Discussion:
What is the meaning of "religious"?
Add Reply
Dingbat
2018-07-28 09:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600

Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?

I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church

Russia and the Curse of Geography | The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/
Vladimir Putin says he is a religious man, a great supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-28 11:33:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I'm not sure that that's the dichotomy that you suggest. It's more than
possible to be a believer (I don't think fervency is necessary) and still
find religion politically useful, just as it is to be a master politician and
still believe.
Post by Dingbat
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
I don't think that's an explanation. Merely an adjunct. He is religious
*and* supports the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Peter Moylan
2018-07-29 14:01:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I'm not sure that that's the dichotomy that you suggest. It's more
than possible to be a believer (I don't think fervency is necessary)
and still find religion politically useful, just as it is to be a
master politician and still believe.
Post by Dingbat
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
I don't think that's an explanation. Merely an adjunct. He is
religious *and* supports the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I find that implausible. It's more likely that he is a non-believer, and
supports the Eastern Orthodox Church as a matter of political convenience.

I conjecture, furthermore, that much the same is true for the leaders of
many Western nations. They find it politically convenient to support
whatever the established church is, but privately do not share the
values of that church.

This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote for
them. I can't support all of the avowed values of my country[1], but
this at least I solidly support.

[1] I will certainly never support the "my country, right or wrong"
philosophy, which I consider to be particularly evil. Why would any
honest person refuse to attempt to fix the flaws of their country?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-29 14:37:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I'm not sure that that's the dichotomy that you suggest. It's more
than possible to be a believer (I don't think fervency is necessary)
and still find religion politically useful, just as it is to be a
master politician and still believe.
Post by Dingbat
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
I don't think that's an explanation. Merely an adjunct. He is
religious *and* supports the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I find that implausible. It's more likely that he is a non-believer, and
supports the Eastern Orthodox Church as a matter of political convenience.
Then I'm sorry for your cynicism. He does have a record of acts which
speak more to personal devotion than political expediency sufficient to
strongly suggest that his attachment to the Orthodox Church extends
beyond the merely convenient. I wouldn't presume to imply that he is
necessarily orthodox (small o) in his beliefs but I don't see any reason
to doubt that he has some kind of personal Christian faith.
Post by Peter Moylan
I conjecture, furthermore, that much the same is true for the leaders of
many Western nations. They find it politically convenient to support
whatever the established church is, but privately do not share the
values of that church.
I don't know that there are many of those countries where it would be
an advantage to openly declare oneself Christian these days, the USA
apart, obviously. It certainly does nothing for anyone in the UK, as PM
Blair discovered. Indeed the British electorate is notably suspicious of
open declarations of religious affiliation by politicians or public figures
of any kind. It's very much a not in front of the children you might scare
the horses kinda thing.
Post by Peter Moylan
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian.
How very odd!
Post by Peter Moylan
We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote for
them. I can't support all of the avowed values of my country[1], but
this at least I solidly support.
[1] I will certainly never support the "my country, right or wrong"
philosophy, which I consider to be particularly evil. Why would any
honest person refuse to attempt to fix the flaws of their country?
bill van
2018-07-29 21:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I'm not sure that that's the dichotomy that you suggest. It's more
than possible to be a believer (I don't think fervency is necessary)
and still find religion politically useful, just as it is to be a
master politician and still believe.
Post by Dingbat
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
I don't think that's an explanation. Merely an adjunct. He is
religious *and* supports the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I find that implausible. It's more likely that he is a non-believer, and
supports the Eastern Orthodox Church as a matter of political convenience.
Then I'm sorry for your cynicism. He does have a record of acts which
speak more to personal devotion than political expediency sufficient to
strongly suggest that his attachment to the Orthodox Church extends
beyond the merely convenient. I wouldn't presume to imply that he is
necessarily orthodox (small o) in his beliefs but I don't see any reason
to doubt that he has some kind of personal Christian faith.
As a corrupt dictator who has turned the Russian government into an
organized crime operation, who orders assassinations inside and outside
his country, who has invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea, who is
duping Trump into destabilizing western alliances so he can expand
Russia further, whose armed forces are taking part in the genocide in
Syria, etc. etc., he can't possibly be a believing Christian. If he is,
he knows with certainly that he's going to hell.

