though.

Suckers.