On March 22 Reverend Lou Sheldon, Chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), agreed to an interview with John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou on the duo’s radio talk show, The John and Ken Show. Kobylt and Chiampou, notorious for ruthlessly targeting special interest groups, remained true to their reputations throughout the course of this interview-turned-screaming match. Almost immediately prior to hanging up on Reverend Sheldon for the second time, Kobylt raged, “This is the grossest, most disgusting thing that your crowd has ever done, [and just] so that you can get more influence in Washington, so that you can turn this country into some sort of theocracy! […] What, do you want to give us some more propaganda?” Although entertaining, Kobylt’s and Sheldon’s verbal sparring sharply illuminated several of the more distressing issues that our country currently faces.

Reverend Sheldon initially gained public recognition for being an outspoken representative of the TVC’s conservative anti-homosexuality beliefs. More recent recognition (and his presence on the John and Ken Show), however, was a result of his recent grassroots activism in the case of Theresa “Terri” Schiavo. The Florida woman, in a persistent vegetative state, died after Federal and State Courts refused the request for a restraining order that would reinsert her feeding tube after her husband and legal guardian had it removed. During the battle over Mrs. Schiavo’s end-of-life rights, Reverend Sheldon entreated Christian conservatives to make donations to the TVC in order to further the cause of promoting a “culture of life,” wherein “all lives have infinite value in the eyes of God.”

In referencing the “culture of life,” Reverend Sheldon joined a recent rhetorical trend that has swept the media and snuck its way into common political discourse. Since the beginning of President George W. Bush’s first term in office, and especially over the past month, this once-inspirational ideal, originally articulated by the late Pope John Paul II, has metamorphosed into an empty political buzz-phrase narrowly defined to include anti-abortion, anti-cloning and stem cell research, anti-euthanasia partisan stances, and absolutely nothing else. Bush has adopted the “culture of life” super-slogan in his efforts to promote his conservative agenda in such a way that it appeals to the feeling, emoting, and unthinking masses. But in spite of its glaring (and much berated) hypocrisy, exploitation of this political pop phrase is a brilliant, albeit manipulative, move.

To begin with, the very use of the term “culture of life” in reference to Terri Schiavo’s situation directly links end-of-life battles such as her battle to pre-natal battles, causing people to associate the two distinct issues. It thus contains an intentional self-reference to the anti-abortion or pro-life stance held by most conservatives. This is no conspiracy theory. In fact, after Mrs. Schiavo’s death, Vice President Dick Cheney commented that “she has become an important symbol. This is an area of considerable debate in this country, the whole notion of the culture of life, what kind of regard we should have for human life and how should we regulate activities that touch on that... This affects everything from the abortion issue to cloning to questions of what happens at the end of life.”

Furthermore, on the President’s official government website, , there exists a 19-chapter record of President George W. Bush’s achievements, the fifteenth chapter of which is titled “Promoting a Culture of Life.” This chapter boasts about Bush signing the legislation to end partial-birth abortion, passing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, passing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, banning human cloning, and restoring the Mexico City Act. (Personally, I find this last one the scariest of all, because it “states that taxpayers’ funds should not be provided to organizations that pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortions, either in the United States or abroad”—i.e. Planned Parenthood).

So the “culture of life” is nothing new. However, until Mrs. Schiavo’s story became nationally known, it had never before been applied to end-of-life or euthanasia battles in such an aggressive way.

Upon news of Mrs. Schiavo’s death, President Bush urged “all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life.” Additionally, in a more recent statement concerning the death of Pope John Paul II, President Bush commented, “He showed us the path to a culture of life where the dignity of every human person is respected, and human life at all its stages is revered and treasured.”

Frank Rich, in his column, “A Culture of Death, Not Life” featured on the April 9 Op-Ed page of the New York Times, notes that these are mighty strong words for a President whose terms thus far in office have witnessed an increase in the number of “infant mortalities, AIDs cases and war casualties.” Furthermore, during the Schiavo ordeal, President Bush reminded us that “the essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak,” and that “in cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.” Again, these statements seem a tad hypocritical coming from a president who supports the death penalty, has attempted to dismantle Medicare, provides insufficient funding (or cuts funding altogether) for social services, and supports legislation that allows for the private sales of AK-47s in the United States.

Certainly the promotion of a true “culture of life” is an honorable idea grounded in a respectable value-system. However, the clear inconsistencies in the President’s asserted aim to build a “culture of life” and his actual policies suggest that he is simply politicizing a catchy euphemism in order to garner support from unlikely sources. Considering the fact that a CBS News poll showed 82% of the American public in disapproval of Congress and the President’s intervention in the Schiavo case, it seems there must exist an even deeper meaning behind the empty metaphors and essentially meaningless rhetoric.

As frightening as it is, perhaps John Kobylt from the John and Ken Show was onto something. His assertion that the religious right is trying to “turn this country into some sort of theocracy,” although seemingly paranoid, unfortunately has some basis in fact.

By disguising the real situation with euphemisms and misleading evaluative terms (such as the aforementioned “culture of life” or Mrs. Schiavo’s “disabled” as opposed to “persistently vegetative” state), President Bush and his cronies are successfully weakening the separation of church and state. By using these phrases, staunchly religious politicians distract the public from the content of their messages, which, stripped of flourishes, contain claims that “even the least among us bears the image of our Creator,” and “we need common sense judges who understand that our rights are derived from God.” (Both, by the way, are quotes from the President himself.) Similarly, Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay commented that “one thing that God has brought us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what’s going on in America.”

This theory is only too well supported by America’s recent domestic agenda. Since 2001, the United States government has provided funding for faith-based initiatives. Also, President Bush has called on Congress to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman—a distinctly religious belief. Furthermore, in response to the issue of teenage pregnancy, President Bush’s “abstinence initiative” has doubled the funding for abstinence-only education programs. What could be the reason behind this initiative when, in the past, such abstinence-only education programs have so drastically failed to prevent teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs? It seems that the only explanation behind such short-sighted legislation is that its basis is in religious belief rather than careful politicking.

Still, not all Republicans are accepting the “culture of life” rhetoric, and it thus seems unlikely that this hypothetical-religious push will gain the momentum it needs to succeed. For example, former Representative Bob Barr, R-Ga, argued against Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case. “To simply say that the ‘culture of life,’ or whatever you call it means that we don’t have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint,” Barr commented.

My greatest fear is that ultimately this misleading rhetoric will lead to the belief that faith is a prerequisite for values. Are we heading in a direction where the moral high-ground is automatically the religious one, and where non-believers are left to defend positions that the general public automatically disregards as arbitrary because they are not based in religious dogma? At the beginning of his interview on The John and Ken Show, Reverend Lou Sheldon asserted that “the culture of death is trying to take precedence over a culture of life.” I fear that someday, given that this “culture of life” rhetoric continues, this propagandized misconception will become accepted as fact.