As reported by James Bennett at The Atlantic:
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, Romney pollster.Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up. I guess we're free to believe anything we want (which is true) and can never be challenged on whether there is any basis for our beliefs other than what we want to believe (which I'm really worried about).
And what's most troubling is that is pretty much the basis for all religious belief with which I'm fine. I just don't understand how "freedom to believe" works with politics. I guess it works the same way for science as well- which would explain Creationism.
I tried to explain this once with my reference to epistemology - how different processes to knowledge come to us in different contexts for different purposes. And that posting was with a clear intent to explain my religious beliefs and the sources thereof - not exactly from fact checking political statements.
Yet, as I've also explained, my spiritual experiences have to mean something. And not only in a purely subjective sense to myself, but they need to be understood by at least some other human beings who competently function in the world and can accept, or at least understand, what I am expressing.
With regard to politics, I guess if you can just get 50.1% support in enough states with sufficient votes in the Electoral College to choose to believe the same way you do, you too can be president. I just can't avoid the sense that in "freedom to believe," the reality of Truth could be lost.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
Feeling good was good enough for me.~Janice Joplin.