Debate:Was Hitler a Christian?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by 3.14159.

Does Hitler's own claims to be a Christian make him Christian or does his UnChrstian action make him not a Christian?

June 10, 2008

Kind of a ridiculous claim. Even if he called himself a christian. If I called myself a Liberal, but still held to all the positions I hold, It would not make sense to call me a liberal. The same thing goes for Hitler. Everything that he did was totally against christianity, and christian teaching. It is therefore wrong to call him a christian. The only possible reason for someone to insert that claim into an article is to attempt to smear christianity by association. The user got blocked, and deserved it. --CPAdmin1 14:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Maybe "self-proclaimed Christian" would be more fitting, but to say that anyone who did anything wrong is not a Christian is a pretty radical "No True Scotsman" philosophy. I mean, CP doesn't afford the same rights of denial to other groups, religious or otherwise. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I am in no way claiming that "anyone who did anything wrong is not a christian." Everyone does things wrong. I am saying that in the case of Hitler, who did nothing to give any evidence of being a Christian, and everything he did is directly opposite to Christianity, any self proclaimed association with christianity does not stand up to the evidence. --CPAdmin1 14:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Just out of curiosity, would you call the Crusaders Christians? Also, RE Hitler being Christian, see this. Then again, it is that <mocking sarcasm>coward</mocking sarcasm> Austin Cline. Thunderkatz^Ho! 14:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the questions this brings up for many of us is: So, where do you draw the line? Who is, and who isn't, a Christian? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:53, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, I apologize for my exaggeration. I never intended the "anything wrong" to apply to everyday sins, etc. But, for example, was Jerry Falwell a Christian? He said some pretty hateful things. Is Ted Haggard? Does it require horrible deeds to become not a true Christian, like the crusaders? I guess I meant the above replies - "Where is the line drawn?" but also, is it fair that other groups aren't allowed the same right to deny? I really didn't mean any offense or to start an argument, especially since I really do respect you, but I guess I wasn't very effective. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I could be wrong as I don't read the Bible all that much, but doesn't it say that anyone who is born again goes to heaven? I thought (and agin correct me if I'm wrong) that we do not and in fact very obviously cannot win a way into heaven based on our action but rather based on a commitment to Christ who paid the price for our sins. Actions don't enter it. Even really bad ones. You don't know if Hitler "gave his heart" to Christ and to claim otherwise is to play God. Christianity may be smeared by association and given the people it associates with it may just deserve it. Original sin and all that (which apparently out-weighs even the sins of Hitler) Come on CP this is very basic stuff. RedDog 15:20, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

You are correct. Anyone who is born again does go to heaven. And again you are right nobody can "win" their way to heaven. It is only based on faith. But the Bible also teaches that if you have faith, there will be evidence of that faith. Obviously no one here can judge the heart of anyone else. There are 2 possible definitions of a Christian.

• The first is someone who has faith in, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
• The second is someone who is part of a "Christian" church, or lives "as a christian."

One definition is based on outward appearances, and the other is based totally on an individual's spiritual relationship with Christ. The two definitions are totally independent. (someone can meet either definition without meeting the other) On the first definition we can not make a definite judgement. (especially on someone who we have never met). The best we can do is look at what evidence there is of their faith. On the second definition, we can make some kind of judgement.

Hitler does not meet either definition as far as we can judge it. His life gives no evidence of faith in christ. His worldview was actually heavily influenced by Darwin. (Another debate for another time) Another bit of evidence is that many Christians in Germany opposed Hitler (at least those that had the courage to do so) and some were killed for it.

As for the crusaders, I can make no judgement on their hearts either. The crusades are not something that can be justified biblically. I believe that many of the crusaders were deceived by the Catholic Church, (see definition 2) and many were going just for personal glory. ^{— Unsigned, by: CPAdmin1 / talk / contribs}

