Pullman's Devilish Dark Materials: The Golden Compass
by Ted Slater on 11/20/2007 at 10:23 AM
In anticipation of next month's release of the film The Golden Compass, Plugged In's Adam Holz spent weeks studying author Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, the series on which the movie is based. His findings are compiled in an article published yesterday.
While the author's motivations certainly include such predictable things as making money and wanting to share a creative story, his ultimate reason for writing the series is more sinister, according to Holz:
These three books, along with at least one (and presumably two more) movies, constitute British agnostic Philip Pullman's deliberate attempt to foist his viciously anti-God beliefs upon his audience.
Pullman explains his antipathy toward God by saying:
... if there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against.
Elsewhere he explains, "My books are about killing God" and "I am of the Devil's party and know it."
This sentiment makes its way in Pullman's trilogy through sermonettes given by characters in the book (one of whom confesses, "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all"). The Bride of Christ, the Church, is often the target of the characters' disgust, as Holz writes:
Without exception, Pullman characterizes churches and anyone connected to them as agents of wickedness, oppression, torture, murder and malevolence.
So, what? Holz concludes:
In the final analysis, Pullman has nothing of substance to offer when it comes to concocting an alternative to the Christian faith he detests so venomously.
While there may be some benefit in reading these books in order to better understand the bleakness of life without God, and the twisted logic that some employ to defend their agnosticism, it's clear that they should not be read for mere pleasure. Those who find themselves enjoying a book bent on diminishing God and His Bride should be terrified that they'd resonate positively with such a diabolical sentiment.
It should go without saying, though I'm afraid that in this world where most Christians don't practice media discernment it has become necessary to say, that parents would be wise to keep their kids away from Pullman's seductive books and the forthcoming movie based on them, The Golden Compass.
1. Bek said the following at 11:01 AM on Nov 20:
I read the first two books in the trilogy when I was 12 or 13 and the last as soon as it came out and really enjoyed them.
Of course I noticed the religious themes but didn't know Pullman was an ardant athiest. I took it more as just another story plot. Besides, it was quite nice to read a book with spiritual themes at all! It did make me think of mistakes the Church has made and how people outside the Church view it. I'm still not sure I can describe how I felt when reading someone's description of losing their faith (maybe Pullman himself once had some sort of faith?) It felt like such a loss, such a shame. In fact, in my interpretation (before knowing Pullman's beliefs) I saw more about searching earnestly for God rather than depending on a Church built on religion, not the Spirit of God, to tell you what to do. (As an interpretation that came crashing down a bit at the end of the 3rd book, but the lessons remained).
I don't think it's dangerous for teenagers to read these books any more than it is dangerous for them to read works of famous (non-christian) philosophers and poets or listen to secular music, surely it's how they interact with the literature that's important?
Of course, while reading the first book I was listening to Cliff Richard's "Millenium Prayer" on loop - you can draw your own conclusions from that.
God bless
2. Kevin said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 20:
Wickedness, oppression, torture, murder, malevolence? Well, if the churches where he grew up did these kinds of things, I can see how he got the wrong idea. Since when do christian churches torture and kill people? What truly christian church practices wickedness and malevolence? If they do, they're not really a christian church because those things are clearly evil according to the bible.
Oppression, well I see how he can misinterpret the difference in duties of men and women as described out in the bible as oppression, but it is a mistake to do so. I want to know how in the world he tacked these evil attributes onto the christian church. What church does these kinds of things? Did he accidentally mistake the word christian for extremist jihad? Because that's a more accurate example of a wicked, oppressive, torturous, murderous, and malevolent group of people than the true christian church.
Since when does the bride of Christ do such things?
3. Tom Gilson said the following at 11:04 AM on Nov 20:
You might want to be aware that the Scholastic publishing company is partnering with New Line Cinema and promoting "The Golden Compass," and the related Phillip Pullman trilogy, heavily in public schools. There is http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1983916159/E20071030195201/index.html>more information here.
This is an astonishing insertion of a very vocal atheist's anti-God, anti-church agenda into schools.
It seems to me the church needs to be made aware of this--and parents need to be watching what happens in their children's schools.
4. Marisa said the following at 12:16 PM on Nov 20:
I agree. I'm all for intellectual pursuits, reading for the sake of new literary experiences blah blah blah...but when it involves filling ones head with blatantly anti-Christian sentiment, something inside me reels and gags.
