If anything Hitler was against Christianity, but felt that the time to deal with Christians was to be left to a time well after the other "lesser races" were dealt with. There clearly was anti-Christian bias in some of the letters and writings of Hitler, and a sort of psuedo-religious cult that came up in the form of Nazism that transcended Christianity.

Certainly the anti-Jewish sentiment in Nazism was not grounded in Christianity, but rather in something far more profound and a sort of religion in its own right.

As for being hard-pressed to look for any incident where a bunch of avowed atheists have explicitly killed those harboring religious beliefs as their only "crime"? I don't think you have looked hard enough. Millions have died at the hands of atheists, or at least governments that have sought explicitly to purge religious thought. Both Mao and Stalin were involved in that killing, and both professed official atheism. It wasn't merely "the greater good", but that was indeed the rationale. It also involved more than just these two men.

Even today in China, if you tried to open a church or express your religious beliefs in a public manner without formal state approval you will get arrested and possibly even killed on the spot for what in most "western" nations would be considered a non-violent protest. I'm not talking twenty or forty years ago, I'm talking today. People are still being killed today in the name of atheism, or because they don't disavow their religious beliefs.

What educational system are you talking about? Rote memorization was the mainstay of the educational system up until the 60s when we started getting all warm and fuzzy and stopped caring about facts. Rote learning provides the basis for critical thinking (which is best done at the college level) by grounding the individual in facts. I'm afraid what we've been producing for the past 30 years are students who mostly avoid the hard work of thinking that the hard sciences require and instead go for MBAs to make money as painlessly as possible. That probably has a lot to do with the decline in basic science work, as well.

Yes, and Medicine has long relied on this. I've read (sorry, no citation) that it wasn't until sometime in mid-19th century that you were statistically better off consulting a physician than not. Of course, that depended greatly on whether the problem was in that limited subset of illnesses they could actually do something about. But people went to doctors anyway and were regularly bled, purged and given near-poisonous drugs and thanked the good doctor for his attention. Some even survived..

It didn't say "Congress" it said "Federal Government" as in opposition to the State government. Doing badly on this test I think mostly results from: 1. Ignorance of history... If you don't have a clue what the Federalist Papers or the Lincoln-Douglass debates were all about, you lose. 2. Inability to read closely....