"His worldview was actually heavily influenced by Darwin" Utter bollocks. Guess what two titles were on Hitler's very first list of banned books? Origin of Species and Descent of Man, both by Charles Darwin. Hitler actually made many statements that imply he was a creationist. --Fergus Mason (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If one is to say that the group is allowed to say "that person is not one of us," and the group of Christians say "Hitler was not one of us" isn't it also fair for the group of liberals to say "Fred Phelps isn't one of us"? It appears the rule at CP is "one cannot put bad people into groups we like" and "one must put bad people into groups we dislike." --Shagie 15:31, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I do not agree with Andy's (and by extension CP's) definition of liberal. I don't like the double standards at CP, so don't use CP's position against me. --CPAdmin1 15:45, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I (genuinly) respect that and admire you for posting it. You do not have to be 100% with everything to generally support it's aims. I would admite it more though if you posted that just as openly over at CP. RedDog 15:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, he often posts quite openly on CP (as much as he can without getting booted at least) - he just gets shoved around and ignored a lot, too. :( --Sid 15:54, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I think this exact point wasn't about you, but rather CP sysops like Andy and Kara. You have been known to show a good deal of common sense, and we respect that. The only thing I'd see connected to you is that you apparently mis-read the intended emphasis of the WIGO item. See also my reply (now) below. --Sid 15:54, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's the point (and what I tried to focus on in the WIGO entry). It's not about whether Hitler was a Christian, claimed to be a Christian or whatever. It's about some CP sysops getting to define who is or isn't Christian or conservative based on whether they like the person in question. And then they proclaim that no member of their group ever did anything bad as a way of justifying their belief.

On the flip side, anybody who is not liked is automatically a liberal, even if the connection is shaky at best. The Westboro Baptist Church for example is listed as a "liberal organization" on CP's "Liberal" article, and Fred Phelps was long listed as a "liberal activist". --Sid 15:48, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I understand that. (actually, the article made no claim about whether he was a christian.) But in the example of Hitler, if you want to attack them for taking out the claim that he was a christian, then you need to argue that he was. I am saying that Hitler does not seem to fall into any definition of Christian, and the user who put it in was just attempting to smear Christianity. Obviously, Christians do bad things too (see Ted Haggard). And CP's stance on "Liberal" is way off. --CPAdmin1 16:03, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't call WIGOing an "attack", but that's semantics, I guess. The WIGO emphasis was on Karajou's "No true Scotsman" argument and not on the "Hitler was a Christian" edit. If I had wanted to put the focus on the latter, I would have said something like "Hitler - not a Christian, according to CP". I don't really care about what triggered the remark and only included it as a context note in the WIGO post. --Sid 16:09, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. --CPAdmin1 16:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

WIGO is no more an attack than CP's mainpage right is. --Shagie 16:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Did Hitler believe himself to be a Christian? Realize that there are many sects of Christianity and some have different definitions of inclusion than what you may believe. Could he recite the Nicene Creed (for example) and say "yes I believe that." Or the Apostle's Creed? Do not forget that there are sects that are considered Christian today that do not accept either of those. --Shagie 16:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Hitler was a Christian as much as most people in Europe are/were, in that he was not any other religion, and he was not an atheist. He was not exactly devout, and I believe I recall reading in Albert Speer's memoirs that Hitler considered himself a Christian, but was a bit annoyed that Jesus was such a wuss (to paraphrase). The real problem with the edit that was reverted was that it put too much emphasis on his religion when it was not an important aspect of who he was or what he did. "Christian" does not appear in the first sentence of any US President's articles over there (as far as I can tell), so it clearly does not belong so prominently in Hitler's.

As for Hitler and Darwin, well, one can be a Christian and influenced by Darwin, for what it's worth. I'm not so sure was very influenced by Darwin, as I'm pretty sure he doesn't mention him in Mein Kampf. Also, if Hitler is not a Christian because he so misinterpreted Christ's teachings, then he certainly isn't a "Darwinist" either, as he got that even more wrong. DickTurpis 18:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I am pretty sure that Hitler believed only in three things: Himself, the Aryan race, and whatever would be expedient for advancing the Nazi cause. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 19:06, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I think this is a revisionist attempt to polish Christianity's reputation after the tarnishing effects that the Third Reich had upon it. Christianity was used by the Nazis much like they used radio, the high-tech of the day, to weasel their way into power and once there, to monopolize the "public discourse" to achieve their own ends. The efforts of modern Christians trying to place distance between their faith and the actions of the Nazis is nonetheless understandable, except that it is "too soon" and the record too clear of what was attempted, by whom and for what reasons. "Was Hitler Christian?" Only as much as he needed to be. CЯacke® 20:20, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Does it matter though?