Perhaps adults can read for the sake of understanding the other side, so to speak (an unpleasant and dangerous thing in and of itself), but I do think it's a bad idea to expose kids that are still in their formative years to such evil.
5. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 12:35 PM on Nov 20:
I've made my thoughts on the novels clear in previous comments, so I won't go into them again. A few points I want to make though:
First, I saw the trailer for the movie, and it looks awful. Slim chance I'll ever watch that movie.
Second, boycotts of movies have a wonderfully ironic tendency to cause MORE people to see the movie. On a Christian forum, there was a topic created about the movie and a boycott by several Christian groups, and several people commented that they'd never heard of the movie, but the boycott had gotten them interested in it. Seems that any publicity is good publicity.
Third, Rod Dreher's quote in that article disturbed me heavily. He said: "'I want more than anything else I want for my children, even their own happiness in this life, for them to believe in God, who is their salvation. If you believe in God, and that the loss of God is the worst thing that can happen to a person, then you would sooner give your child a rattlesnake to play with than expose him or her at an early age to the work of a man who openly says he wishes to destroy God in the minds of his audience.'"
This is scary. He would rather his kids believe in God than be happy, and would rather put his child in a situation that could kill them than give them a work of fiction that attacks certain parts of Christianity. It's that sort of extremism that casts Christianity in a negative light.
As a final note, with the movie coming out, I'm hoping my 16-year-old brother will read the books, because I know it'll give us something to talk about in relation to faith.
6. Ted Slater said the following at 12:49 PM on Nov 20:
Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) -- I've not mentioned a "boycott" of this film. I agree that such things are often counter-productive. I do, however, encourage that individual Christians practice media discernment and avoid clouding their imaginations with this dark literature.
FWIW, I too would rather my children believe in God than be "happy" (though the two are not mutually exclusive). After all, what does it profit you if you gain the whole world and lose your very soul?
The part about the snake is hyperbole, clearly. Those who want to view Christianity negatively will do so regardless of the literary techniques used to communicate our ideas.
7. Emily said the following at 1:32 PM on Nov 20:
I agree completely with Mr. Dreher's quote. He reminds me of my own Dad. Those were exactly the kind of values he instilled in me; like Mr. Dreher, he was jealous for God's sake of what worldviews I was exposed to.
Many people will no doubt take 6 year olds and younger to this film. Children at that age do not often have the reference to make objective judgments on a film's message. Or the historical background to rationalize, "oh, this film is attacking a certain kind of false Christianity." The importance of the parent in raising up a godly child to become a godly adult with unshakable faith cannot be overestimated. I can't count the number of times I got into conflict with my Dad over movies I wanted to see or books I wanted to read. "It's just a story," I argued, "it's just one situation." But my Dad is right: it's never "just" a story. The more I know about the world, the more I see that truth. Satan does stalk the earth like a lion seeking whom he may devour. His tricks and snares look good on the outside, harmless, or who would be taken in? No-one should ever forget that this world is not our home.
I would rather be run down in the street than lose my faith in God. I would rather my life be a vale of tears from this very moment until the day I die than have earthly happiness and eternal death. This life is a breath, and my belief in God is the most important thing I have ever done, nothing else will ever come close.
8. Jorden said the following at 1:57 PM on Nov 20:
I read the first book and halfway through the second book because they were recommended to me by a librarian I know a few years back. But I didn't like them very much because of the obvious anti-God themes. Plus I just thought the book was weird; so I just quit and read something else. Not planning on seeing the movie at all.
9. Bek said the following at 1:58 PM on Nov 20:
Kevin - I would imagine that Pullman would consider the spanish inquisition, the crusades and the treatment of many of the first protestants as valid examples of "Wickedness, oppression, torture, murder [&] malevolence" perpertrated by the Church.
10. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 2:09 PM on Nov 20:
I'll just point out again, that, anti-Christianity aside, there is some violence, swearing and other mature themes in the books. I wouldn't give the books to anyone under the age of 13. They are Young Adult books, not children's books.
11. kaarina said the following at 2:19 PM on Nov 20:
I read and enjoyed parts of all three books of Pullman's trilogy. However, I was 11 when I first read The Golden Compass and while the first book sparked for me a new resevoir of creativity and depth in my own writing, the last two books failed me because of their dogmatic quality (I was no older than 15 when I read the last one. I was so disappointed with the ending I nearly cried.)
