The lockdown, Evangelicals and the afterlife … a response to Steven Pinker
By: Dennis Prager
This article is right on regarding the topic it covers. Atheism is unsophisticated arrogance. People wanting to restart the economy are good people. There is an afterlife.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Harvard professor of psychology Steven Pinker tweeted last week:
"Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion, since it devalues actual lives and discourages action that would make them longer, safer, and happier. Exhibit A: What's really behind Republicans wanting a swift reopening? Evangelicals."
Before responding to Pinker's remarkably ignorant tweet, I want to praise him. He is one of the few professors in America to call out the left's destruction of our universities. Most human beings lack courage, but no group is more cowardly than academics. This has been true for 100 years. From the German universities to today, professors have almost never taken a position that required courage. Indeed, one might say that when you send your child to college, your child is taught to be a coward by the cowardly.
Two years ago, Pinker wrote:
"Universities are becoming laughing stocks of intolerance, with non-leftist speakers drowned out by jeering mobs, professors subjected to Stalinesque investigations for unorthodox opinions, risible guidelines on 'microaggressions' [such as saying 'I believe the most qualified person should get the job'], students mobbing and cursing a professor who invited them to discuss Halloween costumes, and much else. These incidents have drawn worldwide ridicule, and damage the credibility of university scientists and scholars when they weigh on critical matters, such as climate change."
It takes courage for a professor to write that our universities are "laughing stocks of intolerance," that they engage in "Stalinesque investigations" and draw "worldwide ridicule."
Having praised Pinker, let me now respond to his tweet.
First, "Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion ... "
I am not a Christian, evangelical or otherwise. I am a religious Jew who has written and lectured extensively on the afterlife. My belief in the afterlife is based entirely on a logical argument: If there is a just God, it is axiomatic there is an afterlife. There is little justice and fairness in this life, so if there is a just God, there has to be an afterlife. There is only one honest atheist response to this: "There is no God, so there is no afterlife. But if there is a God, you are right that there must be an afterlife."
So, belief in an afterlife is no more a "delusion" than belief in God. But it takes an unsophisticated arrogance to dismiss belief that the world has a designer and that intelligence must be created by intelligence as a "delusion." I was disappointed in Pinker, who I respect for his courageous comments and with whom I have dialogued on my radio show. His tweet reveals a truly shallow atheism.
In fact, I would argue that it is atheism that is a "malignant delusion."
Regarding the delusion part, I asked one of America's leading thinkers of the last half-century, the late Charles Krauthammer, a secular agnostic, what he thought of atheism. To my surprise, he responded:
"I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality."
And as regards the "malignant" charge, while there are, obviously, good individuals who are atheist, atheism is morally worthless. It makes no moral demands, whereas Judaism and Christianity posit a God who demands people obey, for example, the Ten Commandments. Atheism demands nothing; it only destroys the Judeo-Christian bases of morality in Western civilization, the civilization that gave the world democracy, liberty, women's equality and an end to slavery.
In fact, evangelical Christians are the greatest defenders of Western civilization, while Pinker's atheist colleagues at Harvard and elsewhere are the most active opponents of Western civilization. How does Pinker explain that? Which exactly is the "malignant delusion"?
Finally, evangelical Christians and other religious opponents of the continuing lockdown do not oppose continuation of the irrational, fear-driven, life-destroying lockdown -- projected to result in more deaths worldwide and even in parts of America than the coronavirus itself -- because of our belief in the afterlife. This is both stupid and a smear. It shows how even a Steven Pinker can be rendered foolish by atheism.
No one who actually knows evangelicals believes they oppose continuation of the lockdown because they value life less than secular proponents of continuing this lockdown.
Do evangelicals love their children and grandchildren less than atheists? Do evangelicals not do everything possible to save lives? There are evangelical hospitals and doctors serving in the poorest countries in the world. Where are the atheist hospitals?
Evangelicals oppose the continuing of the lockdown because they, more than any other large community in America, continue to believe in freedom. Without the evangelical community, we will no longer have liberty. From before the birth of America, liberty has been the cornerstone belief because it was a cornerstone Christian value. The founders engraved a liberty-affirming verse from the Bible (Leviticus 25:10) in the Liberty Bell. At the same time, from Lenin to Soros and today's Democratic Party, liberty has never been a left-wing value.
