I'm not trying to be argumentive. My being right, or anyone who took issue with you, is not nearly so important as clarity on this subject. Thus, Do you really feel that what you wrote here comports well with this thematically related assesment of the human condition?
Why would you, or anyone else for that matter, care about my opinion if yours rises no further than to say "You're wrong" or to use label-think such as "pagan"? My response to this sort of non-argument will always be "back at you" or "go elsewhere".
As to substance, if you believe that people are fundamentally evil, that is what you will see. The problem with this belief is that the evidence does not support your case. If evil were not the exception, there would be only Saddam Husseins. Your life experience and mine belie the idea that evil rules, and if it does not rule, why should it be considered fundamental to human nature? At the ideational level, why do we all so respect those who exhibit strength of character such as honor, courage and selflessness? And please don't deny that we do. If evil were predominant or in some way fundamental, would it not be the other way around? I would argue that see good as fundamental is realistic and in accord with the evidence, not pie-in-the-sky or self-deception.
Beyond this, I would argue that evil is a choice we may make because were it not so, Free Will would not truly be free and we could not learn from it, which I would maintain is the reason for Free Will. If Free Will were not operative, we would all be living in a cold, dead, deterministic, pointless Universe. The Materialists end up there and the fruits of this thinking are everywhere to be seen in the culture today. Now all of this is pretty broad-ranging but you can see that there is more than a little thought contained in my position that evil is not fundamental and that Prager is thus wrong in this instance.