Bush Christian the Bush Administration\'s

Bush Christian

The Bush Administration's Politicization of Christianity

State and Church are, by constitutional law, intended to remain separate. And yet, where America's electoral patterns are concerned, it is quite clear that voters tend to respond in one way or another to the presence and invocation of religion or issues related to religious value systems. So would this be proven in 2004, when President George W. Bush sought and gained reelection against challenger and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry by focusing primarily on the religious value system which he claimed to share with many of his supporters. To the point, the Bush Administration would, more than most every late 20th century president before him, place a great and continuing emphasis on his Christianity as a defining factor in his life, his work and his political orientation. His presidency, truly defined by the quagmire which he stimulated in Iraq, and perhaps also by the economic crises which would shadow his waning days in office, would nonetheless be also commandeered under a shroud of Christian piety that would result in his vocal and controversial stand on such issues as gay marriage, stem cell research and faith-based initiatives. These areas would show Bush to be dedicated even to the extent of weathering harsh criticism by civil rights groups and constitutional advocacy groups to imposing his Christian values on Americans through his office.

Increasingly, political parties are demonstrated to have a clear relationship to religious proclivities. As the Campbell (2007) text denotes, "instead of religious denomination, the parties are divided by religious devotional style -- that is, a way of being religious. People who are more devout -- regardless of denomination -- are more likely to favor the GOP." (Campbell, 1) it is almost as if this would be the primary electoral consideration providing for Bush's policy priorities and courtship of constituency. Uniquely, the relationship described by Campbell between religious and political affiliation tends to allow those in the devout category to overlook such considerations as suitability to office and performance effectiveness in favor of common religious value systems.

Such would be the circumstance which helped him to win reelection in 2004 in spite of the widespread discontent among many Americans over the job he had done to that juncture. In many ways, Bush was a very unpopular sitting president, with perceptions that his economic policies were tilted to benefit the wealthy and with views that he had mishandled the process of entering and the period of fighting the war in Iraq helping to make him a seemingly vulnerable candidate in 2004. This seemed even more to be the case when he began the process of pushing in early 2004 for the creation of an amendment that would ban gay marriage. Bush's policy position on this subject would come as no surprise to the American public, which had long known him both as a social conservative and as one at least in verbal orientation fully dedicated to the doctrines of Christianity.

The emphasis placed there within on family values appeared to resonate with the president, who "said he fears that states allowing gay marriage and "activist judges" who are "presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," are threatening the sanctity of marriage. He claims that marriage between a man and woman promotes stability for the sake of children." (Albu, 1) Naturally, this perception would come not from a place of fact or social research but from a belief system constructed by modern Christianity and its close consorts within the political establishment. Chief among these consorts, republican power figures such as President Bush would become crucial in pushing forward a Christian political and social agenda. The implications to the political landscape would be quite significant as well, with the minority population impacted by a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage far outnumbered by the Christian right-wing populations which voiced so strong a support for this ban. Thus, with respect to the proposed ban, it should be considered of importance in evaluating the civil rights implications of the suggested amendment that here the will of a selected and discriminated few would be determined by the imposition of a larger and more empowered political entity. Naturally, this would be directly antithetical to the intentions of the Constitution to protect equal rights in the eyes of the law.

This would also represent a clear and intentional public diversion by the Bush Administration, which seemed focused on bringing up a constitutional amendment with literally no practical chance of receiving congressional passage as a means to changing the subject of political conversation with the approach of an election. Indeed, the propsed ban would insight a considerable amount of oppositional firepower from Democratic lawmakers, who viewed this both as an attack on individual state rights and on civil rights. More than that, few in the political realm were fooled by a misdirection that would work on the public. For instance, in consequence of the proposed ban, "U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton . . . blasted a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, saying President Bush is pushing the initiative to "change the subject" from the economy and the war in Iraq. Speaking in Minneapolis at the ninth annual Rainbow Families Conference, the nation's largest annual event for parents who are gay or lesbian, the Democratic senator said the controversial amendment essentially would legalize discrimination." (SPPP, 1) This is a view that would be shared by civil rights advocacy groups and quite a great many lawmakers, but which would fall on deaf ears where Bush's Christian voting base would be concerned. To this group, there did appear to be an importance in sending a signal to Washington that protection of gay rights would not be tolerated. To his discredit, this is a signal that Bush utilized to his own political advantage and, simultaneously, to the stimulation of the type of prejudice and hatred that are implied by the elevation of this issue.

