Debate Democracy - Exemples 1

Democracy of debate will give real democratic vitality to the countries that adopt it. It gives a voice to civil society. I would give a message of peace and friendship of the peoples. I would then address atheists and pro-LGBT. Religion, through its fundamentalists, through its intolerance, undermines the rights of LGBT peoples and peoples in general, women and proposes a sectarian vision of society. We must fight for their rights and affirm that "god does not exist".

The role of intellectuals is to make citizens think, to educate them with arguments and knowledge. Moreover, these intellectuals will be elected and represent the diversity of public opinion. We need to create real debates where citizens can form an opinion. This leads to the search for the reign of reason.

And then elected trade unionists will speak, it will be the word given by the world of work. It is a counter-power to the rich media owners. It is a counter-power to companies. The most anti-social, anti-ecological, anti-human rights risk seeing their image demolished. It is to give another dimension to the social struggle.

Finally, this page ends with an example of an association defending human rights. The idea is to create a counter-power, to make our countries exemplary in terms of human rights.

III. Examples of applications - first part

« Whatever the being of flesh and blood who comes to life, if he has the figure of a man, he carries within him the human right. » Jean Jaurès^*

A. A message of peace and friendship between peoples.

B. Pro-lgbt atheists

Jesus Christ.

Let's imagine an atheist and pro LGBT movement. The aim of this movement would be to fight against religious extremism, intolerance, the desire to impose religious concepts on the whole society, and all other forms of abuse, religious or not. Let's mobilize around feminist values, the defense of LGBT rights. Let's add to this, the ideas of freethinkers, the interest in metal music and of course the fight against Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and atheophobia. For the respect of all those who want to practice their religion or philosophical values peacefully.

To face religious fundamentalism, especially the most violent ones, we must create a political tension, where when an attack occurs, it reinforces atheism. Would a new September 11 have taken place, where it would be perfectly foreseeable, that it would lead to a movement of mass atheism? Hence the idea of creating institutions, which from this energy, structure and reinforce atheism in society and the media. Can this risk of seeing mass atheism develop, after a large-scale attack, really be a deterrent? Can it make terrorists hesitate, and then renounce this type of act? Will we succeed in disgusting them with terrorist attacks?

God if he exists, and it is difficult to argue with believers if we do not make this assumption, would be complicit by omission in the crimes committed in his name. He lets it happen, without saying anything. It must be denounced, because too many people follow what they fantasise to be God, and believe themselves to be above all human justice.

It would be so easy for God to introduce Himself to us, and let Himself be interviewed by the journalists. Failing that, God is the only being that can be killed by simply ignoring him. And this is precisely what the fundamentalists do not want. Let's be atheists, until he proves us wrong, shows himself in an ostentatious way! Another thing is obvious, God is not omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. It is not possible to be all three at the same time. The least we can say is that it does not exist in the way it is represented. Secondly, to argue that God created the "big bang" is a deistic argument (which has no basis in fact) and not a theistic one. Non-theistic means that it does not intervene in our lives. So there is no need to pray. The only effect of prayer is a change in blood flow in our brains. Why would he hide then? Isn't he omnipotent? But is he really capable of doing anything? And why don't we see him? His behaviour would be weird, if he really existed and wanted to give arguments to atheists, he wouldn't do otherwise!

Why Atheism Isn’t a Belief — And Why That Scares Religions.

Richard Dawkins, in his very good book, "God's delusion", explains that for a God to have created our universe, there must be an even more complex universe, where he would have been created. Moreover, we may ask ourselves how an omnipotent, or merely partially omnipotent, God intervenes on earth? Where is the force, which allows him to act? They all follow physical laws! It would require an incomprehensible force, without any possible explanation, which would obey no law of physics. All science is based on the idea, always verified, of the absence of such a bizarre and inexplicable force.

From Trump to Bin Laden to ISIS, all the far right refer to religion. From hostility to abortion to homophobia, the US right reacts in the most archaic way, to what was written in the Bronze Age in the Bible. And for abortion, it's written nowhere. Yet they completely forget what is human and generous in these texts. And so they simply do the opposite. The Bible is completely hostile to capitalism and billionaires! Nobody cares, what is written about these things counts as butter. So why homophobia and misogyny? Why do we have to endure his fan club without asking ourselves any questions? Is God really homophobic? Where is the evidence, at least that it is not the other way around? There is no proof of its existence, what proves that it is not LGBT-friendly? Quite a problem for those who fear hell! Are they not attempts to designate scapegoats, in order to create the illusion of one's existence? A mass of people who react in the name of God, create the illusion that this God cannot, not exist at all. Where will all this energy stop? How many wars, terrorist attacks, scapegoats and lies are needed to hide the imaginary nature of it?

