Fundamentalism is obviously hidden more deeply in our society as well as in ourselves than we want to be aware. We are educated to believe from a small age, and we seldomly got the possibility to decide for or against it.

The black and white painting is placed in our cradle. We do not learn to balance each other in detail.

A fundamental change in this educational system would seriously endanger existing previleges and sinecures. Who is meant? A whole alliance can be mentioned, which supports each other and therefore makes a solution so difficult. Those with the longest history in this regard are the popes, followed by lawyers and finally an army of bureaucrats. Three layers of responsible persons have thus been stored one on top of the other and are deeply entrenched in our society. They would be pleased by saying that they were deeply enrooted. But this subtle nuance should not exonerate them.

What to do?

Past centuries have already been confronted with practically the same problem, calling for secularization. This has helped in some places, but also brought setbacks. Basically, a black and white contrast was often maintained that there were believers and unbelievers. Nothing in between?

Kant seemed to underline this view by making it equally acceptable to either believe in God or not. But in his actual Vita he has clearly gone a way between these two extremes. He has not yet mentioned a compromise in the current sense of a modern Middle Way. Would he then have been disqualified as an undecided man without a backbone?

This task must now be addressed, and this is very urgent, because otherwise we have to fear serious consequences.

Is Europe to become a consolidated state, or are other groups more or less justified in trying to break up this still labile structure? Again we should disqualify this representation clearly as black and white painting and advocate a more colorful picture of the possible future. But who really does it? Most likely, the Greens could play this role, who also have a sense of rainbow colors, but without wanting to slip into irresponsible anarchy. The classic positions conservative, social, or liberal basically all still mean a kind of box-thinking, of black and white painting. But even within the Greens, there is as yet no clear awareness of this situation. We can not rely on them alone, and we must extend the search for a balanced balance. This is not a matter of party membership or even a benevolent support of the Greens, but must also cover other areas. Our own private life is very important. We always like to talk about what other people should do, but we know exactly how reluctant are people to be influenced by other people. Again, they will often suspect that they are to be lured from one box to another, and perhaps rightly oppose it. All campaigning begins with your own example.

Whether we call it a modern Middle Way or perhaps simply a compromise, should not play a big role. Not the discussion about signposting for a way, but the way itself is important.