Fauxahontas: High Priestess

Here is the text of a recent by Elizabeth Warren:

I'm going to say something really crazy: I believe in science. Climate change is real and we have a moral obligation to protect this Earth for our children and grandchildren.

Now you have to ask yourself, what information is being conveyed by this message? It couldn't be called an argument about climate science. Nothing empirical is provided. Some might call it climate advocacy, but it's not really that either. No one is going to be swayed by these two sentences. It's really just a profession of belief. It says it right there. I believe in science. Most on the alt right would call this virtue signaling, but it could more accurately termed as belief signaling. The major qualitative difference between Warren's tweet and, say, the Nicene Creed, is that the Council of Nicea wasn't limited to a 140 characters. She is reminding everyone that she is a high priestess of The Cult.

Let's look at the tweet bit by bit.

I'm going to say something really crazy.

We know, Liz. No need for the disclaimer.

I believe in science. Climate change is real.

The Taoists taught that, to truly understand anything, you must also understand its opposite. You can't understand warmth without knowing cold. You can't understand light without experiencing dark. A good analytical tool of these kinds of statements is to consider what the opposite statement would be. I don't believe in science? Who has ever said something like that? It'd be like saying, "I don't believe in wrenches." Science is a tool. It doesn't make sense to state a belief in something that no one doubts the existence of. Climate change is real. As opposed to...climate change is fake? No one doubts climate change happens. Her statements don't have any literal meaning. They don't profess a logical adherence to empirical evidence. They profess an adherence to their version of anthropomorphic climate change (and more importantly leveraging that for desired social change) in spite of the flaws in the evidence. It is all just a profession of faith. No real information is conveyed.

We have a moral obligation to protect this Earth for our children and grandchildren.

As opposed to what? We have a moral obligation to destroy the planet? Another non-statement. Just "think of the children!" emotional pandering. Of course she doesn't really care about children, or she wouldn't advocate the dismantling of a carbon-based economy that has alleviated the previous condition where most children died before the age of 5. Also note the capitalization of Earth, like Christians might capitalize Him when referring to God. The Cult is something like a form of paganism, but instead of powerful gods and goddesses, they worship deified victims. Mother Earth isn't a powerful spiritual force, but just another victim of evil western civilization who must be protected by enlightened liberals.

These are the kinds of people who are highly concerned about a separation of church and state, yet have no problem taking to Twitter to make grandiose professions of faith. The Soviets famously outlawed religion, but really we know they just banned the competition. Only worship of the state was permitted. Similarly, people like Fauxahontas aren't really serious about separation of religion and state. They just want to marginalize any belief system that competes with The Cult. Elizabeth Warren is a US Senator, and she has every desire to translate her irrational belief system into law. The Christians aren't doing so. There won't be a law defending the sanctity of the sabbath. The biggest threat to separation of church and state comes from the left.