Does Dennis Prager understand the Torah?
Dear Mr Smith,
Forgive me for so many letters - there’s a lot going through my head. Please allow me to address this glitch in the matrix today…
Last year Jordan Peterson released his ‘Exodus’ series, in which he and a panel of enthusiasts discussed the book and its truths and implications. However, just recently a clip from the series has gone viral, in which conservative commentator Dennis Prager attempts to justify the consumption of pornography and the downplay the role of the individual’s heart posture.
This may seem like a meaningless side-note in the broader discussion, but I believe it highlights a crucial flaw in Prager’s thinking, and indeed the thinking of all who downplay or dismiss the role of intent and the position of the individual heart. If this indeed is a belief held by many so-called conservatives, then this is a major problem that will cause issues in the future if left unaddressed.
HEART VS ACTIONS
The conversation in question was in relation to lust vs action on lust (adultery). The obvious consensus was that adultery is wrong, and indeed all evil actions are wrong. However, when it came time to discuss lust (or any evil intent of the heart) the opinions shifted. While most seemed to be against the idea of lust as acceptable, Dennis Prager - with all of his apparent knowledge on Torah and the Talmud - stated that he ‘did not care’ about what someone thought, but rather how they acted. This is evidently shallow, and fails to account for a primary element of the human condition.
Now to begin with, Prager’s take is not only one-dimensional in its presentation of the human being, but also falls short on the empirical side of things. To briefly tie this to a comment he made in regards to pornography consumption; Prager claims that pornography is fine so long as it doesn’t effect intimacy with your partner, and is even more justified if it is ‘a substitute for adultery’. He ties this in with the claim that men want variety, which is true. However, he clearly fails to see how the issues he is describing are direct consequences of a corrupted heart. Adultery, and indeed lust and sex, are not uncontrollable automatic animalistic compulsions, but can be controlled if one acknowledges their own heart. But of course, if one views themselves as nothing more than a body of impulses which must be fulfilled, then nothing is too far off limits. This is not even beginning to explore the fact that pornography is destructive on an empirically observable neurological basis, but I believe the point has been made.
Prager gives an example to ‘justify’ his position, claiming that he knew a man who’s wife had alzheimers for fifteen years. During this time, the man was faithful and just, yet required porn to fulfil his ‘sexual desire’. This is faulty thinking. Firstly, what is ‘sexual desire’, and what justifies its existence? Will this man die or suffer if he cannot ‘fulfil’ it? How does it differ from a desire for vengeance, for example? It doesn’t. It is an impulse which can be controlled, and this stems from the willingness of the heart.
FREEDOM VS LAW
Prager was initially subscribed to Modern Orthodox Judaism, but has since distanced himself (perhaps to gain ‘intellectual’ points amongst atheists) from this sect. I am unaware of his current leaning but it sounds like he has a confused take on the Torah. Indeed, he has much head knowledge regarding the Hebrew language and its meanings, alongside his ability to recite scripture. But despite this, he is unable to see the overarching narrative within the Torah and the Prophets, and this is evident in his view on actions…
Actions are important, but when we ignore motive and heart inclinations to focus purely on actions and outcomes, then we deny our capacity for freedom (i.e. we are just driven by urges without any real freedom of choice). Religious sects which do not consider the quality of the individual heart but only the action of the individual are more likely to tend toward ‘law’ rather than ‘freedom’. This eventually results in state-mandated religious action and so forth. This was the case with the Church during the Middle Ages, and is commonplace amongst Jewish and Islamic movements. One conversation I had with an Islamic man reflected this; he believed that freedom in the west was negative, since it allowed for the propagation of sin and evil. Indeed he was technically correct, but a call for religious rule and order also wouldn’t solve the problem.
The position of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages mirrored this. The belief was that people needed to be forced into line, and since they couldn’t act wrongly, they were therefor kept from being ‘bad people’. This is false, since actions are only one strata of the truth. Even with evidence, how is it that after a millennia of Catholic rule, a few short decades is all it took before Europe was thrown into unprecedented chaos time and time again?
