Dan Porter First Blog

Hello everyone,
I thought I'd start off my first post with a taste of what's to come. Before I launch into any controversial discussion I thought it necessary that everyone know a little of my background.

I was raised without religion although both of my parents were raised Christian. We had many traditions like Christmas and Easter that were religious in origin, but secular in their practice.

I have never prayed.

I went to elementary and middle school in an area that could be described as "white suburbia." about 80% of my class could be described as "white protestant" and many of them went to the same Church. During this period I experienced much prejudice at the hands of the faithful, although this may well be held to the fact that middle-school kids are notoriously vicious when it comes to difference. As a result, I was bitterly against religion for most of high school until I gained several close friends who were devoutly religious and convinced me that not all Christians were as narrow-minded as my schoolyard tormentors.

Towards the end of high school and beginning of college I began to look more critically at the idea of religion and its influences. I proclaimed myself agnostic with the following reasoning:
1) There is no sufficient proof or disproof for God.
2) There is no sufficient indication of God. (Something that has been proven to occur and is proven to be unexplainable by science or any other school of thought)
3) Since there are thousands of theological views and no proof to indicate that one or more is true (or even more accurate than another), I cannot reasonably think or act on any religious teaching or belief.
4) Barring the "sacred," I have since turned to a wholly secular morality. Essentially a more complex view of the golden rule, I try not to engage in actions that do harm to others (I may elaborate more on this form of morality later, as it may require several pages to fully explain).

Because the stability of society requires one to follow rules (even if one does not believe them to be "right"), I have not engaged in many of the activities I might in a void of Judeo-Christian law (on which our society is founded). Despite behaving in a way that is by most standards totally acceptable in our society, my beliefs in what is right and wrong would be considered radical by many.

To prepare the class for the types of commentary I might engage in later in the semester, I thought it necessary to explain that nothing is wrong in my morality unless there is a secular basis for it. That is to say that no religious or societal tradition has bearing on what I believe is right or wrong. This is not to say that I do not practice societal tradition, just that I don't believe that all of our laws and values have an objective moral basis (if such a thing even exists).

Here are some examples of my beliefs, however radical, within the realm of what might be considered "wrong" or "deviant" sexual actions (I chose the topic of sexuality since Geoff posted on Homosexual rights and because within the realm of psychology, sexual behavior is highly influenced by societal and religious influences):
1) Consensual sex is never wrong unless one party is not in the mental state to make a proper decision (by virtue of intoxication, age, developmental handicap, insanity, disease, or otherwise). As long as neither party was harmed (physically or mentally) in the encounter (or in the case of S&M, neither party was hurt physically more than they so desired), no form of sex, including homosexuality is wrong.
2) Polygamy is not morally wrong, provided that all parties are in consent. Some may argue with this on the basis that in many instances in history, this practice was only used when women were considered property or as a sign of status. This argument is fallacious in the same way that citing Russian communism to disprove Marxist ideals is false. While in the past polygamy has been practiced in ways that are degrading or socially harmful to women, there is no reason why it could not be practiced as a means of offering romantic or sexual freedom to those that would otherwise be "tied" to a single person. In my opinion it is possible to love two spouses equally the same way it is possible to love two parents or several children equally (although the type of love is different).
3) Along the same vein as the above, the concept of "cheating" on a spouse or lover is not inherently wrong unless doing so would conflict with a previously stated agreement not to have relations outside the couple. "Cheating" only does harm if there was a pre-existing expectation of a monogamous relationship; what we might have called "going steady" in grade school. However, in our society, this expectation is the rule, not the exception. Thus, in order for a person in a relationship to seek romance outside of the pair, they must first clear it with their partner. If both parties understand the ground rules, there is nothing inherently wrong with an open relationship.

I believe that the concepts outlined above are only considered wrong in our society because of its religious tradition. In other cultures, these ideas might not seem at all radical. For instance homosexuality was much more acceptable in ancient Rome, polygamy is accepted in many tribal cultures, and open yet still long-term relationships can still exist healthily (for example exploratory wife-swapping among close friends).

These things are accepted by some in our society and frowned upon by others. Some people who I have debated these things with over the years have made comments like "I don't know why, but its just wrong" by which I conclude that the Judeo-Christian tradition is so entrenched in our society that even the non-religious still uphold a similar value system.

I open the debate for people to discuss this:
Which, if any, parts of your morality are secular but may have sprung from the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Cheers,
-Dan