Prager The Moderate?

 

Is Dennis Prager an advocate of the moral philosophy of moderation, like I am, or does it just seem that way, or that his commitment to temperate living is implicit or semi-moderate? I think it is semi-moderate at least.

 

Here are two examples to support my thesis that Prager is a moderate, though he has never confessed to being one.

 

First, he offers his biblical analysis of the Old Testament referring to his exegesis as rational.

 

From my theological stance, a moderate religious believer emphasizes rational guidance of worship, so the faith does not become too emotional, enthusiastic or sentimental. Some faith and passion are acceptable, even advantageous, but thinking and logic keep the effort on target.

 

Second, Prager notes that there are a lot of bad people in the world doing wicked things. (I might add that there are more bad people than good people living at any time in human history, in each successive generation.)

 

He notes that there is much evil in the world and that people are not naturally good but must be taught to behave well. This true.

 

Then, he goes on for years as to what people need to be happy. He notes that only a person that is happy and grateful can be a good person. I agree.

 

Then he pointed out on his radio show the other day that the world is a sad, evil place, with much natural suffering and unnatural suffering (malevolence) hurting millions of people every day. Prager wants us to believe in and know God, and work to raise children that are ethically good for their personal sake, and for the world’s sake.

 

Children that become good adults fight evil, by not being evil, and by opposing evil people, evil policies and evil programs or trends.

 

He argues that this duty from God to fight evil in this world could make one depressed, exhausted, and shorn of hope, but we have a duty not to despair.

 

Prager suggests that we be as happy and grateful towards God and Being each day, even while fighting forces of evil and darkness.

 

One must be a good, happy person so that one is resilient and positively oriented to be able to sustain a lifelong battle against evil, and the happy person is not much tainted by the world’s evil, though he knows about it and does not deny its prevalence and power here on earth.

 

Prager is implicitly moderate when, on one hand, he exhorts the moral adult to see evil in the world and to fight it—mostly by battling one’s own nature, thereby not allowing the self to become a locus of wickedness, and, on the other hand, he counsels that only the happy, grateful adult is able to fight evil and prevail. This is a nuanced approach, and I approve of most of his moral argument.