A round table discussion titled “State and Religion: Cooperation For the Benefit of Societal Development” was held at the Institute of Contemporary Development. The discussion was led by Institute of Contemporary Development chairman Igor Yurgens. It included Dmitry Mezentsev, the Vice Speaker of the Federation Council and an Institute of Contemporary Development board member; Alexander Chubaryan, the director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World History and a member of the board of trustees; Vsevolod Chaplin, the deputy chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchy; Gianfranco Ravasi, the chairman of the Pontifical Council for Culture; Igor Bunin, the president of the Center for Political Technologies; Chris Seiple, the president of the Institute for Global Engagement; Otto Depenhauer, the director of the seminar on state philosophy and legal policy at the University of Cologne; as well as representatives of various faiths and Russian and foreign experts on theology.
 
In his opening remarks Igor Yurgens observed that the fundamental mission of our Institute is the formulation and launch of initiatives directed toward improving life in Russia and modernizing Russian society. “In his annual state-of-the-nation address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, President Dmitry Medvedev, who also heads the Institute of Contemporary Development’s board of trustees, began his explanation of the strategic plan for the country’s development by talking about values, societal ideals and the moral principles of our society. This approach is deeply symbolic. We will devote a great deal of attention during our work today to the issue of strengthening values,” Yurgens said.
 
Religious life today is undergoing a period of revival and rapid growth. Cooperation between the state and religion is starting to emerge. At the same time, a number of issues remain unresolved because of the legacy of state-sponsored militant atheism. The traditional role of religious organizations in society includes spiritual education, culture and charity work; their relationship with government authorities is only beginning to take shape. It is essential to define and flesh out those areas in which cooperation between the two is the most advantageous. “It is very important for us to consider the international experience from which Russia can borrow when forming the relationship between state and religion,” emphasized Yurgens. A mutually beneficial foundation currently underlies this relationship. The state is committed to promoting the participation of religion in Russians’ moral upbringing, as well as in the respect for traditions and tolerance. Religion considers the state to be a partner capable of effectively protecting the interests of believers and facilitating the realization of various programs aimed at improving the conditions of its work. Of course, finding a mutually acceptable solution is not always possible, but a serious and constructive dialogue is always maintained. There are institutional bases for this: the Presidential Council on Cooperation with Religious Associations, the Government Commission on Issues Concerning Religious Associations, the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and the Public Chamber.
 
Dmitry Mezentsev also emphasized the significance of the topic under discussion, noting that the Institute of Contemporary Development is an expert forum and the opinions voiced here are taken into consideration during important political decisions. This topic is important, especially because it serves as an indicator of the way in which the relationship between liberal socio-economic reforms and spirituality has changed over time. We have many different religions in our country, and thus it is obvious that representatives of various faiths should participate in the dialogue.
 
Continuing on the topic of the relationship between state and religion, Archbishop Ravasi observed that the autonomy of secular society is counterbalanced by the autonomy of religious communities. The state should not interfere with religion; it should guarantee religious freedom and harmony between followers of various religions. In its turn religion, as a societal expression of faith, possesses a necessary independence and is built as a community founded on faith, which should be recognized by the state. These two spheres are separate but always interdependent.
 
A. Chubaryan distinguished several spheres that bring together state and religion: the unity of society, concern for spiritual and moral values, the importance of individual character and social services. He also emphasized areas in which various faiths and the state can work together: spiritual and moral values, the war on terrorism and the dialogue on culture and civilization.
 
Father Chaplin agreed with Archbishop Ravasi in that the secular and religious spheres are two distinct spheres that are, at the same time, always intertwined. “If we consider the church as an institution, then yes, it is different from the state, but if we consider the church as a community of believers, then it’s simply impossible to separate these concepts. A church-state partnership is possible in the areas of charity work, culture, education, health and many others. A social partnership is a natural development,” stressed Father Chaplin.
 
Drawing on his own country’s experience, O. Depenhauer noted that, in his view, Germany’s Catholic and Protestant churches devote too much attention to worldly matters, as they promote charity, education, healthcare and other social work, while their most fundamental task – attending to spiritual matters and theological development – is relegated to second place. In his opinion, the church should fulfill its direct obligations; it should attend to saving souls while the state should secure the freedom of religious choice.
 
C. Seiple continued this line of thought, emphasizing that the role of the state is to provide room for the freedom of choice, the freedom of religion, the freedom of conscience. We should respect the values of those people who embrace values different from our own, he concluded.
 
In closing, Igor Yurgens said that the remarks of the participants will be collected and published in a booklet summarizing the conclusions of the discussion.