I actually know a lot about Christianity. As a historian and ethnologist, studying religion is very important to me. I know the Nicene Creed, I know its difference from Catholicism, I know the reasons for the emergence of "heresies" and their essence. As a person who does not belong to the Christian religion, I can judge it impartially. I do not deny the leading role of Orthodoxy for Russia in the 13th-17th centuries. It united the country at that time. But then came the Schism, persecution of the Old Believers (they are still at odds with the official church), the subjugation of the church to the state (under Peter), and the transformation of Orthodoxy into an instrument of autocracy (Count Uvarov). Unlike some participants in the discussion, I don't like to turn a blind eye to historical facts. It is easy to create a myth for yourself, not knowing the reality, and then dismiss facts that do not fit into this myth. What kind of faith can we talk about now, when "sincerity" depends on the size of the cross? When bandits go to church to get absolution for new sins? When the official church believes that the basics of Orthodoxy should be introduced in schools, regardless of the multi-confessional nature of the country? This is how interethnic discord is fueled. Muslims, at least, behave honestly towards those around them, do not hide their intentions, and do not impose their faith by fire and sword. Now it has become fashionable to wear a cross, go to church, and even the most ardent atheists are now more Orthodox than the Patriarch (who himself is of Baltic German origin).
Nicholas the Bloody left the Winter Palace the day before the demonstration because he was warned about it, and he wanted to remain untainted. Do you think the shooting happened without his knowledge? Why, upon his return, did he not punish the guilty, but instead took up suppressing the revolution, which, by the way, turned out to be a surprise for the Bolsheviks themselves? History must be known, not invented.