I thought I'd chime in just the for the hell of it. I have to question the importance of this. I understand that the original was meant more as a demonstration of CP's "Like/Dislike" Political category, but I question if it matters. Hitler may have considered himself Christian.. He may not have... To me, it doesn't seem to matter. I'm only 22, but I've learned that religion, all religion can be good or bad, which is where my personal dislike comes into play. For example, Ghandi did amazing things for other people, but because he was not Chrisitian, people like Andy jump up and start yelling about hellfire right away. Pope John Paul II did amazing things, but other religious will criticize him. The point I think I'm trying to make is that what religion someone prescribes to means nothing. It's what they do and how they show compassion that we should care about. This endless debate seems like it's "Hitler was Christian, so Christians are bad people" as the point, and the counterpoint "He wasn't Xtian, we're not bad." I think that the only reason to really care and argue forcefully about this is for guilt by association purposes... Anyway, I'll get down off the soapbox now. Feel free to use it. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 21:40, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The basic problem (for religious folks) is that Hitler said he was a Christian, and God apparently didn't feel the need to disagree in public. Which reflects badly on the Big Guy. --Gulik 21:48, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

It matters in two ways. First, the recognition of the historical role Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church, played in WW2 and in particular the holocaust. This is very important not as a criticism of Christianity, but as a warning to members of all organised religions that their faith can be used as a political and ideological tool by the unscrupulous and evil.

Secondly, it matters because the Hitler/Christianity thing is used as a point-scorer. While anti-atheists use Stalin and Pol Pot as examples of why atheism is A Bad Thing, it is tempting for atheists to use Hitler as a counter-argument to show that Christianity is also A Bad Thing. Of course, we know that both arguments are over-simplistic, banal, and completely and utterly without merit. Bad people do bad things and will use whatever tools at their disposal. Atheists should not fall into the trap of using Hitler as a defence - rather demolish the argument that Stalin & Co did evil things because they were atheists. Ajkgordon 03:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

To add to the "secondly", it's also used as a counter-point to "Hitler was a Darwinist, so Evolution is EVIL" arguments. So in that context, I know personally, I use it to try to point out the stupidity of that arguent by simply turning it around on them. Quaru (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd never say "Christianity is bad because Hitler was a Christian", but if someone told me evolution is bad because Hitler used it to justify his actions then I wouldn't hesitate in turning it back around on them. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Semantic Bullshit

This argument is over nothing. What defines a Christian is where you have to start if you want to have a rational discussion of such a silly thing. Since a definition will very obviously place Hitler in one of two categories, this argument can only possibly be about definitions, and therefore not be about anything meaningful. What question were you really trying to ask? BlueSprite 13:07, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Semantics isn't always a bad thing to argue. Plus, most of the discussions here are for fun rather than to actually come to a decision... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 16:56, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Nobody's arguing the semantics, as far as I can tell. Was trying to draw attention to why it might be that this argument was going nowhere. But if it's just for fun and noone's seeking, then fair 'nuff. BlueSprite 21:30, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This argument is going no where as you are the first person to edit it since everyone lost interest in June :) - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 23:41, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Eh, new here. There was a standing invitation for conservatives to join the debates on the site, so I did. I felt it was ironic that this was to be an outpost of rationality, and yet everyone in this thread managed to miss the point by so much. In short, I came here in the spirit of combativeness, determined to adhere to the rules of rational argumentation. But it appears that there was no point to this argument; that it was merely in jest, so I've wasted my time in this case. Fair enough. If I see other debates that captures my interest, I'll post there and we can have another round. BlueSprite 10:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

The thing is that, as is often the manner of such things, this is just part of a greater running debate that is taking place in four or five other places around the site. See e.g. Positive Christianity, Nazi#Religion in National Socialism, Adolf Hitler#Religious beliefs and their associated talk pages, and Talk:Hitler and Christianity. The debate isn't dead, it just went elsewhere. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:15, 2 December 2008 (EST)

If Hitler wasn't Christian then there are no Christians

It is difficult to take the Pope serious about anything, but he is undoubtedly the final authority on the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Through the approved methodology of becoming a Roman Catholic (Christian), Hitler was duly approved as a Christian. The Pope(s) have had some 80 years to excommunicate Hitler, but they haven't. By the Popes own rules, Hitler is a Christian. To claim Hitler is not a Christian is to deny any and every Roman Catholic is a Christian.

What if the protestants are right and the Pope is a complete moron? Consider this famous passage:

1. Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight.
2. houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings.
3. their religious writings to be taken away.
4. rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do.
5. safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews.
6. usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping".
7. the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.