I think the books are important because they illustrate two things: first, that bad theology can sometimes make beautiful poetry, and second, that we must be able to take away that which is good from something which fundamentally tells an untrue story. Pullman's work was important for me to read; it helped me define and clarify my arguments for being a Christian, it made me think about the creative medium of fiction as a tool of conversion, and it posed deep questions that stimulated my imagination. I was not that old, nor that mature. But I was ready to deal with "Unchristian" books.
It is not a book series to ban children from reading universally -- it is a book to read yourself, then give after careful thought to an older child or teenager who is ready to grapple with theological concepts and fallacies and learn what "the other side" says about Christianity. It's a book to read responsibly, most certainly. But I think it should be read, so we may sift the chaff from the wheat. Some of Pullman's writing is truly creative and provoking -- let's allow ourselves to dialogue, to entertain his images and marvel in the beauty of this or that, and walk away more sure of our own vision of creation as the only truly livable one.
12. Jacob Douvier said the following at 2:33 PM on Nov 20:
As with anything, whether it comes from a supposed Christian or not, discernment is required. Since children and youth are not always the most discerning of people, parents should either read the books first, or equip them with the ability to discern truth from error. There came a point when my parents were comfortable with letting me read most anything, but only have they made sure that I knew how to think critically about it.
13. Josh said the following at 2:45 PM on Nov 20:
God forbid we expose ourselves to perspectives other than our own. Wouldn't want to muss up our spiritual hair.
In all seriousness, Pullman is attacking a caricature of reality, a strawman version of the Church and God. If he wrote a book about my mother where he painted her as someone who kicks puppies and steals from orphans I'd laugh it off as "that's not my mother you're talking about". I see no reason to be overly concerned about his views; heck, I'd rather have my kid be thoughtful about life than insulate them until they're 18 and let them get blindsided when they find out people (gasp) disagree with them.
14. kman said the following at 2:48 PM on Nov 20:
Perhaps adults can read for the sake of understanding the other side, so to speak (an unpleasant and dangerous thing in and of itself),
I think grappling with opposing views strengthens faith , at least it has for me.
I certainly would not try to get my understanding from a kid's movie any more than I would get my theology and doctrine from the Narnia books. If you're serious about learning the other side, a movie isn't the best way and don't use that as you're reasoning for seeing it.
Be honest and say you're curious or whatever.
I am curious, for believers who choose to see the movie, knowing the intent of the author, would you feel equally OK with seeing say rock group... that preaches anti-Christian themes in it's music?
Seems they are both artistic expressions and you couldn't go to one without going to the other. The arguments for going to one can easily apply to the other....
15. Jethro said the following at 3:04 PM on Nov 20:
So the books "constitute... [a] deliberate attempt to foist his viciously anti-God beliefs upon his audience"
Does that mean the Chronicles of Narnia are a 'deliberate attempt to foist viciously pro-God beliefs upon Lewis' audience'?
As far as the movie goes Ted, there is an article in this month's Atlantic called 'How Hollywood saved God', basically the studio really went easy on all the anti-God sentiments in the books. Not what you'd expect from the liberal media elites though, is it.
16. Beau said the following at 3:27 PM on Nov 20:
I read the Pluggedin article.
Holtz' conclusion:
"In the final analysis, Pullman has nothing of substance to offer when it comes to concocting an alternative to the Christian faith he detests so venomously."
This made me think of The Silver Chair where the Queen of Underland is trying to convince the children that "There is no sky, no sun, no Aslan."
Puddleglum rightly concludes, "If this is the best you can do, I prefer our imaginary world. I will live like a Narnian (even if there is no Narnia)."
It's amazing how those who hate God the most can't come up with anything better to replace Him. The conclusion of their stories, books, and even movies are always depressing.
17. erin said the following at 4:10 PM on Nov 20:
It's really interesting to me that though the trilogy has been relatively successful since its beginning, only now is it getting attention (unlike Harry Potter, which to me is complete child's play compared to Pullman's books). The first book was published in 1995. No one seemed to care then. The movie truly has put this series in the spotlight.
I have read The Golden Compass and part of the second book, and I definitely agree it is not fare for children and should be placed firmly in the young adults category.
