So Happy is not a person. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street with the point.

Last month, a New York court ruled that an elephant named Happy should not legally be considered a person.

The Non-Human Rights Project had sued the Bronx Zoo for imprisoning Happy, arguing it should be set free since it showed signs of self-awareness.

While no one disbues the impressive capabilities of elephants,

wrote Chief Judge Janet DeFore, habeas corpus is a procedural vehicle intended to secure the liberty

of human beings who are unlawfully restrained, not non-human animals. Well, confusion's inevitable

when a culture untethers from any source of truth. If there's no God, people aren't in his image. So why shouldn't animals have the same rights that we do?

And if our rights aren't based on our design,

well, the only option is to base them on some slippery criteria

like self-awareness or intelligence.

And of course, that way of thinking makes possible

not extending human rights to some humans.

Well, according to Judge DeFour, granting happy personhood status would be legally destabilizing.

In fact, the worldview that animated this whole legal comedy

to begin with is destabilizing.

When it comes to human rights,

only Christianity offers solid ground.

I'm John Stone Street.