Finally this statement:"We are at fault in not slaying them".

As you can see from the proceeding diatribe, there is no significant difference in the works of Hitler and the works of Martin Luther - the Patron Saint and progenitor of the entire Protestant Reformation. Arguing that Hitler was not a Christian is also arguing that Martin Luther was not a Christian and in effect then that no Protestant is a Christian.

As you can see then, the argument that Hitler was not a Christian is rooted in pure ignorance. Both ignorance in the fact that Hitler was a confirmed Catholic who never greatly offended the Church or its teachings AND that his legacy was simply to follow the direct orders from the father of all modern protestant Churches (Martin Luther). R.R. Edwards (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

...there is no significant difference in the works of Hitler and the works of Martin Luther... Anyone making this statement is highly ignorant of the works of at least one of those men, probably both. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If instigating a World War and murdering 13 million people ideologically isn't offending Christian teachings (something the Church has been guilty of over the millennia), then I've no idea what is.

Of course he was a Christian

• "The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

• "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

• "I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."

[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]

• "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."

[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

• "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

• "What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]

• "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]

• "And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]

• "Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.309]

• "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"

[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

• "Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, p. 171]

• "I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]

• "I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 2]

• "...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

• "As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

• "Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

• "For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

• "In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

• "It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

• "If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]

• "Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

• "I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

• "Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

• "I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 6]

• "Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]

• "The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]

• "To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]

• "The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

• "Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]

• "But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

• "While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

• "The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

• "Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]

• "The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]

• "....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11, precisely echoing Martin Luther's teachings]

• "Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

• "The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

• "The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

• "All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

• "Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

• "Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

• "Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

• "A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

• "It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

• "That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

• "For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

• "It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture- race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

• "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

• "Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

• "For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

• "The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

• "In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

• "For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'

[Adolf Hitler's prayer, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 2 Chapter 13]

• "The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"

[Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]

• "I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."

[Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]

• "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life...."

[Adolf Hitler, Berlin, February 1, 1933]

• "Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years."

[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]

I didn't collect this list myself, but I'm afraid I've lost the original link. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal definition of a Christian is the following: "A theist believing that there was a historical person known today as Jesus Christ, who was either a divine prophet or the embodiment of the god himself". I believe that this is a good definition that most can agree upon. From the quotes above it is evident that such a definition would also include Hitler. Even Hitler's justification for genocide as executing his god's will and the reason for his anti-semitism which is based on christianity where Jews have been targeted and persecuted as "Christ-Killers". However, what may set Hitler apart from other christians is his ideas of what christianity should be, as well as the demands and wishes he perceives his god to have. Hitler may perhaps have been the quasi-leader of his own personal sect of christianity, who thought that other christian sects and churches aren't entirely correct in their dogma or actions, but of a christian sect nonetheless. Even the inclusion of non-christian and pagan rituals or symbols is not a strike against that, since that has also occurred in mainstream christianity. Most notable example is of course the "Christmas Tree" which was co-opted to make it easier for the pagans that celebrated the winter solstice to switch over to christianity. Rubberstamping the use of pagan symbols or the persecution of jews as "unchristian" or actions that disqualify a person from being a christian is simply revisionist history. Not to mention that they are entirely unrelated to the question of whether or not there was a Christ who was divine in one form or another.

TL;DR: Hitler was a christian because he believed in Christ. Chaosof99 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for all of these quotes, but the first one is out of context; Hitler went on to explain why he thought religious anti-Semitism was poor policy. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's make sense to say

That Hitler was simply a bad christian. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So are about 99% of self-described Christians. That's pretty much the point here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Define "Christian"