Catholics who still remember being used as a food for big cats, remember less of this. During the Second World War, the Ustaše, who were under the influence of the Croatian Church, in connection with the Pope in Rome, committed genocide against the Serbs and the Jews. The pope, despite his authority, has neither reacted nor denounced these crimes. We still do not understand why Pius XII was not sent to Nuremberg and why he was beatified.

We can talk to tolerant believers only. Let's give them a little publicity. They must be given the opportunity to save their God. Because it is the abusif fundamentalists and the intolerant who are the problem. Obviously, we must reaffirm that the right to believe and to worship peacefully. It is a fundamental right. With religions that are peaceful and respectful of the rights of others, what would be the motivation to militate and vote for atheists? If that happens, we will lose some of our usefulness.

The LGBT community suffers from homophobia in their daily lives. This intolerance is not intellectually justifiable, these are opinions based on prejudice and ignorance of their victims. Only religions can legitimise these opinions, because they are not based on reason. Religions have become the hard core of homophobia. It is the dignity of the LGBT community, to answer and tell the truth about religions, the non-existence of god, or even gods. This is scientifically what is most likely.

Freedom also comes through music and culture. Grunge or Clission's Hellfest are ways to say fuck to religions and intolerants. I find them very friendly and full of youth. Atheists could encourage these music and cultures that fight against all intolerances with a very nice provocative side! Let's defend the right to blasphemy, because in search of their God, fundamentalists have no limit in the submission of society, to create their illusions.

Our approach is based on the rule of rights and we must reaffirm the fundamental right to peacefully practice one's religion. In France, there is an insane climate around the Islamic veil. Repeatedly, new laws are passed to restrict these women's access to public services. These laws were made in the name of secularism. It is not at all useful to come back to it at regular intervals. This secularism seems to be a pretext to display one's Islamophobia. Islamism is pretext. Why should these primitive people succeed better than we do in our fight against the religious extremism? Why should they succeed where Stalin failed? I have personally demonstrated against Islamophobia, while claiming to be an atheist. It is by recognising their right to peacefully practice their religion that we can hope to appease these religions in the medium to long term. And to achieve this goal, we must separate the moderates from their fundamentalists. And to achieve this, shouldn't we reaffirm the fundamental right (the rule of law is the foundation of our societies) to practice one's religion peacefully? Shouldn't we denounce the Islamophobic and discriminatory one-upmanship around the wearing of the veil? The law has been made and it is useless to make new ones again and again. In any case, the goal does not seem to be secularism! Respect for the rule of law includes respect for the right to peacefully practice one's religion, and the rejection of any stigmatisation and discrimination of any group of people, including those who wear the veil. This attitude is important because it is what makes us civilised people. To do otherwise is barbarism, savagery, which is what we reproach religious fundamentalists and the far right. It is completely unacceptable to do the same, we are not that primitive. Not to mention their counterproductive nature!

One idea would be to test my ideas on ARTE. If the Germans prefer, to make joint lists, with us French, rather as Pastafarians, than atheists, that would not pose any problem. Pastafarians are a very tolerant religion.

C. Intellectuals

Their role is to deepen the questions that citizens ask themselves and thus encourage reflection. Their role is to create debates and to establish "the reign of reason" as the philosophers of the Enlightenment said. We must seek an enlightened, thoughtful and cultured public opinion, this is a fundamentally democratic principle.

Intellectuals must take their audience into account. It is difficult to imagine debates that last for hours, except in front of a motivated audience. Are intellectuals "boring"? Do they not know the art and manner of the English language? Doesn't the English language become a fine, sharp foil in their hands? Were Voltaire and Rousseau "boring"? Maybe we will talk a little more about poetry, literature, history, or art. Which can only delight the scientist that I am.

We don't have to use the same style as the current media, we wouldn't have any advertising constraints. We have every right to say intelligent things and to make citizens think. The European intelligentzia has a leading role to play.

Should we elect intellectuals to give them time to speak? Where should we invite their main actors around a theme? And in the second case, who chooses them, on what criteria? I think that we need both and that it is the elected intellectuals who would choose their colleagues. I don't have the answer to everything!

Who can claim to be an intellectual? Anyone who has a PhD, including a PhD in theology. It requires work, method, even if the result is not very relevant. In the particular case of medicine, a doctorate in general medicine will be required. The humanities have moral legitimacy, but scientists should not be excluded. Jean-Marc Jancovici's analyses of global warming are precious. We can very well imagine a scientist applying around a theme, technological and ethical. Where a lawyer like Eva Joli, media coverage of corruption cases.

