Prager’s point is quite correct in that Nazism and Communism have never arisen in a Judeo-Christian nation. And that hasn’t happened because the foundations of those systems is in conflict with Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Have you read Marx? If so, how else can you consider the flavor of Communism he birthed anything but secular?
Of course Marxism is secular.
My point is that Marxism and Communism are characterized by much more important things than their anti-religious elements. Lenin and Stalin butchered millions of people for reasons that had nothing to do with their or Marx's views of religion. They were murdered because they refused to give up their land and homes to the state. I happen to believe that Nazism and Communism were very bad things but the reasons why have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with Marxism and Totalitarianism.
My problem with Prager is that, by inference, he is equating secularism with Nazism and Communism. That is simply a gross over simplification and, by inference, paints religion as the only alternative to totalitarianism.
B.S. Hilter wasn't an Atheist, he was a Christian.
Too avoid the pointless arguments and the no true Scotsman Fallacy. Even if he wasn't Germany was a very Christian country when Hilter was allowed to take over and it was Christians who carried out his orders.
As for Communism, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Poland, etc.
And that hasn’t happened because the foundations of those systems is in conflict with Judeo-Christian beliefs.
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:34-36)
Sound exactly like, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"