The degree to which the Bush Administration would, on the basis of religious observation, prove itself out of step with American social progress with the issue of gay marriage may well be only further magnified by his position on stem cell research. Indeed, with the important decision this past month removing the ban which had previously applied to federal funding of stem cell research, President Obama placed himself firmly on the side of science while simultaneously reopening the debate which has persisted between medical and religious communities. To the point, as this discussion will denote, the ban which had initially been put into place was motivated by a sense of the correlation between Christianity, abortion and stem cell research. Today, the divide between camps on this issue seems largely to revolve on the very same axis which separates pro-life and pro-choice Americans. Accordingly, Bazinet (2009) tells that "anti-abortion advocates oppose the research because it involves the use of human embryos, and some fear it could ultimately lead to human cloning. They, along with Bush, instead support the study of pluripotent stem cells, which does not use or destroy human embryos." (Bazinet, 1) as a result, the issue remains deeply entangled with aggressive views on the issue of stem cell research both in its manifestation and in the legal slippery slope which it has seemed to imply concerning federal policies concerning abortion practice and funding.

That notwithstanding, the response to Obama's decision has been uniformly positive amongst those in the medical and scientific community as well as with many sectors of the public. The belief help by many Americans and by many other modern, industrialized nations is that stem cell research may potential unlock the secrets to treating devastating neurologically and physically degenerative diseases, lengthening an improving the quality of life for individuals suffering with a host of ailments which will be addressed hereafter. With this in mind, "stem-cell researchers around the country are celebrating President Obama's decision to reverse restrictions on embyronic stem-cell research, a move they say could lead to dramatic advances in the understanding and treatment of conditions like diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer's. For years, scientists have been frustrated by the restrictions imposed by President George W. Bush in 2001." (Kalb, 1)

Discussions over the implications of genetic alteration, modification, manipulation and cloning have long crowded the bioethical discourse, long before legal considerations would be considered relevant. In 1997, the debate over the concept of stem cell research as a means to treating genetic disease took on a new element of significance, which continues to the present day to be an apt characterization of the level of commitment to the advance of causes on both sides of the issue. This was sparked by the stunning announcement in Edinburgh, Scotland, that genetic scientists had successfully cloned an entire sheep, Dolly, from adult cells, rendering an exact genetic copy. This presented a new realm of possibilities within the framework of cloning, helping us to potentially transcend the debate over embryonic stem cell research, which brings to bear the prickly abortion issue. With the production of Dolly, we also entered a vast technological frontier of possibilities. The cloned sheep "was born after nuclear transfer from a mammary gland cell, the first mammal to develop from a cell derived from adult tissue." Taking a cell containing 98 per cent of the DNA, or its genetic blueprint, from the udder of a six-year-old adult sheep, they fused it to the egg of another sheep to produce a lamb that is virtually an exact copy." (Marsh, 1) Equally as groundbreaking as the creation of the world's first clone was the implication of its process, which indicated that there is a way to employ adult cells, already differentiated and specialized to their own organic functions, in order to fabricate new, un-differentiated genetic material. For researchers battling such diseases as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and paralysis all around the world, such a possibility began to hint at countless opportunities for genetic regeneration as a form of treatment. To the world, the refinement of methods cloning adult stem cells presented nothing less than the prospect of improving human longevity.

As many controversies as this seemed to solve, specifically regarding the actual feasibility of cloning, it seemed to spark just as many. Today, this well-publicized and politicized issue is no closer to resolution, with advocates actively pursing stem-cell research and associated medical concepts such as embryonic stem cell research, somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning and a number of infertility relief methods to be considered herein. In the public, prominent advocates of stem cell research have helped to foster a media impression of the process as a potentially beneficial avenue of medical evolution which must be investigated. Among them, 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry made this a key point of divergence between himself and the incumbent Bush, who would ultimately win a narrow victory to hold his office. Nonetheless, the division touched off widespread public debate in the U.S. And in Europe, where religious opponents of abortion vociferously demanded government action to prevent abuses in scientific experimentation. The other side of the debate was inflated by the high-profile cases of the late actor Christopher Reeve who, paralyzed in a horse-riding accident, became an outspoken supporter of stem cell research and Nancy Reagan, whose husband former President Ronald Reagan endured the affliction of Alzheimer's disease in his remaining years. And with the approach of the 2008 election between Republic candidate John McCain and then-Senator Obama, Parkinson sufferer and well-liked actor Michael J. Fox entered into a very public feud with conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh on the subject, revealing the intense emotions clouding both sides. This also created an ongoing media campaign endorsing increased federal funding for the field.

