> I disagree, at least as far as Christianity is concerned. Christ certainly never held a political office;

Not him, but he was a *political* problem, as early Christians were for the Roman Empire (as utopistic Socialist and anarchists, in the 19th Century, were a threat for the European kingdoms).

At any rate, there's a difference in Christianity and the Church as a political force (most of the heretical and scismatic confessions born in Europe started as a need to regain the true Christian values, opposing them to the more and more richer and politically influent Roman Church).

> His Edict of Milan (in 307? 310? I can't remember the year)

313.

> The Anabaptists, Waldensians, and others

These "heretical" confessions, breaking with the Roman Church, were -expecially in the Middle Ages- seen as the real salvation by the poor and oppressed people, while the Roman Church was a rich and strong political force that imposed taxes and ruled on every aspect of people's life.

> I may be misunderstanding your statement.

I state it again, I known and feel the difference between Christianity and the Church.

What I mean is that any religion may be used as a way of controlling masses or to raise opposition to some political power, as happened in the past centuries.

Italian recent history (from Pope Pio IX to Paul VI), however, shows that the Roman Church always tried to be involved with the ruling parties - in 1861, when Italy - except the Vatican state - was unificated in a kingdom; in 1870, when Rome was finally conquered; in 1922, with fascism; in 1948, with the center-oriented Christian Democratic party, winner of the first republican elections of Italy...

Don't see in my statements anything against the Roman Church or Christianity. My first thought was to show how historical arguments that are often used as evidences about how "bad" Christians have been in the past are totally unrelated to real Christian values.

AP.