• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Step Forward for Non-human Rights?

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not every day that the a major mainstream media outlet like the New York Times picks up on a matter of concern for animistic Pagans of the nation. Apparently, there is a first-of-its-kind lawsuit going on to determine if non-human persons have legal standing as persons within the United States:

"If successful, it could upend environmental law, possibly allowing the redwood forests, the Rocky Mountains or the deserts of Nevada to sue individuals, corporations and governments over resource pollution or depletion. Future lawsuits in its mold might seek to block pipelines, golf courses or housing developments and force everyone from agriculture executives to mayors to rethink how they treat the environment."
Corporations Have Rights. Why Shouldn’t Rivers?

I wish I could be more optimistic about the prospects for this passing, but environmental ethics - and even the thought of treating non-huamans as persons - is so foreign and backlogged as an idea in my country that I'm doubting we are going to be this progressive. To us Pagans, many of us are animists and have a deeper appreciation of the rights non-human persons deserve already, so I wanted to get your thoughts about this particular development. In a nation where we manage to say human corporations are persons, you'd think we could manage to recognize the importance of ecosystems...
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Also, this quotation from the above linked article made me really sad when I read it:

“Courts have wrestled with the idea of granting animals standing,” she wrote in an email. “It would be an even further stretch to confer standing directly on rivers, mountains and forests.”

No, it isn't! :mad:

:deciduous:
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
In principle, I'm not totally against this, but I think that, especially in our era of toxic politics, this could clog already clogged courts with endless frivolous lawsuits. Environmentalists could effectively halt all new development of any kind. That would have a huge chilling effect on business and jobs.

Personally, I think there are far more pressing problems to address.

Edit: Sorry didn't notice this was in a DIR. Delete if you wish.
 
Last edited:
Top