Daily Journal:

I am afraid that our respected Ombudsman is wrong: questions such as “what is more important - God or natural laws” are not resolved not only by the court, but in general. They are also not resolved in dialogue. Because it is a matter of faith. The proposal to organize a dialogue in itself is undoubtedly constructive. But not because the parties can come to a common opinion - they clearly cannot, but because in a dialogue it is possible to discuss some topics more substantively and sometimes even find compromises, and not be limited to declarations of a general nature.

Alas, now both those who usually speak on behalf of the Church, and very many of those who oppose them, tend to limit themselves to declarations, and also not to be shy about obvious, let’s say, exaggerations: “without religion there is no morality,” “all achievements modern world science is based on a materialistic vision of the world” (in the latter case, it is immediately clear that the authors, when talking about science, simply forget the humanities).

Dialogue on church and social issues has been going on for a long time, and at the initiative of a variety of parties. But the intensity of the dialogue is still quite low, so the parties are very tempted to remain at the level of declarations. This is the direction we need to act – to intensify the dialogue. And also - to involve more different parties in it, since there are much more groups with different points of view on this range of issues than two.