Unmasking an (im)poster

So Damien always brings up interesting things on his blog. Recently he posted about situational ethics. I wondered about his position and a small conversation has ensued. Here's his latest:

"On my post, With All Your Getting, Get Understanding, B. Zeller sought a clarification of my belief in not making decisions until I must:

'Also, just to give a counterpoint, how similar is not carrying around convictions to not deciding whether or not to drink until someone offers you a beer?'

My position is not just similar to your example, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think that creating blanket statements (I will never do x or y) is a bad idea. Here's how my decision-making philosophy works: I gather obligations/devotions/desires through the course of life and when it comes time to decide, I weigh them against each other."

And I decided I'd like to have the glory of posting a reply on my own blog rather than on his comments. So here we go.

I guess I'm not too sure we disagree here; the argument may be simply semantic.

You call the religious obligation a consideration--one of many that enters into any decision. But how is that different from a conviction you carry around? After all, aren't your religious obligations based on a conviction you carry around?

If people have "pre-made" a decision not to drink, isn't that just a very strong consideration--one of many--when the moment of decision actually comes? Their having "pre-made" the decision doesn't destroy any other considerations, it simply strengthens the religious obligation.

I see how you're arguing for open-mindedness here, I'm just not sure that "pre-making" decisions in the way you describe is as closed-minded as one might think.