I’m sure I’m clear on the meaning of this post. Via the link provided I found:
“The green bigots may be horrified that there are people who don’t have the slightest interest in red-legged frogs. But those people are just as much American citizens as any life-long member of the Sierra Club and are entitled to equal rights under the Constitution. There is neither a legal nor a moral reason to over-ride what they want because the green bigots want something else.”
and
“What could be more exalting than to take on the God-like role of adjudicating between animals and people? You cannot be a judge handing down edicts for others unless you are placing yourself above those others. We know how judges are appointed or elected. But who elected the green bigots to play G-d?”
So I have to wonder if the author meant this as a parody due to the last paragraph:”Nature worship is fine for those who want it. I have nothing against faith-based organizations. But a theocracy imposing its will on others is something else, even when it is a theocracy of nature-worshippers.”
I’m a bit of a tree hugger but have to admit my selfish reasoning. As this author so wonderfully points out:” But who elected the green bigots to play G-d?” I wonder the same about the author.
My selfish reasoning is this. We, although we think we may, do not know all about all. I have to wonder if the author were to learn that the “red-legged frog” happened to hold the key that unlocks the cure to cancer from which his beloved mother suffers, would the author not feel differently?
I don’t agree that “green bigots” should be considered “G-d”, but neither do I agree that the author should be either. Based on the reasoning I glean from this author they apparently believe anyone should be allowed to do anything no matter what or whom they impact? We’re supposed to be the creature on this planet with the capability for the highest order of reasoning, and this author seems to fall a bit short.
Did I miss something here? Are ‘green bigots’ not human too?