And Mohandas Gandhi, who really did turn the other cheek? Those who try to serve all humanity, whether or not all humanity serves them in turn?

This prompts me to propose a new heuristic: treat any claims of great and improbable virtue with great skepticism.

In Saul Alinksky's telling (in "Rules for Radicals"), Gandhi adopted nonviolence because it was the best option he had. The Indians had no guns and no way to get them. Gandhi also complained about the passivity of Indians. He turned these weaknesses into strengths. Passive sit-in's and passive resistance to shame the British into doing the right thing.

Later, when the Indians were in charge and had guns they invaded Kashmir. Nehru expected Gandhi to condemn the resort to violence but he stayed silent.

Another example of an allegedly highly virtuous person who deservces close scrutiny is Mother Theresa. But I suspect this is so well known I will not rehearse the details (a search for Christopher Hittchens Mother Theresa should get you there).