From April 1 of this year in 19 regions of Russia the experiment started on introduction of a new subject in the schools – “Spiritual-moral training” (SMT). Within this subject the training course is suggested for studying in 4th and 5th forms consisting of six principal “Content modules”:

• Fundamentals of Orthodox culture
• Fundamentals of Islamic culture
• Fundamentals of Buddhist culture
• Fundamentals of Judaic culture
• Fundamentals of world religious cultures
• Fundamentals of secular ethics.

Separate tutorial is devoted to each of these modules published by “Education” publishing house, with mass edition and being colorfully illustrated. Tutorials “Book for teacher” and “Book for parents” explaining the meaning of the suggested course in historical and content concern, stand by themselves.

Initiators of introduction of the new course assure us that it is of a culturological character. But attentive review of the four first tutorials shows that this is far from being the culturology. Not any “religious culture” but one of four specific religions is introduced for teaching at school. The tutorials are of distinct missionary character, and their apologists do not want to acknowledge this. Let’s recollect the RF Constitution: “Russian Federation is the secular state. No religion can be established as a state or compulsory one” (chapter 1, clause 14). Meanwhile SMT is introduced as a “compulsory (!) optional course”.

Each of the tutorials provides its definition of culture and religion but it is nowhere determined what is “religious culture”. Any culture is implanted in the religion. This is acknowledged by everyone except anonymous authors of “Fundamentals of secular ethics”. So it would be better to speak not about “religious culture” but about cultural tradition being peculiar to any religion and specific country.

The tutorials devoted to description of fundamentals of Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism provide a lot of useful and interesting information. Its studying would be quite appropriate in the schools under churches, mosques, datsans and synagogues (like this happens in fact). But teaching of fundamentals of one of four religions in a secular school introducing division of children into separate groups basing upon religious indication would not promote strengthening of inter-religious and interethnic unity.

The optimal variant of familiarization of children with various religious doctrines would be the studying of fundamentals of world religions by them. The best and most objective tutorial among the suggested ones – “Fundamentals of world religious cultures” - corresponds to this. It introduces the history of conception of the world religions, their basic principles, their sacred books and cultural traditions. This would no doubt enable the training of tolerance of children and broadening of their cultural horizon. As for “Fundamentals of secular ethics”, this tutorial being full of errors of facts and obvious absurdities (interpretation of shame, preference of “rational egoism” to altruism, assertion that “moral norms (rules) are not written down anywhere” etc) is just inadmissible for studying as it is now.

The “Book for teachers” also contains much useful information about the world religions, religion and society, religious situation in Russia. This is mostly reference material of good quality. Glossaries added to various sections are especially informative. But the book also contains gross errors: statement that “religion is an ideology” (p. 24), assertion (in the spirit of Soviet atheism) that specificity of religion is that it mystifies the earthly roots of private, historically changeable interests (p. 25) or accusation formulated in the same atheistic spirit: “Some religions use the rituals for consolidation of religious ideas in the consciousness and strengthening of belief in omnipotent forces” (p. 28). And what religions treat the rituals in a different way? Apparently the author considers the ritual practice of all the religions criminal. At page 17 academician Pavlov is named a “committed believer”. Meanwhile Pavlov called himself openly a nonbeliever. But under the Soviet power he protected the right of believers to confess the Christianity. Other “blunders” should be also noted. Assertion that Protestant ethics “proved to be useless … in due course” (p. 16) being insulting for one of Christian confessions. Archaically traditional (though with reservations) contraposition of science and religion (p. 18). Unfortunately one can give many examples of this kind. Should such primitive ideas not corresponding to the reality be imposed on the teachers?

The experiment on introduction of “spiritual-moral training” i.e. studying of one of religions into the school program covers 4th and 5th forms yet and is intended for two years. And what will happen later? The Russian academy of education plans to extend it upon all the schoolchildren – from 1st to 11th forms. These plans should be treated with caution – not just because the corresponding teaching personnel lacks in our schools but also because the experimenters interfere in private life of people without their consent to this. Most likely this would not at all lead to the results intended by some religious enthusiasts.