To Pinker and his colleagues, Patrick Henry's famous plea, "Give me liberty, or give me death," the foundational principle of our republic, must sound truly foolish. It must have been the product of a malignant delusion.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
Without even checking I can surmise this is Dennis Prager.
The interesting about Prager is that he always poses himself as the voice of authority.
There is NO ONE alive or who has ever lived that knows there is an afterlife. The only way to prove there is an afterlife comes after one is dead.
His idea that an afterlife would be "justice" is meaningless. We don't even know if God cares about being "just".
I'm not saying there is an afterlife and I'm not saying there isnt. It is not knowable, and there are no "experts" on the subject, even though Prager claims to be one.
It wouldn't be an act of faith if we knew the answer.
Does that mean you wouldn't want a definitive answer?
There's not much point to it (or any religion really) now outside of mere belief. But belief does not equal fact.
Of course not. Let us know when you find it.
Why not? It seems knowing for sure would be better than fantasizing.
Who do you believe in? Yourself?
No. I don't believe in any deities. I have no need to. At least I know I exist.
Until there is evidence of such a thing, then any claims to that effect can and should be summarily dismissed.
Opinion is noted.
The first flaw in that argument is declaring atheism a theology. The rest of the argument is equally flawed.
"Pastor Lewis of Cornerstone Baptist Church was in the middle of church services when someone began to bang on the front doors. Outside were 3 police cars, 2 unmarked cars, & a rep from Chicago Mayor Lightfoot’s office demanding services end. Like the KGB"....Nick Short
dailywire.com/news/chicago-police-bang-on-church-doors-to-stop-services-film-everyone-who-arrived
So Vic, are you opposed to law enforcement? Do you feel church goers are immune to any rules they do not like?
What laws can a Governor make?
Do you feel church goers are immune to any rules they do not like ?
I know they are covered under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. If there is a health emergency all places where people congregate may have temporary restrictions placed on them. However, if we permit any entity, even the essential grocery stores an exemption, we run into trouble. Do you understand? A Church can be temporarily closed for health considerations, so long as it is not discriminatory or as the DOJ recently warned the Gov of CA:
“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband wrote in the letter.
Avoiding the question again? Figures.
What a load of crap.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This means they are not held separately from anyone else, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN IGNORE ANY RULES OR LAWS THEY DO NOT LIKE.
As usual, you didn't like the answer. Only legislatures make laws.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It's the second part that progressives have trouble with.
This means they are not held separately from anyone else, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN IGNORE ANY RULES OR LAWS THEY DO NOT LIKE.
It means that religious people have rights.
It means just what it says. They cannot prohibit the exercise thereof. Period
SMH
While that is generally true, there are limits to rights and religious exercise is not an excuse to violate secular law. The SCOTUS was clear on that.
Perhaps you should try providing one. An answer cannot be another question.
Let's see what the Bible has to say about it, shall we?
You don't need to go into a church to pray.
We can go back and forth like children. You got the answer. Your governors can't make law. A few of them are responsible for the death of people in nursing homes. Blame it on ideology, if you want.
Let's see what the Bible has to say about it, shall we?
Nope, I go by the Constitution. They have rights!
You don't need to go into a church to pray.
Lol, that one went down with the Titanic, try again.
Does religion require churches?
Closing churches do not effect anyone's ability to practice their religion.
The selfishness is so dominant in the arguments presented for opening churches. People need food and other supplies to live, so we have to tolerate the risk of spreading the infection. This risk is not only to the people doing necessary shopping or collecting in churches. Those who get sick will endanger the healthcare workers who care for them. They will risk infecting others. Try to think about someone other than yourself -- it will make understanding the rules in these trying times possible; it's not about you. Collecting in bars or churches are actions you should be willing to forgo to protect your neighbors.
That's your first mistake, you all take trump's word for fact.
Do you require your hands to be held when praying?
Can your god not hear you unless you are in a church?
Shall we address Matthew 6:5-6 again?
What exactly do you need a church for, in your religion?
