In modern environmental writing, I rarely see authors utilize the Divine Command Theory, the claim that morality and moral obligations ultimately depend on God, to advocate the ethical treatment of nature. Rather, I usually see secular, ethical arguments under the rubric of utilitarianism or social contract theory. With utilitarianism, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. For example, since trees contribute to their environment by providing oxygen, improving air quality, ameliorating climate, conserving water, preserving soil, and supporting wildlife—human beings should not cut down such an important plant species, for the consequences would be unfavorable to everyone. But it seems as though this ethical argument only appeals to a certain, perhaps, elitist audience. This doesn’t have to be the case. Throughout many world religions and cultures, trees are significant and symbolic entities, e.g., the Tree of Knowledge in Judaism and Christianity, the Banyan and the Peepal trees in Hinduism, the Christmas tree in Germanic mythology, and the Bodhi tree in Buddhism—even in literature, e.g., Tolkien’s Two Trees of Valinor or ents as well as Yeats's “holy tree” in his poem “The Two Trees.” In my view, Muir’s religious arguments for preserving redwoods could definitely bring in more religious people into the environmental movement.