Religious leaders throughout the world though have had a significant impact on both the way the process is understood and the way that the media reports upon it. Opponents cite the dangers which this movement presents to a myriad of medical, spiritual and practical interests, seeking in various ways to control, limit or eliminate a shift toward popular use of such methods. A consideration is warranted, therefore, of the scientific implications, the political ramifications and the ethical underpinnings inherent to the dilemma over stem cell research. In an evaluation of all these, it becomes evident that stem-cell research, while an as yet unresolved discipline, may point the way to many indispensable medical and scientific opportunities which could better the living standards of mankind. This echoes what is generally purported by the media, the majority of popular opinion and the perceptions of many world leaders outside of the United States. Specifically, it is generally understood that though embryonic stem cell research may always be faced with the pressure of its divisiveness, evidence illustrates that adult stem-cell research may currently be the best means to improving our collective faculties for medical care and the alleviation of human suffering.

At this stage though, the only reliable way to clone adaptable genetic material is to utilize embryonic stem cells. Derived as they are from discarded human embryos, the use of such has ignited ongoing moral quandaries, informed often by religious and political beliefs. This impasse has tied inextricably the stem-cell debate to the abortion debate, causing nations to align legislatively according to institutional views on the right-to-life contest.

In spite of this, there are no internationally proposed laws providing parameters to this unsettled debate. Likewise, there are currently only a few national legislative efforts that have successfully established protection for the embryos which can be harvested for the creation of stem-cell lines. In the United States, for example, President Bush's 2001 withdrawal of the possibility of future funding for such processes would be a major step in preventing future research through the use of embryonic stem cells. The subsequent legislative effort undertaken by Congress to reverse the restrictions created by Bush's 2001 bill, attempting to reflect an apparent public interest in moving forward on the medical possibilities of stem cell research, would result in a presidential veto. For years, this would bering research on embryos to a veritable standstill the U.S. The Congressional bill had sought to alleviate "the presidential limit on the number of embryonic stem-cell lines that can be used in federally funded research. Another promotes research using other forms of stem cells that do not require destroying human embryos. And a third aims to preempt research on embryos from "fetal farms," where human embryos are created for research." (Chaddock, 1) This may have qualified as a positive step of bringing into closer identification U.S. policy with world sentiment and even media comprehension of the issue.

But public policy under the Bush administration had had the effect of seeking to align itself more closely with pro-life movement and Christian Right-Wing voting constituency, where the emphasis is placed on a biblical definition for the sanctity of human life. President Bush's support of limiting parameters around the expansion of stem-cell research was ideologically concurrent with the prevailing views of many of his supporters in the public, in Washington, D.C. And in the lobbyist communities that had rallied around him. Thus, during the last eight years, the nation's policy had taken on a decidedly protectionist approach to the implementation of new and unproved medical technology. It is apparent in America's historical response to stem-cell research that it fears the prospects opened up by the process for the harvesting and exploitation of human embryos as well as the de-legitimization of the human individual through what religious leaders see as the blasphemous endeavor of cloning, in addition to the fears raised about the liberalization of abortion laws.

During the declaredly pro-life Bush Administration, the United States continued its relatively resistant legislative initiative against the expansion of stem-cell research altogether. Running afoul of public opinion, President Bush's decision to veto the aforementioned Congressional Bill, passed by the House of Representatives, indicates that nation's leadership at the time was most concerned with the implications to the world of the medical process's effect on human identity and the protection of the unborn. "By defying the Republican-controlled Congress, which had sent him legislation that would have overturned research restrictions he imposed five years ago, Mr. Bush re-inserted himself forcefully into a moral, scientific and political debate." (Stolberg, 1) This would be, in a sense, one of the most salient attempts to extend the pro-life agenda through the presidential office.