18. Marisa said the following at 5:38 PM on Nov 20:
kman said:
I certainly would not try to get my understanding from a kid's movie any more than I would get my theology and doctrine from the Narnia books. If you're serious about learning the other side, a movie isn't the best way and don't use that as you're reasoning for seeing it.
I was talking about the book. You can get a book at the library for free. Who needs to help box-office earnings by going to the movie?? At any rate, the author has put into his so-called "kids' book" ideas coming from an atheist perspective, no? I guess "understanding the other side" is too strong a turn of phrase. What I meant was that if an adult is curious as to what the book actually contains and what the author is expressing, just proceed with caution...
Personally speaking, I don't think it's necessary. I've got enough stuff to occupy my thoughts...He hates G-D and wants everyone else to along with him. Point taken. Story as old as satan himself...wait a minute...
19. Lue-Yee said the following at 6:26 PM on Nov 20:
With kids it's much better, I think, to read material presenting rigorous challenges than to read material that subtly slips things in, except where we're training ourselves more than usual to exercise discernment of truth and falsehood even where it's subtle.
20. Leah said the following at 6:50 PM on Nov 20:
Josh, it's not about "expos(ing) ourselves to perspectives other than our own". Ted is not saying "don't read it". He is suggesting we don't allow children- who may not be able to discern fiction from non-fiction quite as easily- to read it. I am not sure I agree or disagree, but the point remains that you were implying him to have said one thing when he said something quite diferent.
Jethro- would you really call Lewis' beliefs "vicious"? Not to mention, rhetoric only goes so far, and then reality has to kick in. The reality is that it is GOOD for people to hear the TRUTH of Jesus, but that it may NOT be good for people (especially children) to hear the LIES of Pullman. They are polar opposites. Now, I understand what you were getting at, but like I said, reality must overrule rhetoric at some point.
21. Kit said the following at 9:39 PM on Nov 20:
Wasn't there a similar post a few weeks ago?
22. Jethro said the following at 12:05 AM on Nov 21:
Leah,
Your line of reasoning can easily be extended to the point where so many Christian are actually living, that is, cocooning themselves from the world for fear of being confronted or influenced by something 'evil'. If your faith can't stand up to challenges like Pullman's, then it is really no faith at all, it is little more than ignorance.
23. Fawwaz said the following at 3:54 AM on Nov 21:
Kevin,
"Did he accidentally mistake the word christian for extremist jihad?"
Maybe he presumed the US military as being mostly christians (who are such angels in feel-good fantasy flicks like 3-kings or BlackHawk-Down). Or maybe he was referring to the old British empire's military (the ones who seemed oh-so gentle & civil in old movies). Or maybe the French colonisers from about the same time. Or maybe the older Spanish ones that someone else commented on.
Like it or not, all your TV shows & fiction won't change the reality of who's really been causing the most carnage & injustice for centuries right up to this very moment.
24. Ted Slater said the following at 9:02 AM on Nov 21:
Fawwaz -- do your Saudi friends share your cynicism? I truly am interested in understanding your perspective.
That said, I don't really want to see this thread get too off-topic....
25. Adam D said the following at 9:07 AM on Nov 21:
"Like it or not, all your TV shows & fiction won't change the reality of who's really been causing the most carnage & injustice for centuries right up to this very moment."
Yes you are correct Fawwaz, ATHEISTS have caused the most carnage!
26. k. said the following at 3:31 PM on Nov 21:
Oh, for heaven's sake. If you don't want to read the books or watch the movie, then don't. But if you're going to put so much time into researching the books, you might as well read them and develop your own opinion.
Fawwaz - Sadly, humans fight because it's our nature to do so. There's a well-preserved body from 3300 BC ("Otzi the Iceman") with an arrowhead in the shoulder and other traumatic injuries. I would say the honors for "carnage and injustice" are pretty equally distributed across all of humanity.
27. Andrea said the following at 4:40 PM on Nov 21:
PLEASE don't support this movie or the books. I'm all for freedom of speech and not going out and burning the books (which I think is ridiculous) and I agree that boycotting it will help more than hinder its message. However, I am able to say from personal experience that it is best to stay away from these books.