bill
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-29 22:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I'm not sure that that's the dichotomy that you suggest. It's more
than possible to be a believer (I don't think fervency is necessary)
and still find religion politically useful, just as it is to be a
master politician and still believe.
Post by Dingbat
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
I don't think that's an explanation. Merely an adjunct. He is
religious *and* supports the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I find that implausible. It's more likely that he is a non-believer, and
supports the Eastern Orthodox Church as a matter of political convenience.
Then I'm sorry for your cynicism. He does have a record of acts which
speak more to personal devotion than political expediency sufficient to
strongly suggest that his attachment to the Orthodox Church extends
beyond the merely convenient. I wouldn't presume to imply that he is
necessarily orthodox (small o) in his beliefs but I don't see any reason
to doubt that he has some kind of personal Christian faith.
As a corrupt dictator who has turned the Russian government into an
organized crime operation, who orders assassinations inside and outside
his country, who has invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea, who is
duping Trump into destabilizing western alliances so he can expand
Russia further, whose armed forces are taking part in the genocide in
Syria, etc. etc., he can't possibly be a believing Christian. If he is,
he knows with certainly that he's going to hell.
Not all Christians believe in Hell and the Orthodox Churches are not
at all keen on the idea in general*. Change the names in your litany
of evil and you could be talking about many a Christian, including
many a saint, father of the Church, or Pope. You seem to have forgotten
that a central tenet of Christian faith is the absolute conviction that
it is impossible for humans to live without sin (Augustine effectively
says that every breath you take is a sin). One could very well argue
that it people like Putin who are most likely to have the strongest of
faiths because only they know how much they need it!

*The existence of physical evil in any form runs entirely counter to
the underlying Platonism of its theology.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-29 17:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
[ … ]
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote for
them.
It's one of the attractive features of France that no one gives a damn
whether a politician is religious or not. I don't have any idea whether
Mitterrand or Chirac ever showed any interest in god. Sarkozy maybe: I
don't remember, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hollande probably not. One
of the things people don't like about Macron is that he's too close to
the bishops. He is certainly very feeble on sticking up for laïcité,
and one suspects that he doesn't believe in it.

