Are human beings exceptional? Is there something about humans which makes them intrinsically superior to dogs or ants or even poisonous stinkweed?
If you saw my post yesterday, then you will already know the answer is, “Yes!” Human beings are intrinsically of greater value than weeds and wildlife. Jesus once told His 
followers, “Do not be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:31). The Bible is plain that human beings alone are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6).
Having jettisoned the Bible and the God of whom that book speaks, many people now are not sure that humans excel plants and animals. Just the other day, a friend told me of an incident concerning his dog. A colleague at work insisted that the dog was a part of his family. My friend held firm to the categories he uses to classify animals: Pets, Predators, and Food. Never do animals attain the status of persons in his classic taxonomy.
Another friend of mine from back in the swampland moved to Colorado for his job, which happens to be surveying land. I asked him what the difference was between surveying in Colorado as opposed to surveying in Louisiana. His response was simple: In Louisiana, you must plan about two hours of machete work chopping away still unclassified weeds before beginning the survey work. In Colorado, not only can you not machete any living thing—including weeds, but you must also be extra careful not to damage anything growing on the land.
Now, don’t take the concept of human exceptionalism to mean that you can run roughshod over everything on the earth that isn’t human. That is not the point. The point is simply to affirm the undeniable reality that taking a machete to stinkweed is not a crime, while taking a machete to a child is heinous murder.
I am sure there are some who think this point is too simplistic and represents a straw man argument. After all, no one believes that weeds are equal to humans, right? Wrong. Increasingly, countries like Bolivia and Ecuador, along with cities like Pittsburgh, Santa Monica, and, now, Yellow Springs, Ohio, are passing ordinances to recognize the “rights” of plants and animals.
Wesley J. Smith—a man who has done more than nearly anyone to uphold the intrinsic value of human beings—has detailed the Yellow Springs city ordinance calling for equal “rights” for nature. As Smith points out, more than 20 cities in the U.S. have adopted similar ordinances, giving the equivalent of human rights to plants.
The aim of those passing such laws is to elevate the value of nature, but the arrow they shoot is off the mark. The result of their efforts is not to elevate nature but to denigrate humankind. Here’s a part of the Yellow Springs ordinance:
In addition, the ordinance recognizes the legally enforceable Rights of Nature to exist and flourish. Residents of the village shall possess legal standing to enforce those rights on behalf of natural communities and ecosystems.
Isn’t it interesting that it requires human beings to uphold the rights that are supposed to belong to the plants?
Gregory C. Cochran 
This is interesting – and a bit crazy. “Having jettisoned the Bible and the God of whom that book speaks,” – You make a great point, and demonstrate the point that we having jettisoned the word of our Creator – are not as intelligent in many cases as the plants we protect – which bring Glory to their Creator.
I have not read up on these laws, but it is frustrating to see us go off the deep end in such ways.
thanks for this good word Gregory.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ben. It really is hard to imagine, isn’t it?
LikeLike
How odd, where does the ordinance against fracking state equal rights with plants? I live in YS and the ban is against corporations overruling the rights of citizens to protect their water and ecosystem (beautiful parks included) and nature.
LikeLike
Anita, thank you so much for the comment. I am sure the ordinance has been presented as a ban against doing damage to the environment, but the granting of rights in the ordinance is to nature–not to people who are protecting nature.
As quoted in the post, nature itself is said to have a legally enforceable right to exist and flourish. This means that nature is an entity with rights just as a person is an entity with rights. It goes against 2 centuries of jurisprudence in the USA. Historically, rights belong to people, not animals or plants or inanimate objects. Now, inanimate objects are being given legally enforceable rights.
This has the effect of equating nature with humanity–which brings humanity down. In fact, if the ordinance were serious about granting rights to nature, then your statement would be rendered meaningless. You made the mistake of assigning water and the ecosystem to the citizens. But, if nature has its own rights, then who’s to say that nature doesn’t have the right to reject you as its owner and representative?
LikeLike
Not sure it’s meant that way doccochran, at least that isn’t how many here read it, so perhaps it is badly worded/perceived but it certainly doesn’t put a plant on equal footing with a human. It just means a holistic look at nature and determination that some acts are destructive to the ecosystem and need to be protected. anyway I don’t want to get into a big debate about the wording, suffice it to say it is unfair to paint people of this community as going off the deep end or any less spiritual or believing plants have equal rights .Yellow Springs is a diverse community and very spiritual caring community that is often maligned, dismissed as full or hippies etc, based on perception and snippets in the news but many really don’t know much about this community. Just my humble take on it as a resident. thank you for letting me share my opinion.
LikeLike
Anita, you are always welcome to share your opinion. In fact, thank you very much for sharing (and for caring).
LikeLike