I've read most of the trilogy. By most, I mean that, as a teenager, I read the first book when it came out, and tried to get through the second, but had to put it down because it messed with my mind too much. I LOVED the first book, after I got over the whole animal "demon" as your "spirit" thing. I wasn't offended so much by the attack on the church, because it was attacking a corrupt institution, and not my personal relationship with Christ.
By the second book, however, it became all too clear that His Dark Materials was not merely accusing a nameless religious institution of heinous acts of "religious" experimentation, but was directly attacking the God of the Bible ... Or Pullman's twisted idea of Him. This is not only my opinion. It's pretty obvious from the writing itself. Lyra (the main character) is looking for her father, who is off to revolt against "The Authority" and finish what the rebellious angles (who are lauded as heroes) supposedly failed to do before the earth began. This "Authority" is later revealed to go by other names in other worlds. And the followers of this "Authority" are blatantly connected with organized Christianity (as the world understands it) when Lyra ends up in present-day London in THIS world.
There is a very disturbing part in the second book where witches are convening to discuss the revolt against the Authority. One outspoken witch, who is portrayed as passionate and desirable, is outraged by the circumcision of children of both sexes (to prevent sexual pleasure) that is supposedly practiced by members of the church. If for no other reason than this, I would avoid allowing children read this book. Female circumcision is a horrible subject that is all too real in some cultures, and should be abolished, but is not an appropriate topic for 8 year-olds to be exposed to.
And that is only the beginning of the sexual overtones. Lyra and Will (a boy from our universe) become very close throughout the last two books. To see if I could stomach reading the rest of the trilogy, I skimmed ahead in the third book at a bookstore. I was shocked to find that, unless I am severely mistaken, it is implied that the two of them end up going off into the woods to have sex. They are portrayed as experiencing a close physical bond--that starts with a kiss and progresses further--that touches their "demons" and fixes them in an unalterable animal form (implying reaching full adulthood). When they come out of the forest, in love, it seems that the "Dust" or "knowledge" follows them. These characters are children, not even teenagers! I truly hope that I am very wrong in my interpretation of that scene in the last book.
Needless to say, even though I'm very curious to see how the movies handle these books, I will not be going to see them.
Don't get me wrong--Pullman is an excellent storyteller. His plots are impossibly, amazingly intricate. But there is simply nothing in any of the books to redeem his twisted view of God. To Pullman, our God is a sadistic torturer whose only purpose is to squelch the joy, pleasure, and knowledge of the world. I pray that one day he will encounter the God I know ... one who, even as He is holy and just, is also loving, and full of grace and mercy.
28. Leah said the following at 7:47 PM on Nov 21:
Jethro, I think you misunderstood me. If you read what I said to Josh, you'd see that I do not advocate not reading the book. I will never advocate for Christians to avoid any type of secular media (unless it was highly offensive or graphic etc etc or obviously unsuitable for kids, like, say, V for Vendetta). I'm a die-hard Harry Potter fan for crying out loud- not exactly the type of Christian to run around saying we should be cocooning ourselves from "secular" media. To say that I am an advocate of "cocooning themselves from the world for fear of being confronted or influenced by something 'evil" is as far from the truth as you can get! (I'm the one telling people exactly what you said to me).
29. Crystal said the following at 7:35 PM on Nov 22:
Before I knew there would be a discussion on this blog, I wrote about the Golden Compass on my own blog. I say
"All this reminds me of when the church publicly protested The Da Vinci Code. The movie remained a success, grossing over 758 million dollars, despite, and perhaps because of the criticism. In other words, I really don’t think that appeals from the church are going to stop people from watching blasphemous and heretical content. That’s sad too. (Btw I don’t think that The Da Vinci Code sold all of those millions without some help from alleged Christians. I know many of us were in the theaters patronizing that blasphemy.)
My disclaimer is that I’ve not seen the Golden Compass, but I would be pretty leery about allowing “Christian raised” children to see a morality film or read a morality tale by someone who is openly hostile to Christianity. I don’t have any children either, BUT I think some things are just common sense. I didn’t have to read the books or the criticism about the movie to come to the conclusion that the movie is not for the child audience for which it aims. I did something very simple: I watched a trailer. Before I even knew who Pullman was, before I even knew what the church’s position was on the movie, I came to one conclusion: This aint Narnia! The movie, though it stars a brilliant child actress, is dark, gloomy, and cold. Those aren’t words that we usually use when we think of a children’s movie. I’ll tell you one thing, based on the violent, mournful trailer, that’s one film I won’t be taking my kid nephew to see."