Never claimed to, just pointed out that a church is not essential for practicing your religion..
to some people, the church is very essential and the first amendment is always essential.
so pardon everyone else for ignoring the lefts determinations of what other people "should do.
your opinion on how essential church is? totally irrelevant.
Not according to the Bible. So I assume you are talking non-Christians???
Thank you for confirming that keeping church services closed does not violate your 1st Amendment.
If people are going to food banks and practicing social distancing that's both an acceptable and necessary risk. Collecting in groups for unnecessary purposes like church is an unacceptable risk which people who actually care about their neighbors would forgo. My Mom's very religious, but she's also caring, so she attends Mass on TV. She doesn't want to potentially harm herself or others by making a stupid, meaningless statement by going to Church. Her values, and consequently mine, are to care about others.
The rest of your post starting with this is just selfish nonsense. Christianity is not church, it's a philosophy. I wouldn't mind if this behavior did not risk healthcare workers and innocent bystanders. I believe that people should be allowed to take whatever risks they choose, as long as they don't drag others into their stupidity.
well, we have lives to live and families to feed,
but you can feel free to stay inside..
we are completely okay with that
I would never expect otherwise from them. todays left has a severe communist bent.
"control over the people" is a fairly standard communist mindset
luckily the american spirit does not do "control over the people" very well.
I keep trying to tell them they are not stuck in here with trump, they are stuck in here with us.
trump is not their problem = trump is the direct result of pissing us off.
I pray daily in hopes they continue pissing us off ( the more the merrier )
If it is not required for your religion, the Bill of Rights does not come into effect for it.
The bible determined that a church is not essential, not me. So argue about it with your god.
The bible determined that a church is not necessary. Are you arguing that the bible is wrong???
Are you advocating breaking the rules? What does your bible feel about anarchy?
Churches were built to spread the word of your god (indoctrination), followers already know it, so why is a church necessary for you to pray at?
Correct. So let's compare similar venues.
A church is inherently social with people sequestered in a small space interacting with each other. Not only are they talking (sending airborne particles), but they are singing (propelling the particles to greater distances).
Similarly, a bar (especially with music) is inherently social with people sequestered in a small space interacting with each other. They are talking and typically in close proximity due to the volume of the music. Typically they are yelling to each other which propels the particles to greater distances.
So, it is logical that if bars (and similar venues) are allowed to be open then churches also should be allowed to be open. And, if bars are open with severely restricted capacities, social-distancing, masks, etc. in place then churches should do likewise.
You ignored Ozzwald's question and went personal instead.
Don't give a crap what you do on your spare time.
Does it bother you that church services may spread a disease that has killed over 100,000 Americans, and hasn't stopped yet?
Give me a number, how many additional deaths is your church services worth? 10,000 more deaths okay with you? 1000? 20,000? Give me a number you are comfortable with.
He/she always ignores the questions. When you don't have a viable answer, you deflect.
More COVID-19 cases linked to California church services
Coronavirus: Over 40 Covid-19 cases traced to church service in Germany
Over 100 coronavirus cases in Germany tied to single day of church services
CDC tracks cluster of coronavirus cases in rural Arkansas to church, raising alarm on religious gatherings
Both Walmart and Target carry groceries and other " ESSENTIAL " items. A church has nothing " ESSENTIAL ".
You still refuse to answer the question, so as of when I posted it, it was the truth.
Pretty sure that I don't want to be infected by worshippers of mythology and superstition who don't have the right to endanger my life by flaunting the rational rules of science during an ever-spreading global pandemic.
If I can't go to my library, radical religionists shouldn't be able to mass gather.
I guess what irks me is the fact that all these, or most it seems, people who are against churches opening don't even GO to church let alone hang out with people who do. And if they do, no one is twisting their arms to attend . Just stay the heck home. I could be wrong but........................prolly not
I will repeat myself then.
Your statement was:
My question was:
You claim you answered. Did you lie, or can you show me your answer?
4.1.53
Do I have to re-link all those news articles???
That is one ignorant statement... Church attendance is not " ESSENTIAL ". You stated that yourself all the way back up at 4.1.22
Doesn't fucking matter if it is deemed essential or not. And if you can gather at one place, one should be able to do the same as long as guidelines are followed. Texan1211 is right.
