Dat Banner

A lot of folks are shocked at this, wondering how an exemplar of Judeo-Christian values could hold this view. This is an excellent learning opportunity, because there is a perfectly logical explanation for Prager's perspective on why animated child p0rn isn't immoral: He's Jewish. This is a great lesson on why the concept of "Judeo-Christian ethics" is a misnomer and conflates two contradictory, oppositional ethical systems that couldn't be further apart. Learning opportunity! I'll explain. The first thing you must grasp is that Rabbinic Judaism formed for half a millennium AFTER Christianity developed and its canon closed, and largely in *response* to Christianity and oppositional to it. Its ethical teachings are derived from the traditions of the Pharisee sect, which are at times hostile to Christian values and often contradictory to them. That being so, Rabbinic ethics are often at odds with Mosaic teachings, from which Christian ethics are largely derived. Historic Christianity teaches that sin is fundamentally an offense against God's holy nature. People are harmed because sin first violates who God is. As a result, its ethical discussions often focus on inherent right and wrong and immutable moral standards based upon God Himself. Rabbinic Judaism tends to define sin more as disrupting justice within the covenant community. As a result, its ethical discussions often focus on concrete harm to people, restitution, and legal obligations. This stems from the Talmud's legal orientation. Rather than asking, "How does this offend God's nature?" it more often asks, "Which commandment was broken? Who was harmed? What restitution is required?" So while Rabbinic Judaism certainly recognizes sins against God (like idolatry or Sabbath-breaking), its moral reasoning often emphasizes observable human harm far more than historic Christian theology, which roots all morality in the character of God Himself. This is why, for example, Jewish Temu-Sharia, Halakha Law, is a two-tiered system of justice, with one punishment for harming goyim, and another for harming Jews. In Christianity, it doesn't matter who you kill or rape. It's equally sinful because it's a sin against the character of God. In Rabbinic Judaism, WHO you harm determines the severity of the sin. Even in Israel today, the Knesset voted to make killing a Jew in Israel a capital offense, but not a Gentile. That passed just this year. It's inconceivable in the Christian world, but in Jewish ethics, that makes certain sense. Prager, therefore, is just being consistent. Unless it harms a specific person, it's not a sin. A Jew thinks, "Who is due restitution?" If no one is harmed, it cannot possibly be immoral. When you factor in other differences in morality between the "Judeo" and the "Christian" - for example, Rabbinic Judaism's explicit denials of the Imago Dei - you can see how much work that hyphen is actually doing. For example, consider this from Pirkei Avot 3:10: "Anyone with whom people are pleased, God is pleased; anyone with whom people are not pleased, God is not pleased." Can you imagine that wiggling through to the Christian ethical system? Absolutely not. Some Christians wonder why Rabbinic Jews are so overwhelmingly in favor of abortion. But their religion teaches that the Torah - the first five books of the Bible( (which include God's Moral Law) are subject to "human dignity": "Great is human dignity, for it overrides a prohibition of the Torah" (Berakhot 19b). Rabbinic Judaism even teaches that it's a bigger deal to sin against other people than God Himself: "For transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person" (Yoma 8:9). This is why Rabbinic Judaism really is a lawyer's religion. It's one big series of loopholes to be creatively exploited to evade God's standards. No real human offended? No restitution to pay? No victim besides God Himself? He doesn't count. It doesn't matter.