There is no single universally agreed definition of "Christian", and no straightforward way to decide which one is right. On the one hand we have sociological definitions, which mainly use the guideline that you are a Christian if you say you are. On the other hand, we have theological definitions, which demand beliefs in certain doctrines, a certain attitude of the heart, reception of certain sacraments, etc. Since Christians don't agree on the theology, different Christian groups have different theological definitions of Christian—a Catholic might say anyone who is validly baptised, an Evangelical might say anyone who has made a conscious decision to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, etc. Due to the impossibility of agreeing on what "Christian" means, there is no universally correct answer to "Is Hitler a Christian?", so it depends on your choice of definitions. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Goat be praised, I actually agree with you. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a common rhetorical strategy of yours: postmodernist obfuscation of commonly-accepted terms in order to move discussion away from the issue at hand and bog stuff down. B♭maj7 Racist Fucker or War Hero? Only his stylist knows for sure. 23:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so if I point out that words can have multiple meanings, and we can't always say that one of those usages is right and the others are wrong, then that makes me a postmodernist? Interesting definition of "postmodernism" you have there... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time in a few days where your contribution to the debate has been to say "hey, guess what, words can have multiple meanings." Yes, yes they can. That's pretty elementary. But most of us still manage to make sense out of common terms like "Christian" and "religion" (the two words in question) and then move on to the more important stakes of the debate, instead of getting bound down in questions that undergraduate philosophy majors use to impress people with how clever they are. B♭maj7 Racist Fucker or War Hero? Only his stylist knows for sure. 23:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's so elementary, why these endless arguments about whether Hitler was a Christian? Since the word "Christian" has numerous definitions, and it is not clear which is right, debating the question is rather pointless unless both sides have already agreed on which particular definition to use, but rarely have they. Often, one side is using a sociological definition (Hitler said he was a Christian so he was), the other a theological one (To be a Christian you must believe XYZ, Hitler didn't so he wasn't). If people realised their definitions were so different, would they still bother debating the issue? Maybe forget Hitler for now, and debate whose definitions are right? Oh, and is Tetronian, who says he agrees with me on this point (on most things, him and I don't agree), a PoMo too? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bmaj, it's like this: imagine Alice and Bob are arguing about whether a tree that fell in the forest made a sound. "Of course it did," says Alice, "there was nothing physically different about this tree, and since the laws of physics are the same everywhere, it must have made a sound." "Nonsense," replies Bob, "there can't be a sound that no one hears!" The problem is that Bob and Alice mean different things by the word "sound." If you like, think of a definition like a box that you carry around with you. The word (in this case "sound") is a label on the outside of the box, but what's inside is more complicated. If we opened Alice's box, we would see "belongs in the category of things that make vibrations in the air." If we opened Bob's box, we would see "matches the category of things that create auditory sensations in people's brains." Clearly, Alice's box is very different from Bob's, but from a distance they look the same because the labels are the same.

So in order to have a productive conversation about whether Hitler was a Christian, we need to get people to unpack their boxes and say what they mean by the label "Christian." This has nothing to do with postmodernism - I'm not arguing that all definitions are equally good, I'm simply saying that different people use different definitions in practice, and that we should make an effort to clarify the issue. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but at some point, you have to move beyond that kind of pedantry and get to the real stakes of the debate. This debate is about three years past the point of stopping to define the terms. B♭maj7 Racist Fucker or War Hero? Only his stylist knows for sure. 00:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not postmodernism. Defining terms is a key part of philosophy. If you watch Scott Clifton's treatise on morality, you can see he spends a good 5-6 minutes defining what a moral and immoral act is before continuing. You wouldn't say that its just mindless postmodernism to define what an atom is before heading into a discussion about chemistry. ADK^{...I'll ruffle your operating theater!} 03:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Though, actually, I find that most debates along these lines are just arguing about definitions. "Hitler was Christian because X" and "No he wasn't because Y" are essentially the same as "a Christian is X" and "a Christian is not Y" except hideously disguised and liable to create circular arguments because they approach it backwards. You need defined categories first, then you see what fits, rather than starting with your examples and trying to shoehorn them into categories based on where you want them to go. ADK^{...I'll throw your furnace!} 03:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. I don't approve of definitional disputes as a delaying tactic - I think people should just unpack their definitions and be done with it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Once we define the terms, there is really nothing much left to argue about. The argument goes on and on because people don't define the terms. The conclusion is "By my definition of Christian, Hitler was not a Christian; by your definition, he was." Of course, then we get to argue whose definition is right, and that is the real meaty and intractable part. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that hard. Just apply the same technique to the word "right" and you're done. For example, some peoples' boxes labeled "right" (with respect to definitions) contain "what most people think the definition is" and others contain "a category that lets you make good inferences about the thing (e.g. if a person is a Christian, we can infer that they go to Church)." Just replace the word "right" with what you mean by it and for all practical purposes the discussion is finished. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But you ignore the issue of different cultural/linguistic communities which use the same words differently—"what most people think the definition is" varies depending on where you take your sample from. If someone is a Christian, then in their Christian subculture they have learnt a particular understanding of the word "Christian", which is based on the theology of that Christian subculture. Different Christian subcultures use the word in different ways, reflecting their theological differences. Whereas a non-Christian, doesn't accept that theology, so they will look primarily to self-report, or less commonly they might dig a bit further into beliefs/actions compared to their ideas of what mainstream Christian beliefs/actions are (e.g. if you spend your days sacrificing lambs to Zeus, they might say you are not a Christian even if you insist you are). Whose definition is right? Well, the theologically-based definitions are the best, if and only if, the theology which underlies them is true. Whereas, if Christianity is false, then the neutral/secular definition is the best. So an argument about "how to define 'Christian'" becomes an argument about "Is Christianity true, and if so, which specific version of it?". Which is a very different debate from what religion Hitler is. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

