The article says Hitler "was in constant contact with the church". Which church? This should probably be specified. - dcljr 20:23, 27 August 2006 (MST)
Hitler did require people to go to state-sponsored events timed to force them to miss church, he made it impossible for the church to transfer money out of Germany, and he restricted religious teaching in school. Those things were already being done before he came into power, and he banned them. And then he negotiated with the church to allow them again.
These moves weren't for the purpose of creating a secular state, and the negotiation over the treaty weren't an indicator of his religiosity. It seems to me both sides are missing the point here:
Hitler needed support from the church to lend legitimacy to his regime and his eventual campaign. He did those things to force their hand (and did so successfully) - if they wanted to continue to operate in Germany, they had to appear to the public to support him.
People would have pressured church leaders to negotiate with him on it, because they were religious and they wanted those things.
So yeah, it's not correct of Christians to say he was banning all the church stuff to try to create a secular state. But the idea being conveyed here is that he created all these religious-based programs and protections for the church himself, because he was deeply religious. That's also not correct. It was all to enhance his position politically.
He may have also been deeply religious, but his dealings with the church over the Reichskonkordat doesn't show it.--Jaban 06:26, 14 July 2010 (CDT)