You seem to be one of the leaders of that "movement". Are you?
Your opinion, and worthless as such.
Guidelines say you cannot gather there. You seem confused.
When he said that you don't need churches to practice religion? yes I agree, he was right.
What movement? please provide evidence that a "movement" even exists, other than in a toilet.
Are you both trying to be purposely obtuse? If someone, even someone who practices social distancing wearing a mask, goes to church, a bar, and a pool party, they increase the risk of getting the disease. This means that they present a greater danger to those who limit their excursions to essentials like food & cleaning products. Also, since they increase their risk, they are more likely to get sick and risk healthcare workers. No one is interested in controlling other people, what they're trying to do is protect those of us who care about our neighbors from those who are too selfish to give a shit.
There are six Asian-Pacific countries whose combined population is nearly as great as ours. Their people cooperated with the government mandates on quarantining, social distancing, and mask wearing. Their federal governments also led the covid-19 response, and made sure there were adequate testing capabilities to re-open. Their per capita death rate is 1/50 ours, and none of their economies have been trashed like ours.
For god sakes, Trump has made wearing a mask a political statement in in this country.
Whoever is flaunting CDC social distancing guidelines is spreading the coronavirus and, thusly, increasing my chances of contracting it. Even though I live way out in the country and have stockpiled supplies over the years, I do run out of beer and cigarettes on occasion and appreciate how most in the little one-horse town where I shop are following the guidelines.
According to their website, the library remains closed "indefinitely". While I don't like it, it is the wise course of action. Libraries are perfect transfer points for viruses.
It isn't.
Except for public health interests. People need groceries to eat. One doesn't need a church to pray, worship, ect..
And that's what some people do.
You link to commonly known guidelines.
What is your point?
The stores in my area all limit the number of shoppers in the building and impose social distancing. They have barriers between checkout and patrons. They do not allow patrons to use their own bags anymore. They constantly wipe down carts and other surfaces. Every employee and patron must wear a mask. Plus some provide curbside pickup and others will deliver.
This makes great sense because people must indeed have food and supplies to survive. This is essential unqualified.
Churches may be psychologically essential to some but clearly people can survive without attending a physical church service. Nothing prevents virtual services. Further, if a church wants to open for physical services then they should take the precautions in place. Basically, a constant vigil of cleaning. Everyone wears a mask. Social distancing (every other pew empty and 6' between attendees). They should probably not sing (propels particles) and minimize public praying in unison. The choir, if any, can be isolated and distant from each other or they can use pre-recorded music.
In short, if one is compelled to go to what is normally a very crowded in-door facility and take an unnecessary risk, it can be done. This is exactly the kind of precautions that would occur when another non-essential, inherently crowded indoor business such as a bar reopens.
What is your point?
So why are you REPLYing to me? I have never argued that churches cannot reopen.
Why write this to me? Do you think that I have argued that churches must stay closed?
Bizarre.
My part of this discussion has been to talk of proper precautions for venues such as churches.
Given you replied to me one would expect that your response would have something to do with what I wrote.
Apparently you do not bother to read what some write and go immediately to snark. Great contribution to the site.
Because people still need to eat. Groceries are essential businesses. Churches are not. Or is a church a business?
Gee, got any more snark to go with your snark?
I didn't say churches are businesses and since they are not, then they are not essential.
I didn't say religion. I said churches.
That's funny. They provide a service and collect fees. Most churches don't tolerate free loaders.
During the pandemic both PA and OH list them as essential businesses which needed to remain open.
Could be an interesting article topic.........
This has been a comical display. It does not matter what you write, we have individuals substituting their own words, pretending they are yours and then engaging in juvenile taunts.
If one cannot formulate a decent rebuttal it is best to remain silent.
Funny, the way I wrote that reminds me of this quote attributed to Maurice Switzer (and Lincoln and Samuel Clemens):
Comical indeed. But then, any statement along the lines of "God did it" is always comical. In a bad comedy sort of way.
I do not consider honest, legal churches to be a business (and, since you seem unable to read and communicate what Gordy wrote, neither does he).
