Was Hitler a Christian? Should anyone care?

I hate the debate between the Christians and the non-Christians concerning whether Hitler was a Christian. It has no interesting implications either way. If Hitler was a Christian, it says nothing about Christians in general or whether their religion is true. Likewise, if Hitler was not a Christian, it says nothing about non-Christians in general or whether their 'Non-Christian' position is true.

Guilt by Statistical Association

You get a knock at your door. You open it to find a policeman standing there with a warrant for your arrest. You ask what you have done that is wrong. He replies, "The other day, someone was murdered by someone who owned a two-story house. Since you, sir, own a two-story house, you must be a bad person and therefore, you must come with us."

Certainly the cop has made a mistake. Simply because someone who owned a two-story house murdered someone does not say anything about all or most of the people who own a two-story house.

It is likewise with religious claims. If Hitler was a Christian and did a bad thing, then it says nothing about whether Christians in general are good people. If Hitler was an atheist and he did a bad thing, then it says nothing about whether atheists in general are good people.

Truth Value

If Hitler was a Christian, would that prove Christianity false? No. Simply because person A is a bad person, it does not follow that person A's religion must therefore be false. This is nothing but argument ad hominem. If you look at the past, you can certainly find Christians who have done things that were terribly wrong. If you look at the past, you can certainly find non-Christians who have done things that were terribly wrong. Therefore, using the inference that "Person A did something wrong" to conclude "Person A's religion is false" is not going to get you anywhere. One can find people of his religion who have done bad things and people not of his religion who have done bad things.

So, if Hitler was a Christian, Christianity would not be proven false. If Hitler was a Non-Christian, it would not prove the Non-Christian position false.

Blaming 'Religion' for the evils of the past

Often, atheists will blame religion for the evils of the past. Because of religion, we had the inquisition. Because of religion, we had 9/11 happen. Because of religion, many people have died and suffered.

However, in doing this, they are only identifying certain religious beliefs that have made people do bad things. The Islamic terrorists believed that Allah commanded them to kill innocent civilians. The Christians who participated in the Inquisition believed the same about their Christian God. Certainly, the belief that "God commanded X and God will punish those who do not follow X" will cause people to want to obey God. If they believe that God commanded the killing of innocent people, they will be more likely to carry about that act.

However, if they believe that God commanded us to take care of infants, they will be more likely to do so. If they believe that God commanded them to feed the starving children, then they will be more likely to do so.

The problem isn't that the person believes in God. The problem is that the person believes that God has commanded the killing of innocent people. The problem is that the person believes God has commanded X where X is obviously a wrong act.

So, what's the 'moral' of the story, if you will? The moral of the story is not to ditch religion necessarily. The moral of the story is to scrutinize religious claims that God has given a certain command. If the command is obviously immoral, then either (a) God did not give it or (b) the God they are listening to is immoral. Either way, the command should not be followed.

If someone were to follow it anyways, then it's simply because of their willingness to perform the wrong act. A good person, on the other hand, would not be willing to perform the wrong act. He will ask for more evidence that God commanded this than merely the person's word or merely because someone thousands of years ago wrote it down in a book. A good person would be reluctant to killing innocent people and would therefore be reluctant to believe that it is the right thing to do. He would ask for a large amount of evidence before concluding that it is the right act. It is my position that we should do the same.

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, religion is not to blame for the evils that religious people have committed. Only certain religious beliefs have caused the evils of the past. One cannot therefore generalize to say that all religious belief is to blame. The people themselves are to blame for not asking for large amounts of evidence that God commanded something that, on the face of it, was immoral. This shows that they just wanted to kill innocent people or just wanted to kill Non-Christians. This makes them a bad person.

Religion also cannot be to blame when we look at people like Hitler. If Hitler was religious, that does not mean that it is wrong to be religious. If Hitler was not religious, it does not mean that it is wrong to not be religious. Looking at one person in a group to characterize the group as a whole is obviously not the correct thing to do.

If Hitler was a Christian, that does not make Christianity false. If Hitler was not a Christian, that does not make the non-Christian position false. One can find people who are Christians and who aren't Christians who have done terrible things. Whether a person in the given religion has done terrible things tells us nothing about whether the religion is true or not.

People who participate in the "Was Hitler a Christian?" debate often forget these key points that make the entire debate useless. Whether he was does not affect whether it is wrong to be a Christian or whether Christianity is false.