D. The trade unions

Giving the unions a voice, in the media, represents a counter-power, allows debate and would create a activist space.

Companies are very concerned about their image, but this does not prevent them from carrying out anti-social and anti-ecological policies. This new word would make it possible to denounce this paradox, and to break the image of the most reactionary companies, to exercise a counter-power! Reminding people that this or that company lays off, exploits its employees, pollutes, can have an impact on its customers. How could those who abuse in this area keep it? With heavy marketing campaigns? Then taking stock of these most reactionary companies makes it possible to mobilize sympathizers, to make the boycott credible, and therefore to have an impact. The client/consumer is no longer an atomized subject, but an actor who takes into account his or her values. Mediatizing the impact of consumption on social and environmental issues avoids restricting oneself to a single material value and an acquisition cost! Denouncing a company that is very active on the far right shows its responsibility in ultra-liberal (economic) politics. And therefore allows us to influence it. It is our money that drives these abuses. We have the right to know how it is used, after we shop, or after our sweat is shed. At the end of the day, they have enormous fortunes and threats to our democracy. Because they want to pay us less and less, to enjoy more and more. They must be brought down and adopted a standard of living of a doctor. And the others would rise to the level of the middle class. Which will become the only social class.

This word to the unions would create a debate. It is no longer the same ultra-liberal (economic) experts who express themselves, this would allow an alternative vision. We lack credibility, we are victims of a lack of debate, or our proposals are swept aside by a "fatwa" of irresponsible people, reduced to a simple "grumbling". It's up to us to show that our projects hold up. It is up to us to demonstrate the real issues at stake in the government's and the business community's projects. And that our projects are in fact credible and economically reliable. Let's also talk about the mass unemployment that we have been suffering for 40 years, and that reform after reform has not been able to contain. Is capitalism and neo-liberalism really that effective? With all its inequalities, the Fourth World, and its promises never kept!

Then access to the media allows an activist space. For example, the unions could inform about these actions, explain their positions. This makes it easier to mobilise and make trade union information available to the general public.

The unions manage the daily problems of workers in their daily lives, from the right to housing, to the right to retirement. "lets puts the value of work back in the spotlight" as Nicolas Sarkozy cynically said, while despising it! New counter-powers must be created in this conflict that Marx called "class struggle". And where big capital is accumulating all the wealth and alienating labor through these neo-liberal reforms. This makes it easier to mobilise and make trade union information available to the general public.

E. Human Rights

Human rights are the foundation of human society, they are the basis of international relations, with the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. These are fundamental rights, which prevent any drift towards tyranny and wars. They form the foundation on which our democracies rest. Secondly, they are the necessary, but not sufficient, condition for everyone's access to happiness.

The situation in France, the homeland of human rights, has deteriorated in recent years. Disproportionate police violence against protesters, violation of the rights of migrants and refugees and harassment of those who help them, and racism. In addition, France harasses some investigative journalists. Following the revelations about arms sales. There is a real awareness of human rights in France, and new countervailing powers are needed to make it truly exemplary and worthy of its history.

And then, as Europeans, we are collectively complicit in not helping people in danger. Given the way we manage the refugee crisis, especially in the Mediterranean. During the Second World War, our grandparents were collectively responsible for genocide, with the Shoah. Unfortunately, history seems to be repeating itself, if only partially.

This movement could be led with Amnesty International and its allies (the LDH, anti-racist movements, and movements for the defense of migrants). Denouncing arms sales to countries susceptible to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the lack of transparency of these is a burden to put an end to these practices. It is also a way to deconstruct racist, sexist, homophobic stereotypes, etc. It would be a militant species for them.

Allowing this group to access the media whenever it wants is a counter-power! I would like to say to the humanist, anti-racist and migrant rights community that if we want France to be exemplary and worthy of its past, we must put in place new counter-powers. The will is there, but the institutions are missing. We should create a debate on such institutions. I do not claim to have the only truth. In any case, debating around this counter-power, and putting its conclusions into practice, is an end in itself. It is at this price that France deserves its title of "Homeland of Human Rights"

Another counter-power would be to establish an annual live interview of the head of state or prime minister by human rights defenders. The questions would also focus on the fight against racism and aid to migrants. This could be done on December 10, International Human Rights Day. This is a thankless proposal, because there is always something to criticize and those who submit to it are probably among the most exemplary!

• Debate
  Democracy
  Problems
• Debate
  Democracy
  Solutions
• Debate
  Democracy
  Exemples 1
• Debate
  Democracy
  Exemples 2

Last modified on Tuesday 08^th of September 2026 at 06:10 pm