On January 24, 2019 in IMIC centre, we discussed with the professor Juliana Mladenovska-Tešija on the subject named "Who has the right to speak of God?"
Moving through the space of dialogue and discussion and thinking of the importance of the need to talk about God we came to the conclusion that everyone has the right to speak about God, even those who do not believe, and that speaking of God should arise as a result of the experience of "God as passion ".
The God of metaphysics was proclaimed dead by the time of nihilism, with Nietzsche. Heidegger understood his cry - the overconscious God was overthrown, as well as the values that were attributed to him. But the process of preserving his place did not stop. After such a God has vanished, his place is still preserved as the one that has become empty - the place where the doctrine was sought was to be filled: political and religious, communist, capitalist. In our area, he has been present since the beginning of the 1990s when religion accepted to be the bearer of national identity and the patron of national interests. This has resulted in the abuse of religious symbols and religious speech in the public space, especially in dealing with the other, which is considered different and a threat to one's own survival.
The point where the "religion of fear" penetrates into Christianity (and similarly to other religions) religion is often raped and abused by those who are considered its best guardians.

Each of the modes of speaking about God requires openness, the willingness to "respond" to speaking by the language, and listening to the "silent response", because the word is silenced, and the word speaks in silence. It's a listening-based answer. Man's life takes place between silence and speech; between silence and words.
True faithful speech about God is the one that allows the encounter with the Other, with his / her face. Out of the relationship with people, no knowledge of God is possible. The second is a place of metaphysical truth and indispensable for my own relationship with God. He does not play an intermediary role. The other is not the embodiment of God, but his / her face is the manifestation of the divinity where God proclaims.
Thus God is bent out of objectivity. But such a God disturbs the order of thought. It can not be thematised, objectified, dogmatized, it cannot be a subject, it is not even possible to percieve it. It goes over the human abilities. When about the tolerance, it is not only the question of bringing and efforcing the law, but it must be practiced in everyday life. It is not simple because it means that as both believers as unbelievers are affirming each others credentials to practice and to live a life in the way that they themselves reject. Let that other being be as he / she is, must be in reciprocity and must be based on awareness that we are all part of a human community where we have the same rights but also of the community in which we all have the responsibility for what we are talking about or doing in the public space.