...and that's why I said "for all practical purposes the discussion is finished." Because if two people have that much ideological distance between them, there's really no point in resolving all those issues just to settle a point about Hitler. (This is why when you redefine "rationality" as "faith" or some similarly fuzzy concept I tend to just give up and walk away.) The reason this standoff is so frustrating (to me, at least, and I assume to Bmaj as well) is that it looks like the person disputing definitions is just reprogramming the English language so that discussion is no longer possible. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This debate mainly takes place between Christians and atheists — some atheists who want to say "Hitler a Christian so Christianity bad", Christians who want to say "Hitler not a Christian so Christianity not bad", sometimes with the addenum "Hitler really an atheist/evolutionist/whatnot so that bad". If the debate reduces, as I argue, to the Christianity-vs-atheism debate itself, then the whole Hitler/Christian debate is rather pointless and ought to be abandoned. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty much my point in the section below. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, which is why this is titled "Was Hitler a Christian" and not something like "Was User:Nebuchadnezzar a Christian?". It's attempting to use guilt by association. That said, I'm very much of the opinion that "they started it", with the whole "atheism is bad because Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/The Pope" thing that goes on. That's an offensive move (as in opposite of defensive, not causing offense) so this is just a childish return volley. ADK^{...I'll throw your cardboard box!} 03:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Christians make those sorts of silly claims (i.e. "Stalin an atheist, therefore atheism is responsible for his crimes"). But others don't. And "returning the volley" is attacking not just those who make those sort of claims, but those who don't also. Really, each is as inexcusable as the other. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Red herring

Outside of historical circles, it seems that the debate over Hitler's religious beliefs is a red herring as it's really being used as a proxy for determining Nazi religious policy, and thus whether Nazi atrocities can be pinned on "Christianity" or "atheism" (which itself already fails as a vast oversimplification). While the Nazis were sometimes at odds with some religious organizations as they tried to pull Christianity into the Nazi weltanschauung, many Nazi leaders espoused a deranged hybrid of Christianity and occultic/pagan/mystical beliefs. The closest thing to it today would probably be Christian Identity. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How much can you mix belief system X with foreign ideas until it stops being X? i.e. how many strange beliefs do you have to add to Christianity before it stops being Christianity? This is asking us to draw a line in the sand when faced with a continuum, the sorites problem. Since it is a continuum, both answers ("Yes it is still Christianity, even with some odd beliefs thrown in" and "No it is not Christianity, the ideas added to it are too alien for it to remain Christianity") may be valid. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case, there is no religion, just people. Collectivism is an illusion we create where we notice that our ideas overlap and distrust and war happens when we notice that they go against each other. Those cases, it doesn't need to even be a majority of your beliefs or above a threshold, just that you notice it. You might well share 95% of your values (rhetorical concept, of course, such a thing would be difficult to quantify) with someone but if that 5% is pointed out and made a big deal of, then you probably won't get on with them. ADK^{...I'll employ your dyslexia!} 02:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-definition might help, as in "does this person consider themselves as Christian" gives you a clear-cut boundary to use. But that can cause more problems. 1) It still leaves the problem of the definition, but at least people are given voluntary control of which term they're going to be umbrellaed under 2) Is someone a Christian if they believe in God and Jesus and salvation and sin and all that but don't define - and conversely can an atheist self-define as a Christian, we certainly have an "atheists for Jesus" movement out there somewhere. This is where No True Scotsman actually has some form of validity. ADK^{...I'll putrefy your centrifuge!} 03:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-definition has its limitations though. I don't think we should allow one single Christian denomination to determine exclusively the definition of "Christian" ("We are the only true Christians!"). At the same time, if "Christian" means anything, you can't just believe/do whatever you want and call it "Christianity", surely. Consider a group like the Process Church of the Final Judgement - they believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers, and Satan had repented of his sins and become reconciled to Christ, so now we ought to worship Satan alongside Jesus. Is that Christian? They might have thought of it as Christian, but may I suggest that when you start combining Christianity with Satanism, what you've got is not Christianity any more, even if you say it is. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit

