" Those countries that didn 't introduce a kind of gay- marriage didn 't proper evolve socially ",
said the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, answering questions in Parlement about statements
made by the Russian President Poetin and the mayor of Moscou Joeri Loerykov.
Poetin described gay- people a demografic problem to Russia. Loerykov called the ' gay- parade'
satanic and lashed the nations who let in marriages between people of the same sexe.
" Those statements are unhappily chosen without any ground of truth and are moral repre-
hensable, added De Gucht.

In my view the step taken with the devastated, greatest consequences, is the transition within
Modernity from religious, social, ecclesiastical domination to the system of secularism and
individual freedom.
The above article holds within a number of neutralisations of areas which are left out the
discussions all together. Just like the dominent trend of religious secularism states, homo-
sexual deeds too, are just allowed within the eerie bounderies of the private, but are
excluded from political and public assigniments.
On the ground of this principle religion and homosexuality become a problem if they appear in
the open. Religion is something that the individual needs to live to see inwards and private.
But where collective aspects of religion, like religious practices, assessory institutes and
rituals are tolerated within the public place the external rituals of homosexuality are totally
negative judged.
The vision that religion must be something of the inner life is closely connected with the
notion of the autonomic individual. But it leaves no room for the idea that both looks at life
do have social and practical aspects.

Religion is pushed back down to a level of its own with specific rules and orders. In short terms,
people don 't connect anymore their religious convictions to a church of any kind but go
underground. By the way of expending the term ' religion ', it has become all sorts of things and
can 't be forged. In todays religion, the contents doesn 't matter. Every opinion about what
religion is or should be, every point of view of how and why people believe is an absolute
truth of those who hold on to it.
Do we count in all possible actions and tendencies which spon the individual and social state
of believing than we must defend the principle of the functinal differentation.µBy the way of letting go all sorts of plans for religion/ Christianity to the benefit of an abstract/ radical
individual state of believing people aren 't no longer uncritical handed down to what the
Bible, the Thora of the Koran dictates. The one who believes is exposed to the spectacle of
critique and doubt, to the scenes of emotions, intimacy and arousement, to the contradictive
view of dictated religious morality and personal conscience.

But the atheist inside me says, we should get even !
Now we stand naked ! We haven 't got no equivalent in any language for the bricks, for the
warehouse that the Church of today has become.
On this very moment atheists stand radical against those who are intertwined, huddled and
compressed with and by the binding and inspirering force of religion.
There isn 't a simple collision between science and religion, but a collision between two religions,
creatonists/ true believers and evolutionists do fight NOT for the facts but defend a weltan-
schuung.
How better then can we insist of overlapping things by resurecting a CHURCH OF ENLIGHTEN_
MENT !?
Within such church, spiritual life, Romanticism, sterness and rationality will coincide and will
co- exist.
That's already something ! But we know perfectly well that the Enlightenment led to an
around the bend individualism :_ it means that everyone has to think what is best for himself.
But without a shared background such ideal stays an illusion, an impossible shelter.

So then, to find some peace, with all the supposed lonleyness we experience today, we're
drawn back to eachother. To a point we can 't imagine there is still a constant circulation:_ by
reading together, performing rituals, by rambling stories with all the other social losers, to
narrate anything plausible we create a new common ground, complete and whole.
What you do, doesn 't matter, it is the doing itself that is important. To what kind of musicµyou dance, isn 't the thing. The dance itself, the dancing is important ! Express yourself !!

And this in its final analysis is what I cite, ' if religion was the opium, the Church of Enlighten-
ment is the methadon.' It improves the original that 's now for sure !
The Church will be open for all those who can 't use their mind without the help of someone
or something. So I fear the Church will be a great succes from the start !

Kenneth