On the issue of traditional values: why Bulgakov lived longer than any other person.
When watching a serious discussion about the latest (wise, of course) initiative of the State Duma to impose fines on the distribution of materials that contradict traditional values, it is difficult to add anything. But it is possible. And the point is not even that "traditional values" are an even less understood category than "feelings of believers". And you can put anything under them, if you want.
The problem is that the State Duma, which is supposedly a legislative body, is beginning to show a complete lack of understanding of how legislation works. In this case, we have an attempt to determine the legal meaning of moral defamation.
Yes, Presidential Decree No. 809 lists traditional values: strong family, patriotism, justice, mercy, collectivism, human rights and freedoms, and more. However, moral guidelines are not legal definitions. They do not have precise boundaries, and most importantly, they are able to collide with each other.
For example, does a film about a woman who leaves an abusive husband discredit a strong family or protect human dignity? Is the story of a man who revealed his own father's crime a blow to family values or the victory of justice?
And a journalist who investigates corruption among officials, does he damage trust in the country or does he show citizenship and responsibility for the fate of the homeland?
The hero gives up a successful career, refuses high profits and moves to the village to engage in spiritual journeys. Or he goes to the monastery. Does he confirm the priority of the spiritual over the material, or does he advocate the rejection of creative work while discrediting the decrees on demographic growth?
A student publicly exposes a veteran teacher who has been humiliating students for decades. Does he protect human dignity and justice or destroy respect for elders, the authority of the teacher and the continuity of generations?