In an article published by the London Times at the time, the Bush veto was taken to task by various public figures. "Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society in London, said that Mr. Bush's veto was "slowing down the global effort to develop therapies for a range of diseases and illnesses . . . that could eventually help millions of patients in the U.S. And the rest of the world." (Reid, 1) it seems at present that the impetus for moving forward in order to improve our overall capacity as a species to treat various medical ailments bears a more populous appeal than do the declaimed moral virtues of restricting the practice.

Still, the previous eight years have been a significant setback to the U.S. As a contributor to the research, with an absence of funding decimating the resources available to practicing research institutions. As Tansey (2009) would denote in the run up to his election, "Obama, even if he changes the policy, may still be powerless to send much more money to stem cell researchers anytime soon because he will be taking office amid a historic global financial crisis. The U.S. government already will have committed a stunning $8 trillion to rescue the financial system." (Tansey, 1) This is the denote that at present, though the political tenor is beginning to shift more to the benefit of stem cell research, there remains a notable set of obstacles before the United States if it is to help push forward the boundaries of medical science. And with great certainty, we may denote that the religious communities and pro-life activists who have created many of these obstacles will continue to do so.

Another victim of Bush's religious prioritizing is the area of public assistance where, as with gay marriage and stem cell funding bans, Bush had selected to steer the public toward values based more in Christian faith than in democratic principle or rational leadership. Though it is traditional for a Republican White House to emphasize state independence from federal funding and, moreover, individual accountability over social welfare, there is a distinction unique to the Bush administration. This typical Republican reluctance to fund public assistance programs is usually tied to an overall policy of fiscal conservatism. No such restraint governs the Bush administration, whose deficits had even elicited vigorous objection from some conservative congressional republicans.

One of the U.S.'s most promising young assistance programs had been AmeriCorps. This organization, created by the Clinton administration, funds the enlistment of volunteers for social programs that help communities in areas such as health, education, public safety and the environment. (Wilhelm, 1) Ironically entitling the reconfiguration of the program the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act, Bush actually used the so-called faith-based initiative to dismantle it. He passed a presidential order designating the bulk of public assistance funding to be channeled through faith-based organizations. Likewise, he required that AmeriCorps seek the greater part of its funding from private organizations in order to lessen its dependence upon the central government for budgeting. As a result, the AmeriCorps program has experienced a 75% reduction in personnel over the course of the Bush administration. (Wilhelm, 1) the diminished emphasis on this successful public assistance agency, like many aspects of the administration, would be grounded in a distinctly religious ideology and a declared intent to use the office of the presidency to extend the influence of Christianity.

The dire situation which would come to face AmeriCorps would help to demonstrate one aspect of this approach that is directly problematic. Namely, the idea that only those assistance groups affiliated with organized religion might be entitled to public funding is inherently discriminatory and also creates the inevitability of exclusion by which individuals and groups in needs are denied public assistance by virtue of their non-affiliation with a particular faith. This cuts to the heart of what was wrong with the Bush Administration. Even more to the point, and consistent with a recurrent theme here, it becomes increasingly clear that the Administration would use the exclusions of its religious priorities to strengthen political and economic goals. To the point, one incident guides us to discredit the Bush Administration's true intentions in the endorsement of faith-based initiatives. Accordingly, "during the Republican Party's 2000 national convention, the Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, heartily endorsed Bush for president in a satellite television uplink from his church. Since that time, Lusk has repeatedly advocated for Bush's "faith-based" initiative that seeks to fund church-run social service programs." (Longley, 1) the head of an African-American church in Philadelphia, he would shortly thereafter -- and also subsequent to expressing an interest in helping to improve Bush's poor performances amongst black voters -- be the recipient of a $1 million faith-based grant. Here, the entanglements between political goals and religious ideology becomes quite pronounced. Quite to the point, the faith-based initiatives would be among the most explicit ways in which the administration would seek to transfer public resources into the hands of decidedly Christian community, activist and lobby groups. As with the issues of gay marriage and stem cell research, we can see a presidency guided by personal value system with far more weight that political theory or philosophical rationality.