THERE was a really tremendous piece in the FT Weekend Magazine on Father Tikhon, an Orthodox monk who may or may not be President Vladimir Putin's godfather. Given the mafia nature of the Russian state, that would make him the godfather of the godfather of all godfathers. No wonder he will neither confirm nor deny the story.

The story of the growing closeness of the new Russian state and the Orthodox Church is wonderfully illuminated by this piece of history. "Father Tikhon does appear to have a very intimate knowledge of Putin's religious life: in 2001 he gave an intriguing interview to a Greek newspaper, saying Putin 'really is an Orthodox Christian, and not just nominally, but a person who makes confession, takes communion and understands his responsibility before God for the high service entrusted to him and for his immortal soul.'"

His friend Yevgeny Nikiforov explains, however, that this does not make the monk a security risk: "In our confessions there is not very much specific information. You just say 'I stole' or 'I fornicated'. Maybe you add a few specific details like how much and how often. But you don't need to be very specific."

The monastery where Fr Tikhon works is just down the street from the Lubyanka, and was itself used as a barracks for the secret police under Communism. Nowadays, even the Lubyanka has a dedicated chapel, and Fr Tikhon is anxious to show that President Putin's FSB has nothing to do with the KGB that it was before it was renamed: "The intelligence officers that I know did what they did on behalf of the Russian state . . . and so to say they were guilty of repressions would be totally false."

So that's all right, then.

But the Orthodox mindset really is out- side time as it is understood in the West. The most fascinating snippet in the piece relates to the Pussy Riot trial: "Prosecution documents state that the laws broken by the three defendants . . . were articles 62 and 75 of the Quinisext Council, held under the emperor Justinian in the seventh century. According to these articles, access to the solea and pulpit of Orthodox churches is reserved for clergy."

ON the other side of the Atlantic, there was a story in the New York Times which complicated the image of a gun-happy Religious Right: "The National Association of Evangelicals surveyed its board of more than 100 members in December, and found that 73 per cent of them said that government should increase gun regulations. However, the association has not taken a position publicly."

Another poll, from the same story, looked at the membership in the pews. There, "among the roughly two-thirds of white Evangelical Protestants who say the term 'pro-life' describes them very well, 64 per cent are opposed to stricter gun control laws, while 33 per cent favour them."

Considering that a previous director, Richard Cizik, was forced out of the NAE for accepting the evidence for global warming, it is hardly surprising that organisation hasn't taken a position.

FROM The Times comes a rather frightening snippet from yet another poll, this time quoted by Baroness Warsi in a speech on tolerance and integration: "A recent YouGov survey [showed] just 23 per cent of people said that Islam was not a threat to Western civilisation and only 24 per cent thought Muslims were compatible with the British way of life."

OH DEAR. All these words written, and hardly any space left to get a mention in of gay marriage.

It is fascinating to see that this, rather than relations with Europe, is the main thing driving elderly Conservative Party members to UKIP. In The Times (again) there was a report from the political editor, who may be assumed to have no religious interests, saying: "MPs have warned party whips that the issue of gay marriage is by far the most toxic for them among grassroots party members. . .

"Mr Cameron has given his party a free vote on the issue, and half of the Conservative Party's 303 MPs are expected to oppose the change.

"Ministers are also expected to vote against it in droves. One told The Times: 'I don't believe in it anyway, but if I did I would still be mad to vote for it, given the mood on the ground.'"

The Cameron calculation, obviously, is that the old members who leave will be replaced by young ones attracted by his policy, or who can't see what the fuss was about. That looks quite sound as far as it goes, but it does rely on the idea that young people want to join any political party. Can that really be true? Even now, the Conservative Party has fewer than a quarter of the people on its rolls than are on the electoral roll of the C of E. But then it doesn't control any primary schools.