SOLZHENITSYN VS PRAGER
In contrast to Prager’s rather shallow interoperation of good and evil actions, Alexsander Solzhenitsyn - someone who witnessed far more evil than Prager ever has - came to the conclusion that each heart is plagued by evil to some extent, but that good can triumph over these evil inclinations. The oscillation between good and evil was an engine driving the Soviet Union, the purges, and the gulags, and indeed what lead to practically all large scale destruction.
From the posture of the heart flows the actions of the individual. I believe this to be true. Viktor Frankl, who is something like the World War II equivalent of Solzhenitsyn, also seems to have observed this as he saw peoples actions mirroring their desires and quests for meaning. Solzhenitsyn’s points stand strong; the inclinations of the heart must be considered in all individuals, since these are the root cause of evil action. If this is not understood, then there is a serious problem.
What then about a controlled, over-policed society. Are the citizens of such a society ‘good people’ simply because they cannot act on their evil compulsions? No. Within such a society are mass murders, thieves, and so forth. Among them may be someone with the same compulsions as Pol Pot or Mao. The only difference is that they have not yet been given the opportunity to manifest.
TORAH AND PROPHETS
What the Hebrew writings highlight is in opposition to what Prager claims to believe. While Prager essentially believes in a materialistic and empirical understanding of good and evil (which, as I highlighted, fails even on that strata) the very writings which he gets this from stand in opposition to him. The Torah outlines the nature of freedom, lust, and the compulsions of the heart (Genesis 1-3), making it evident that freedom only works if ones heart is pure, and that fear of wrongdoing doesn’t stop the eventual propagation of evil. This helps differentiate deliberate ill-intent from misplaced actions.
The writings regarding the Prophets make this even more evident; the evil actions of the Israelites result in them being exiled and punished time and time again. But action is shown to be the end result of a failure to fill the heart with goodness. As if it couldn’t be more obvious, the voice of God speaks through Hosea regarding action and motive, saying “I don’t want your sacrifices - I want your love, I don’t want your offerings - I want you to know me” (Hosea 6:6). And again, in the book of 1 Samuel the voice of God speaks “do not consider his appearance or height, for I have rejected him; the LORD does not see as a man does. For man sees the outward appearance, but the LORD sees the heart.”
These are writings which - unlike the New Testament - are accepted by Prager as truth. However, despite all of his head knowledge, at the core of things he does nothing more than exemplify the very attitude and problems that the prophets were sent to address. Clearly he cannot see this, he misses the point of his own scripture, as did many of the Pharisees and Sadducees when Jesus was after their hearts, not just their actions.
Sincerely yours,
O’Brien
Good post, I'll offer some nuance that I think is consistent with its thesis.
I am not a Christian or Jewish theologian, and my natural religious inclinations are Buddhist (though admittedly corrupted through a Western understanding thereof). My own take is that there is a space between thought and action, and a lot happens within that space: a thought can be reinforced to the point where it bears fruit in the form of action, while on the other hand a thought can be released or iteratively weakened through negative feedback, to the point where it eventually disappears.
The question of lust and pornography is a clear application of this principle. Yes, nearly every adult can, from time to time, experience a transient feeling of lust. It isn't a good idea to pretend that never happens. But *feeding* that lust is another matter. The more the monster is fed, the stronger it grows, until it eventually prompts action. The better course is to acknowledge the lustful thought and then release it. The principal message of Buddhism (for me anyway) is that the will is exercised in the decision to feed the beast or starve it. As anyone with sufficient awareness knows, pornography only feeds the beast and leads only to greater and greater vulnerability to lust and its consequences.
I didn’t realize Prager held these opinions. I sensed something was off about him prior to 2020, but couldn’t figure out what it was, so I just quit listening to him.