Omar Kusturica points out the facts that early Christians held to a position of non-violence when they were in a minority position and that this changed when they gained political power. What Omar does not do is show that the gain in political power was the cause of the change. I believe the relevant fallacy is that of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The point of my post was to note that the commitment to non-violence was not tactical (or should that be strategic?) but arose from deeply held beliefs. Furthermore, the grounds for those beliefs in non-violence lay not in pragmatic political and social considerations, but in the very identity of Christianity so that there have always been Christians who held to a position of non-violence. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html