Arrogance is unpleasant to behold and it does little to win over others to one’s point of view.
Arrogance is especially unpleasant when someone appointed to a ceremonial position believes that the appointment provides them a platform and lends additional weight to their personal opinions and rigid beliefs.
The Governor General is the ceremonial position I refer to and Julie Payette is the arrogant appointee who, in one of her first outings in the role, wasted no time in disparaging those who possess religious faith or spiritual beliefs.
Of course, being a Justin Trudeau appointee, she also flared her condescending nostrils at those who are not in lockstep with the climate change regime.
As keynote speaker at the ninth annual Canadian Science Policy Convention, Payette proclaimed, “Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period.
“And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.”
Typically, the CBC gushed in support of the G.G. with a website headline: “Payette takes on climate change deniers and horoscopes at science conference.”
Why are climate change advocates so afraid of discussion, so determined to shout down those who dare to dispute the climate zealot’s creed.
The term “climate change denier” implies that those who challenge the precepts of the climate change movement are doing so out of malice, ignorance or partaking in some kind of revisionist conspiracy against established facts.
It also implies that those who question the orthodoxy of the climate change movement are not concerned about the environment or indeed the threats posited by a change in climate.
Those who care about the environment or share in the anxiety of global warming can still challenge the conventional thinking on the matter.
For Payette to discourage debate or to ridicule those with a dissenting position or an enquiring mind, sets a tone that is a poor exemplar for a scientist.
Julie Payette does science a disservice by placing it in opposition to faith as if science and faith are mutually exclusive.
To quote Isaac Newton: “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Or Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Obviously, Julie Payette lacks that kind of grace and symmetry of mind.
Instead, she confuses being the Queen’s proxy to being a monarch herself, while also committing the cardinal sin of all scientists by mixing advocacy with science.
“Can you believe” that in Canada, Julie Payette represents Queen Elizabeth, who “oh my goodness,” is the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
For most honest atheists who have the courage of their convictions that dichotomy would be impossible to reconcile and would prevent them from accepting in good conscience the ceremonial role as the Queen’s representative.
Apparently, while Julie Payette does will not countenance religion or believe in God, she does, however, believe in pomp and pageantry no matter how unscientific and extraneous it happens to be.