A friend sent me a copy of this year’s American Family Action Pac political questionnaire. Rather than characterize it, I decided to let it speak for itself. (The odd numbering and format are original.)
Indiana Family Action PAC 2012 Questionnaire for State Candidates
Please circle the response that most accurately reflects your position on the following issues.
(SF=Strongly Favor; F-Favor; U=Undecided; O=Oppose; SO=Strongly Oppose; Y=Yes; N=No)
- 1. Education – Protect and expand parental choice options provided in current law to allow all parents
the opportunity to receive a voucher to send their children to any public, private, religious or home
school of their choice. SF F U O SO
- Education – Allow parents dedicated to their children’s education to home-school their children
without imposing additional state regulations, other than that which is already required in state law. SF F U O SO
3. Education – Redefine “bullying” so that students who express opposition to the public promotion of
homosexuality in public schools will be guilty of “bullying” if they offend students who have taken
on a homosexual identity. SF F U O SO
4.Academic Liberty – The teaching of evolution is currently an educational requirement for teachers in
Indiana public schools. Protect Indiana teachers within state law so that they can also discuss the
problems and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. SF F U O SO
5.Business – Some Indiana cities have increased regulations on businesses by adding “sexual orientation” and
“gender identity” to the list of protected classes that get special rights. State law does not require businesses
to treat these groups as protected classes. Require all levels of government to recognize the list
of specially protected classes within state law in order to give businesses uniform regulations. SF F U O SO
6. Faith – Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior. I believe the God of the Bible is sovereign
over all of life, including public policy, and I will use biblical principles to guide how I vote. Y N
7. Homosexual agenda – Change state discrimination law to protect an employee’s sexual
preferences in the same way that race, religion, age, gender and ancestry are protected. SF F U O SO
8. Marriage – Increase the time a married couple with minor children must wait for a divorce
(current law is 60 days) in order to give them a longer opportunity to work toward reconciliation. SF F U O SO
9. Marriage – Amend the Indiana Constitution as follows: “Only a marriage between one (1) man
and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” SF F U O SO
10. Abortion – Prohibit abortion by law except when the life of the mother is in danger. SF F U O SO
11. Abortion – As the medical abortion field explodes (abortion pills like RU486), make Indiana law apply
the same standards for dispensing abortion pills as it does for surgical abortions (i.e., define it in the law,
require licensing and regulatory standards, require key health and safety standards, and require
informed consent/patient information standards). . SF F U O SO
12. Taxes – Increase state taxes in order to provide more services. SF F U O SO
13. Taxes – Discontinue all direct and indirect state support of the Kinsey Institute
(controversial “sex research” organization in Bloomington, IN) SF F U O SO
14. Gambling – Prohibit Casinos in Indiana. SF F U O SO
15. Sex industry – Require strip clubs to close at midnight and make them ineligible for
Liquor licenses. Require dancers to remain at least 6 feet away from customers at all times. SF F U O S
Anyone who “favors” numbers 5, 7 and 12 will clearly be opposed; the language of the others–especially #6–is simply jaw-dropping. These folks are the ones with an “agenda”– and it is anti-science, anti-gay, anti-sex and deeply, profoundly un-American.
When the American Family folks endorse someone, remember that these are the positions that candidate has promised to support.
As another friend put it–so many Christians, so few lions….
2 thoughts on “Speaking of “Agendas””
The “odd numbering” you mention at the top refers to the first two questions bearing the number “1”, followed by a “3”, and then the order continues as most educational systems teach.
It may be that the initial redundancy and skipping of the number “2” may have some kind of theological significance (or maybe a religiously based home schooling technique). Or maybe its meant to subliminally prepare the reader to agree with the “1 man 1 woman” first sentence of the constitutional amendment outlined in question 9.
Beyond that, who knows why then number “2” has been shunned? Maybe they snuck in another constitutionalo amendment not “recognizing” it when nobody was paying attention.
Why is there such a preoccupation with pounding the table that those opposed to a respective stance must be comprehensively extreme? That the most fervent, violent, vocal, and foaming-at-the-mouth must represent an entire united front of ideological opposition?
All Muslims must be terrorists because some extemists fly planes into towers? All Democrats must be economically detached from reality because some believe any benefit for the masses has to be affordable? It absolutely has to be right to attempt biological parental reunifications, ad infinitum, even if they haven’t been working out to the betterment of the child?
What if we looked at the issues, candidates, and political parties and made our choice based on the historical reality of human behavior (dare we call this “common sense”)? What if instead of being surprised that off-shore drilling quality standards deteriorate without rigorous inspection, or that health care expansion will cost twice as much as originally estimated- what if we anticipated and prepared for the worse case scenario: That human beings and particularly our public servants are as suspectible to the intoxication of greed and power as the rest of us?
There is a vast middle of America that doesn’t perceive racism, hatred, or elitism, as much as one “lesser evil” seeming to slightly have a better grip on reality and maybe be a tad less corruption. Historically. Currently. This week. We’re talking slight here.
Sometimes that’s about the most emphatic choice we have available
Comments are closed.