Nowadays even the countries in Europe that were once noted for
religiosity, like Ireland, Spain and Italy, seem to have largely
abandoned it. In Spain, at least, the number of churches burned down
during the civil war suggests that ordinary people were less religious
than they were cracked up to be, and very few of those in Madrid were
rebuilt under Franco.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-29 20:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote for
them.
It's one of the attractive features of France that no one gives a damn
whether a politician is religious or not. I don't have any idea whether
Mitterrand or Chirac ever showed any interest in god. Sarkozy maybe: I
don't remember, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hollande probably not. One
of the things people don't like about Macron is that he's too close to
the bishops. He is certainly very feeble on sticking up for laïcité,
and one suspects that he doesn't believe in it.
They only dislike anyone who _is_ religious? You can't wear a yarmulke /
hijab / cross ?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nowadays even the countries in Europe that were once noted for
religiosity, like Ireland, Spain and Italy, seem to have largely
abandoned it. In Spain, at least, the number of churches burned down
during the civil war suggests that ordinary people were less religious
than they were cracked up to be, and very few of those in Madrid were
rebuilt under Franco.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-30 13:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote fo
r
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
them.
It's one of the attractive features of France that no one gives a damn
whether a politician is religious or not. I don't have any idea whether
Mitterrand or Chirac ever showed any interest in god. Sarkozy maybe: I
don't remember, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hollande probably not. One
of the things people don't like about Macron is that he's too close to
the bishops. He is certainly very feeble on sticking up for laïcit
é,
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
and one suspects that he doesn't believe in it.
They only dislike anyone who _is_ religious? You can't wear a yarmulke /
hijab / cross ?
You're not allowed (in theory) to wear an _ostentatious_ symbol of
religious affiliation in a public place. A little cross on your lapel
is OK, but a large cross hanging from your neck isn't.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nowadays even the countries in Europe that were once noted for
religiosity, like Ireland, Spain and Italy, seem to have largely
abandoned it. In Spain, at least, the number of churches burned down
during the civil war suggests that ordinary people were less religious
than they were cracked up to be, and very few of those in Madrid were
rebuilt under Franco.
--
athel
Lanarcam
2018-07-30 14:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
You're not allowed (in theory) to wear an _ostentatious_ symbol of
religious affiliation in a public place. A little cross on your lapel is
OK, but a large cross hanging from your neck isn't.
In public schools for instance, it is forbidden but not in the streets.
Cheryl
2018-07-30 15:46:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote fo
r
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
them.
It's one of the attractive features of France that no one gives a damn
whether a politician is religious or not. I don't have any idea whether
Mitterrand or Chirac ever showed any interest in god. Sarkozy maybe: I
don't remember, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hollande probably not. One
of the things people don't like about Macron is that he's too close to
the bishops. He is certainly very feeble on sticking up for laïcit
é,
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
and one suspects that he doesn't believe in it.
They only dislike anyone who _is_ religious? You can't wear a yarmulke /
hijab / cross ?
You're not allowed (in theory) to wear an _ostentatious_ symbol of
religious affiliation in a public place. A little cross on your lapel is
OK, but a large cross hanging from your neck isn't.
That is a really peculiar law. If religious symbols are dangerous,
surely anything visible should be banned. And if they aren't, why does
it matter how big the symbol is?
--
Cheryl
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-30 16:03:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote fo
r
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
them.
It's one of the attractive features of France that no one gives a damn
whether a politician is religious or not. I don't have any idea whether
Mitterrand or Chirac ever showed any interest in god. Sarkozy maybe: I
don't remember, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hollande probably not. One
of the things people don't like about Macron is that he's too close to
the bishops. He is certainly very feeble on sticking up for laïcit
é,
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
and one suspects that he doesn't believe in it.
They only dislike anyone who _is_ religious? You can't wear a yarmulke /
hijab / cross ?
You're not allowed (in theory) to wear an _ostentatious_ symbol of
religious affiliation in a public place. A little cross on your lapel
is OK, but a large cross hanging from your neck isn't.
That is a really peculiar law. If religious symbols are dangerous,
surely anything visible should be banned. And if they aren't, why does
it matter how big the symbol is?
Lanarcam can explain that better than I can. (He's already corrected my
statement.)
--
athel
Lanarcam
2018-07-30 16:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Cheryl
That is a really peculiar law. If religious symbols are dangerous,
surely anything visible should be banned. And if they aren't, why does
it matter how big the symbol is?
Lanarcam can explain that better than I can. (He's already corrected my
statement.)
That law was very controversial. This Wikipedia page explains it:

<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_sur_les_signes_religieux_dans_les_%C3%A9coles_publiques_fran%C3%A7aises>

You can read in particular the paragraph "débats sur la loi" possibly
with the help of an autoamtic translator.

That law stemmed from the fact that young women wore muslim veils
at school. That it was extended to crosses and kippa was seen as
a measure to defuse the anger.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-30 16:12:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote fo
r
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
them.
It's one of the attractive features of France that no one gives a damn
whether a politician is religious or not. I don't have any idea whether
Mitterrand or Chirac ever showed any interest in god. Sarkozy maybe: I
don't remember, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hollande probably not. One
of the things people don't like about Macron is that he's too close to
the bishops. He is certainly very feeble on sticking up for laïcit
é,
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
and one suspects that he doesn't believe in it.
They only dislike anyone who _is_ religious? You can't wear a yarmulke /
hijab / cross ?
You're not allowed (in theory) to wear an _ostentatious_ symbol of
religious affiliation in a public place. A little cross on your lapel is
OK, but a large cross hanging from your neck isn't.
That is a really peculiar law. If religious symbols are dangerous,
surely anything visible should be banned. And if they aren't, why does
it matter how big the symbol is?
It's not only peculiar, it also flies in the face of European and
United Nations Human Rights declarations and EU policy. But
it's France. Question them and you just get the Gallic shrug!
Lanarcam
2018-07-30 16:24:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It's not only peculiar, it also flies in the face of European and
United Nations Human Rights declarations and EU policy. But
it's France. Question them and you just get the Gallic shrug!
Tell all that to a Brexiter! ;)

Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-29 19:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:01:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I'm not sure that that's the dichotomy that you suggest. It's more
than possible to be a believer (I don't think fervency is necessary)
and still find religion politically useful, just as it is to be a
master politician and still believe.
Post by Dingbat
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
I don't think that's an explanation. Merely an adjunct. He is
religious *and* supports the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I find that implausible. It's more likely that he is a non-believer, and
supports the Eastern Orthodox Church as a matter of political convenience.
I conjecture, furthermore, that much the same is true for the leaders of
many Western nations. They find it politically convenient to support
whatever the established church is, but privately do not share the
values of that church.
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote for
them. I can't support all of the avowed values of my country[1], but
this at least I solidly support.
[1] I will certainly never support the "my country, right or wrong"
philosophy, which I consider to be particularly evil. Why would any
honest person refuse to attempt to fix the flaws of their country?
This gives the etymology of the saying:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/my_country,_right_or_wrong

Originally Stephen Decatur, in an after-dinner toast of 1816–1820:

“Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she
always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!”

Later amended as, and often attributed to, Carl Schurz, 1872.[1]as,

“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if
wrong, to be set right.”

And:
Usage notes

Frequently used either as an expression of jingoism (extreme
patriotism), in the sense “I will stand by my country whether it be
right or wrong”, or to attack such patriotism as unthinking:

“‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would
think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”
— G. K. Chesterton

I'm not sure what Chesterton is saying there. Does he conider that a
patriot would never see his/her country as being wrong?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
David Kleinecke
2018-07-29 20:29:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:01:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I'm not sure that that's the dichotomy that you suggest. It's more
than possible to be a believer (I don't think fervency is necessary)
and still find religion politically useful, just as it is to be a
master politician and still believe.
Post by Dingbat
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
I don't think that's an explanation. Merely an adjunct. He is
religious *and* supports the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I find that implausible. It's more likely that he is a non-believer, and
supports the Eastern Orthodox Church as a matter of political convenience.
I conjecture, furthermore, that much the same is true for the leaders of
many Western nations. They find it politically convenient to support
whatever the established church is, but privately do not share the
values of that church.
This is one detail in which I declare myself proud to be Australian. We
have had leaders who were openly atheistic, and we continued to vote for
them. I can't support all of the avowed values of my country[1], but
this at least I solidly support.
[1] I will certainly never support the "my country, right or wrong"
philosophy, which I consider to be particularly evil. Why would any
honest person refuse to attempt to fix the flaws of their country?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/my_country,_right_or_wrong
“Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she
always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!”
Later amended as, and often attributed to, Carl Schurz, 1872.[1]as,
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if
wrong, to be set right.”
Usage notes
Frequently used either as an expression of jingoism (extreme
patriotism), in the sense “I will stand by my country whether it be
“‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would
think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”
— G. K. Chesterton
I'm not sure what Chesterton is saying there. Does he conider that a
patriot would never see his/her country as being wrong?
I think he means that the possibility should never be
mentioned in public.
Horace LaBadie
2018-07-28 12:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"?
Or does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
Russia and the Curse of Geography | The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukr
aine-syria/413248/
Vladimir Putin says he is a religious man, a great supporter of the Russian
Orthodox Church.
He's religious about his routine.

"Observant" is one form of religiosity.
CDB
2018-07-28 21:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"? Or
does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
Russia and the Curse of Geography | The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/
You mean this?

"Vladimir Putin says he is a religious man, a great supporter of the
Russian Orthodox Church."

As far as I can see, what it says is that Putin claims to be religious
and a church-supporter. The author does not endorse his claim, but
continues "If so ...".
Dingbat
2018-07-29 01:04:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Dingbat
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Can a ruler who finds religion useful be described as "religious"? Or
does he need to be a fervent believer to be "religious"?
I ask because this article has Putin being religious on the basis
that he supports the Orthodox church
Russia and the Curse of Geography | The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/
You mean this?
Yes.
Post by CDB
"Vladimir Putin says he is a religious man, a great supporter of the
Russian Orthodox Church."
As far as I can see, what it says is that Putin claims to be religious
and a church-supporter.
I was in doubt cuz the original sentence lacks an "and".
Post by CDB
The author does not endorse his claim, but
continues "If so ...".
Loading...