Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo recently had their day in court. It seems that the Nonhuman Rights Project, an animal rights group, tried to sue the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs, Colorado in order to have the elephants removed from the zoo and transferred to an elephant sanctuary. They argued that the elephants had been born in the wild in Africa, and have displayed signs of brain damage because the of their confinement at the Colorado zoo.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the elephants do not have the legal right to pursue their release because they are not human. As crazy as it might seem, apparently, in order to bring a lawsuit in Colorado, the one bringing the suit has to be human. Not being human, the elephants don’t have standing. The Nonhuman Rights project actually tried to pull the same thing in 2022 in New York and got slapped down there, too.
A Nonhuman Rights Project spokesman expressed his disappointment following the ruling. They argued that this latest ruling “perpetuates a clear injustice,” and predicted that future court cases would ultimately reject the idea that only humans have human rights.
From most people’s perspective, this court ruling was exactly what they would expect. How in the world can it even be argued that an elephant could have standing to sue in court. Yet that is precisely the position of the Nonhuman Rights Project.
So exactly where does the thinking of those associated with the Nonhuman Rights Project come from? It is actually not that difficult to sort out. These people are Naturalists, and based on their naturalistic worldview beliefs, human beings are not special in any way. Every animal species are of equal value – to include the human species. Since, to them, there is no such thing as God, all living creatures are nothing more than naturally evolved animals. It is just that different animals have evolved their own unique characteristics. Humans may have evolved the most complex brains of any other animal, but elephants are also very intelligent in their own right, and have advantages over other creatures in other areas. They reason that just because humans are self-conscious and can reason in ways other animals can’t, it doesn’t mean that the other creatures should not be afforded legal rights.
But this is not the only case of this nature. In 2021, Lake Mary Jane, Lake Hart, Crosby Island Marsh, Boggy Branch, and Wilde Cypress Branch filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida and a land developer. Now you have to realize, that these are all bodies of water. Environmental activist and director-at-large for the Florida Rights of Nature Network, Chuck O’Neal, filed suit on behalf of the bodies of water in order to enforce the idea that rivers, forests, and mountains have legal rights.
In that case, a developer was working to convert a plot of land that included wetlands, a cypress forest, and pine flatwoods into apartments and offices. The Orange County council teed up this lawsuit by amending their charter granting the waterways the legal right to exist, flow, and be protected from pollution. Ultimately, that suit was dismissed with the judge ruling that state law preempted the charter amendment.
In that case, the environmentalists were not trying to assert that animals are people, rather that all of nature has the right of personhood – and therefore standing in human courts. The part of nature being dealt with may be different from the elephant case, but the worldview foundation is exactly the same. Human beings are not seen to be special creations of God, but are simply one of the many parts of nature where all parts are equally deserving of legal protection.
The Bible teaches something very different. It teaches that both God and a transcendent reality exists. Beyond that, God actually created the natural universe, and He created man as a special creation – a person made in His own image. The result is that human beings are unique, and hold special value above the various other parts of nature.
Neither other animals nor inanimate parts of nature are capable of self-conscious thought. As a result, they are not human and they should not have legal rights as human beings.
When people base their understanding of reality on naturalistic worldview beliefs, it is understandable that they would view animals and nature as persons worthy of legal rights. But that simply does not represent reality. Only human beings are persons. It is as simple as that.
As Christians, it is important to know how to make that distinction. At the same time, God has appointed humans to be stewards over His creation. We should recognize that both animals and nature have value to God as elements of His creation. At the same time, they were given to man to use and manage based on what He has revealed. Christians should be good managers of the land, and also not treat animals in a cruel way. But the definitions of those things are not based on Naturalism’s arbitrary beliefs. In order to faithfully live a Christian life, we need to know how to tell the difference.