Further, SP (since you seem unable to read what he wrote too) was simply saying that there are similarities and that exploring those similarities might be interesting.
That established, an argument can easily be made in support of the posit that churches are a special kind of business. But I will not waste my time here since what is written is most likely to not be read (or at least not faithfully acknowledged). So I will simply drop a third party article ( Why Most Churches are Businesses ) that notes the similarities. Something to consider for edification since your impressive argument —in its entirety— was simply:
Better to have remained silent IMO.
You pretended as though he believed that with comments (now deleted) and also with this juvenile quip:
Or did you mean something entirely different? Feel free to clarify.
Learn the meaning of the terms you use. Projection, as typically applied in a social forum, is when an individual accuses another of behavior that the accuser him/herself is actually engaging in.
Here is a fine example of projection:
Since we are speaking of social forum behavior, this:
Is a bluff. It is indeed in 'black & white' and you are pretending that readers cannot see for themselves what you wrote and that they do not notice that when given the chance to set the record straight you punted with a bluff.
Finally @4.1.107 uses the 'I know you are but what am I' style of rebuttal.
Once again, over and over, you do not need a church for faith and prayers and even the Bible backs this up.
Never claimed to, no idea what you've been reading. Or is this just another straw man argument?
So you ARE advocating breaking the rules. Thanks for finally answering the question.
The bible does, and it says churches are not essential.
Mormon churches require tithing.
But they can restrict access to the temple , volunteering, the sacraments or other participation during informal discipline by a bishop.
All quotes in this post are taken from "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings" by Elder M. Russell Ballard (an LDS apostle) in the September 1990 Ensign , an official LDS publication.
For the record, when visiting a family member in Denver, a trip to the Denver Temple was arranged by invitation only.
For some reason I was denied entry to the Temple as a non member.
The family decided to skip the event and go straight to lunch and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science instead.
Please note that the Denver Temple is currently closed due to the pandemic, by order of the First Presidency of LDS regardless of government recommendations or orders.
Already did, look for yourself.
Way, way, way up there. This has been a very VERY long thread.
4.1.6
Matthew 6:5-6
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Singing & praying in a designated building is essential? There's nothing you can do at a church that can't be done in one's home.
Do you recognize that churches vary considerably in their methods of worship?
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others.
So you feel you must be seen by others to pray?
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Do you have your own room in a church?
You don't get to decide what is deemed essential either. I look at things more pragmatically (as opposed to going by mere "feeling"). And there is nothing "essential" about a church. And note, I did not state any objections about actually attending a church. Only that is is hardly essential.
So you are saying it is okay for you to disregard the bible, because Jesus may have? Is that what you're saying? You are allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible to obey?
Not to mention the bible is chock full of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Christians still swear by it though.
Congregating for services in churches is not essential for society to function while fighting a pandemic. Similarly, bars, sporting venues, fitness centers, theaters, etc. are not essential for society to function while fighting a pandemic.
Example of essential organizations include (but are not limited to):
Once again, I didn't say what's personally essential. Only whats actually essential. Perhaps it might help if you looked at it objectively rather than by feeling.
Some hear only what they wish to hear and read only what they wish to read ... sometimes even if what is desired to read was never written.
Funny, that.
Indeed. That is also an example of how emotion or "feeling" can cloud rational or objective thought. Some become emotionally defensive and/or irrational and tune out what is actually being said.
I believe it was originally Hebrew and Aramaic.
Look it up yourself, it was a quote. I even provided where that quote was in the bible. If reading is too difficult, I believe you can get it in audiobook format.
Wow, how many times are you going to ask for the same quote? Your previous sentence even admits that I provided it to you.
Seems the demand is for you to find the exact words 'churches are not essential', not merely the semantic equivalent. The faux obtuseness tactic of 'it does not say that' is oft used when one is in denial after being shown to be wrong. Note the absence of explanation as to why, just the mere declaration of denial.
I've often gotten the "it does not say that" reply when arguing that separation of church & state is in the Constitution. You are correct that some use that tactic when they are demonstrably erroneous.
This especially happens with the Bible. Point out obvious (blatantly obvious) passages such as:
And some will still deny that slavery (the owning of a human being as property) was never condemned as immoral by God but, rather, was condoned.
