Mitt Romney and Mormonism - Page 11

Alex · 12-13-2007, 10:05 AM

The reasoning behind the policy is important. Yes, of course, I will complain less volubly if the reasoning produces the answer I prefer, but that is selfish weakness.

As you've rightly pointed out many times in the past, we do not live in a direct democracy but a representative democracy. As a citizen I do not generally get direct input into deciding issues of law and policy. If I did, then it would be easy to say "I don't care how you came to this conclusion, since you agree with me welcome aboard and maybe we'll split on the next one."

So, since single issue confrontation is not possible in our political system (and I don't necessarily think it should be possible, I've argued in defense of it repeatedly as well) it is important for me to know not only that the person I'm voting for agrees with me on key issues but that they have a framework and method for reaching decisions that I feel is reliable in producing future agreement.

I do not view "the bible is the literal word of god and all we need to know about life and behavior is in it" to be such a method. And, if in the end, the only reasons one can give for a policy decision is some form of "somebody wrote it in a book and I trust that person implicitly" then I do not think that sufficient reason to try and impose that decision universally. Great, it works for them, but every aspect of personal morality need not be legislated into a universal one just because you've been elected to office.

12-13-2007, 10:05 AM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	The reasoning behind the policy is important. Yes, of course, I will complain less volubly if the reasoning produces the answer I prefer, but that is selfish weakness. As you've rightly pointed out many times in the past, we do not live in a direct democracy but a representative democracy. As a citizen I do not generally get direct input into deciding issues of law and policy. If I did, then it would be easy to say "I don't care how you came to this conclusion, since you agree with me welcome aboard and maybe we'll split on the next one." So, since single issue confrontation is not possible in our political system (and I don't necessarily think it should be possible, I've argued in defense of it repeatedly as well) it is important for me to know not only that the person I'm voting for agrees with me on key issues but that they have a framework and method for reaching decisions that I feel is reliable in producing future agreement. I do not view "the bible is the literal word of god and all we need to know about life and behavior is in it" to be such a method. And, if in the end, the only reasons one can give for a policy decision is some form of "somebody wrote it in a book and I trust that person implicitly" then I do not think that sufficient reason to try and impose that decision universally. Great, it works for them, but every aspect of personal morality need not be legislated into a universal one just because you've been elected to office.
	Submit to Quotes