If the law could be understood otherwise, then I would not defend the draft for one minute because it would make my whole life illegal. For the past six years I have been occupied primarily in preaching Orthodoxy to atheists and sectarians, but, to tell the truth, in all my life I have taught only one Sunday school class. There is another case where the opposition is baseless. Second, the issue is precisely general education curricula. The state must take care that children, who have been sent by their parents to a religious school, learn the general education curricula no less well than their peers in secular schools.
Religious schools are poor.
And, as far as I know, they constantly try to economize on the teaching of secular subjects. To keep this from happening, to keep the horizon of pupils from believing families from being restricted, the law contains an article by which the state may help even those children who are studying in religious schools. The law on freedom of conscience says that a religious school can receive aid only when it acts in accordance with the law on education, but the president affirms that the law on freedom of conscience contradicts the law on education. We can only speculate why Mr. Rozenbaum and other judicial consultants of the president forced the first person of the Russian state into a position of an irritable, inattentive, and simply judicially illiterate reader of the draft law. Finally, the claim that the preamble of the law contradicts the constitution sounds quite strange.