Sometimes there is the justification that since it's god, then God can do whatever god wants. Basically, God lays out the rules, but doesn't follow them himself if he doesn't want to. Quite the hypocrisy.
Or something that I would write when dealing with a complete ass.
Yup, see I told you why I would have to write it that way.
Wow, dude, you hit the nail on the head with Texan. Bummer I can only like your comment once.
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. You've been shown, over and over, you know you're wrong so now you're playing with semantics. You are making yourself look like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.
If you want to argue further, why don't you show where the bible says you need one. But we both know you won't, because you can't, so your childish replies are along the lines of "you made the claim", which I did and provided title and verse to it.
You're next claim is, "but it doesn't say church specifically, so you can't prove it". Completely ignoring the FACT that the quote tells you to pray/worship PRIVATELY, NOT AROUND OTHER PEOPLE. But it doesn't say church, since churches are well know for being secluded with nobody else in the vicinity...right?????
What is the next non-argument that you're going to make??? Is it that the bible does say to worship only in a church? OF COURSE NOT, because it doesn't say that. Can you provide any evidence to support your claim? You haven't yet, so I doubt you can.
But if anything comes of all this, maybe it will be for you to do even a little research before spouting off. Personally I doubt it.
IF you gather I am there. FAIL...
Gathering in the morning, nothing to do with worship. FAIL...
Having to go all the way back to the old testament? I thought the new testament over rode it. It is also not an instructable requiring worship only in his sanctuary. Closer, so lower case fail.....
How to behave in o church??? back to FAIL!!!
Translation, "Yay! Let's go to church!". No mandate, FAIL....
Nothing you quoted says you must worship in a church. Only one of your quotes even came close to addressing it.
Seems you are required to deliver a quote that not only suggests that it is actually good to pray in private rather than be part of a public display at church but must use the exact words 'churches are not essential'. Yet on the flip side —the rebuttal that would show that churches are essential— not only are those exact words not required, but the entire argument is equivocated down to simply passages "about churches".
This is pathetic. A perfect example of why it is best to stop arguing once an argument is lost.
He never will, it is almost....like...what would happen if someone (anyone, no one in particular) were getting paid for this.
An argument from incredulity. The key problem with this argument is that there is no escaping the concept of undesigned complexity.
If the universe requires a designer (because it is too complex to 'just exist') then by the very same logic, the designer requires a designer.
This infinite regress problem of designers designing designers is side-stepped by theology with the declaration that 'God has always existed'. But this declaration produces an even greater problem: the eternal existence of the most complex sentient entity possible — unfathomable complexity that 'just exists'.
No matter what, logic always brings us to the inexplicable conclusion that unfathomable complexity either evolved over time or simply 'just exists'. To wit, merely declaring 'God did it' shuts down all logic and simply declares magic.
If God 'just exists' is acceptable as an answer, then one could declare anything 'just exists'. For example, one could declare a reality where energy interacts on its own and forms patterns over time that we view as meaningful. For example, the formation of a star and a solar system by a process of gravity collecting cosmic gas and dust into orbs with the largest of the orb spontaneously igniting a chain reaction that emits light and heat for the orbs (planets) that orbit it.
Instead of the most complex entity 'just existing', the above scenario posits that energy (or something lower) 'just exists' and interacts over time to produce patterns. Complexity, in this case, emerges ... it does not simply 'just exist'. And this has the added conceptual advantage of being evidenced.
Pragers whole argument falls apart here:
Well, the self-proclaimed expert on Judaism kind of blew it. If we are using Leviticus 25:10 as the cornerstone of our liberty, then it doesn't belong to evangelicals, but to the Jews, since they actually wrote the book, something that Prager seems to have missed. He seems to feel no need to give congratulations to the actual people who wrote it, but rather be the good kiss ass that he is. Everything else from that point on is nothing more than a hodgepodge justification for selfishness about the lockdown and confusing that as liberty. No one can have liberty if it steps on another man's toes. Something our founding father's understood when they wrote the constitution.
As for belief in an afterlife or not... God or not.... does it really matter if we can't be good to each other in this lifetime? Prager seems to have no value in that.