It's funny watching RW's Xtian crowd come out and try to deny that Hitler was a Christian. Of course he was. Are you going to deny that the Crusades or the Inquisition were Christian? The Holocaust was essentially a 20th century version of those: we don't like different people and we're going to kill them in the name of God. Are we going to see yet another load of No True Scotsman here? Face it: Christianity is just as brutal as every other religion that has ever existed or ever will exist, and no amount of dodging the facts is going to change that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit indeed. While I don't know enough about Hitler to have an opinion about his religious beliefs (which I don't really thing are relevant to why the Holocaust happened, and which I think are being dragged up here less to say anything about Nazism and more to try to say something about Christianity...), to say that the Holocaust was done "in the name of God" and that it's "a 20th century version" of something that happened long before most of the central ideas in Nazi discourse (like "race" and "nation") took shape is not even wrong. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust was very different from the Inquisition. The Inquisition primarily cared about what people believed, not what their ancestry was (it didn't follow this principle completely, e.g. persecution of Conversos, but it did to a significant extent). That is because, the vast majority of Christian theology doesn't care about what your ancestry is, just what you believe now. The Holocaust, by contrast, wasn't predominantly about what you believed, it cared about what your ancestry was — it didn't care if you were an Orthodox Jew, a Jewish atheist, or a Jewish convert to Christianity... Both were dreadfully wrong historical events, but the governing logic of each of them was very different. The Holocaust was justified mainly in terms of racialist theories, which are historically alien to Christianity, even if some Christians did support them... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gays and Jehovah's Witnesses were sent to the concentration camps also. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I don't want to deny that the Holocaust was a complex phenomena; it targeted different groups in different ways. Obviously, when it came to groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, trade unionists, dissident Christians (Confessing Church), etc., it was primarily targeting people for extermination based on their beliefs. When it targeted Jews or Roma/Sinti/Gypsies, it was targeting them based on their ancestry, and saw their beliefs as largely irrelevant. The Holocaust does have some similarities with the Inquisition, but also some very major differences from it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Whenever anyone tries to claim that Hitler was anything more than a nominal Christian, I am reminded of this quote from Mein Kampf:

“”Each one of us to-day may regret the fact that the advent of Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was introduced into the much freer ancient world.

This quote explains why he supported Christianity in public:

“”[Nazism] looks upon the two religious denominations [the EKD and the Catholic Church] as equally valuable mainstays for the existence of our people.

ListenerX^TalkerX 05:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Antisemite=non Christian

How could one claim to be a Christian and also be an anti-semite? Christianity was inspired by Yeshua (Jesus), a jew. It was put together by Paul, a Jew. Peter, the prime apostle, believed by Catholics to be the first 'Pope', was a Jew. The disciples and most of the prophets in the OT were Jewish. Every biblical writer barring Luke were Jewish. How could one therefore have a problem with Jewish ethnicity as Hitler did and claim to be a Christian? Basically, he was a mad man guys. You can't use him to argue against Christianity just as you can't use him to argue against vegetarianism. He was crazy. Who cares what he claimed he was - what matters was what he really was - a genocidal maniac, and genocidal maniacs can't be christians (but they can, ironically, be God!). --Beenz715 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"How could one claim to be a Christian and also be an anti-semite?" Ask Mel Gibson. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 17:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler clearly self-identified as a Christian and made a vast number of statements in support of his "Christian faith" - and that describes the vast majority of the world's christians. This is not a criticism of Christianity, it's simply a statement of fact.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Christianity and anti-semitism have had a strong overlap down the centuries. to say that no Christian could be anti-semitic is the No True Scotsman fallacy, and to hold such views despite Christianity's founders being Jewish is a prime example of doublethink. Sophie^Wilder 19:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hell, look at Martin Luther. I hear he's a bit of a big deal in Protestant circles, but wrote some virulently anti-sem stuff. --Kels (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, don't some Christians deny that Christ was Jewish?--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to look that up. I got as far as Jesus was and Chrome suggested Jesus was an alien. oookay. Sophie^Wilder 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)