Klassic Katbert836 - Let's see.

But I would not say that Hitler - when he was using Christianity (or Bush* now) was necessarily a Christian. If you have someone who sees a religion as a tool to manipulate people and that person is using religion for his own gain - then I think that that person is no longer (necessarily) a follower of religion - but a user of religion.

I would say Hitler was both a follower and a user of religion. They're not mutually exclusive.

And I think that it's reasonable to believe that the person, Hitler, was NOT a "Christian" in the sense that he was NOT trying to follow the teachings of "Jesus". I think it is reasonable to surmise that Hitler was not concerned about others, he was not concerned about his relationship to any deities as he may have imagined them - if anything - it seems that Hitler was his own deity. And some say that Germany was his religion.

You're right that he wasn't concerned in following the teachings of Jesus. But by your own admission, that does not exclude him from being a Christian. As for claims that Germany was his religion, or that he indulged in self-worship- they're speculation, as Hitler himself contradicted them numerous times.

So say you have someone who sees through religion and sees religion (esp. Christianity) as the perfect way to manipulate people - why would you think that that person still believed in the religion for himself? Does it really make sense that someone would see through a religion so clearly to use it as Hitler did then (and as Bush/Rove/etc. do now) - at the same time embrace that which they see as just a tool. I don't see it that way.

Once again, there's nothing mutually exclusive about it. Hitler seeing the Church as a way to control people does not make him a non-believer by default.

What did Hitler believe? Who knows. I'm not saying he was an atheist or a deist or any other thing. I just don't think that someone like Hitler necessarily believed anything - except maybe that might makes right - and eugenics - and we don't really know what else.

That would be correct. We really don't know. But since we have numerous records of him affirming his Christian beliefs, it's reasonable to assume he was a Christian.

And while I think it's worthwhile for atheists to encourage people to question religion and esp. to question government leaders who use religion, I don't it's good to start demonizing people because they belong to a certain religious group (unless that particular group is responsible for encouraging atrocities) or the demonizers start to sound like the bad guys. IOW - that's exactly the kind of rhetoric that leads to problems.

Look, all I take issue with is Christians using the No True Scotsman fallacy to place bad people outside the fold. It encourages an attitude of moral superiority.