30. Leah said the following at 8:21 PM on Nov 22:
Crystal- I went and saw The da Vinci Code in the cinema and resent the implication that I was being blasphemous and am not a real Christian ("Btw I don’t think that The Da Vinci Code sold all of those millions without some help from alleged Christians"). There is a difference between The da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass. The Golden Compass was especially written by an atheist to tear down Christianity. The author of The da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, had no such intent. (Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the book).
Now, I won't criticise those who decided against seeing The da Vinci Code. Not at all. And actually, I wouldn't have gone to see it in the cinema except for the fact that a non-Christian friend who LOVED the book was going and invited me. And I wasn't even going to read the book except my (Christian) Mum brought it home one day to read so that she knew what all the hoop-lah was about, so I thought I may as well too.
And I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed the movie. I might see The Golden Compass when it comes out on DVD, but so far it doesn't sound interesting enough for me to read the book or spend the money on going to the cinema. The difference between patronising the Da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass is that by patronising the Golden Compass you are encouraging someone who is actively seeking to destroy Christianity. By patronising the da Vinci Code you're doing no such thing.
31. DurianS said the following at 11:53 PM on Nov 22:
To quote something that Pullman actually said： "As you look back over the history of the Christian church, it's a record of terrible infamy and cruelty and persecution and tyranny. How they have the bloody nerve to go on Thought for the Day and tell us all to be good when, given the slightest chance, they'd be hanging the rest of us and flogging the homosexuals and persecuting the witches."
So, which of these statements is Ted attempting to dispute?
32. Fawwaz said the following at 11:21 PM on Nov 23:
Ted Slater,
Isn't it enough to simply reply to this "intellectual" bigshot's books without pointing fingers to others everytime you hear some criticism. Like what Kevin said? We've always had PLENTY of relegion bashers from both within and without, but we never need to divert attention to others to point out the flaws in some arrogant oppertunist's "work" or to feel better about ourselves by presuming/claiming the worst about everyone else. (though, since that is just business as usual and not sensational enough for the media, you won't find any translation of our scholars rejecting the usual book that comes out from someone who makes money criticizing religion without education/qualification, but there are PLENTY of them).
My views? I originally mentioned some website that I was browsing about the same time as I stumbled onto yours, but I guess it's understandable that the moderator wouldn't want us to go too off-topic or to link to a page showing a horribly deformed child. Thing is, folks like Kevin never need self-criticism when you have enough dirt on others to focus on (whether real or exaggerated or plain propaganda), and you can keep busy enough talking about the past horrors of Hitler & Stalin et al whenever you wish to discuss evil or draw attention away from your people. My folks here are more worried about the here/now; seeing the killing/plundering that is happening to our neighbours when we watch other websites and news sources.
33. Chris said the following at 9:31 PM on Nov 25:
Yes you are correct Fawwaz, ATHEISTS have caused the most carnage!
I'm curious. Please provide examples to prove your point.
34. Adam D said the following at 12:53 PM on Nov 26:
Yes you are correct Fawwaz, ATHEISTS have caused the most carnage!
I'm curious. Please provide examples to prove your point.
Nazi regime, Pol Pot, Stalin are just a few modern ones that together have murdered millions. I'm also curious, are you playing devil's advocate, or are you really ignorant of tyrannical atheistic regimes?
35. k. said the following at 4:24 PM on Nov 26:
Adam D -- Perhaps Chris was thinking of the motto, "Gott Mit Uns" (God with us) that was engraved on Wehrmacht soldiers' belt buckles. Which, I might add, would mean he's more conversant with history than you are.
36. SB said the following at 3:50 PM on Nov 27:
k.-
Having "God with us" on belt buckles doesn't make Hitler a Christian anymore than I become a Christian when I carry a quarter in my pocket that says "In God we trust." Hitler was under the impression that whatever god he was following had commanded him to kill Jews (see Mein Kampf), and while having some sort of god does technically exclude Hitler from being an atheist, it is obvious he was not following the one true God revealed in the Bible. And I believe that's the point Adam D was trying to make.
37. Kit said the following at 8:21 PM on Nov 27:
Not to play devil's advocate,:-), but...many of the Nazi perpetrators were actually Catholic. Interesting, no?