The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

UCF student receives death threats for kidnapping Jesus!

rated by 0 users
This post has 6 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 23
Points 400
bowenj10 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2008 1:22 AM

Here's a blog post about a story that's developing in Orange County, FL.  To me, this is an interesting libertarian question.  Was the woman who grabbed the student's arm right or wrong?  After all, he was, according to some, violating the rights of a helpless individual (Jesus).  Upon seeing this, she intervened on his behalf.  Were the "person" that he was kidnapping a retard or baby, would she have been justified?  I'm actually kind of curious about this one.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 898
Points 15,845
Moderator
wombatron replied on Mon, Jul 14 2008 2:15 AM

Huh?

Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 1,691
Points 26,900

We don't need to resort to mysticism to resolve this.

Obviously the Eucharist doesnt have any rights. But all the people in that room did. The young man was guilty, not of kidnapping a deity, but of disrupting a private service and stealing. It seems that one of the conditions required to receive a "free" Eucharist is that you eat it on the spot, when Webster refused to meet the condition the parishioners attempted to reclaim their property.

Its hard to imagine a more inaccurate analysis of the situation than the blog you linked.

Peace
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 23
Points 400
bowenj10 replied on Mon, Jul 14 2008 3:01 AM

I think that all of these people are as nutty as can be, though I am not quite sure if I agree with you on the issue of ownership of the Eucharist.  As far as I can tell, Cook was a parishioner at that church.  Can his actions be considered stealing if he has a right to the property as a member of the church (who actually owns the Eucharist: the priests? the parishioners? nobody?)?  Would he not simply be guilty of violating the rules of the club and not necessarily of theft (I can see how they might be justified in using force to reclaim their property, if indeed it is their property)?  After all, it was given to him as a gift.  He simply didn't use it as the giver intended him to use it.

By the way, I can't ever recall hearing anything specific rules on taking the Eucharist.  I went to a Catholic school for my first 10 years of schooling (attending church every Friday during the school year) and do not recall having ever heard of specific rules for the actual sacrament (except for those rules that qualify you to take the sacrament).  Now that I think about it, I believe that we (my fellow students, brothers, sisters, and I) simply watched others practice their faith and emulated them.  It's been years since I've been to a church and had no plans of going any time soon, but maybe now might be the time to drop by the rectory.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 4,285

bowenj10:
do not recall having ever heard of specific rules for the actual sacrament

You must have. It's a sin, for instance, to bite the Eucharist cookie. It must disolve itself in your mouth. Remember that it gets transformed into the body of Christ during the cerimony or some other sh-t. That's why the priest accused him of "kidnapping" the cookie.

Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 4,285

Don't ask me why eating Jesus and drinking his blood is okay though. You went through many more years of sunday school than I did... ;)

Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 1,691
Points 26,900

bowenj10:
After all, it was given to him as a gift.  He simply didn't use it as the giver intended him to use it.

Thats not how it works.

The "gifter" is capable of applying conditions to the exchange. If the priest had known the recipient did not intend to consume it on the spot, he would have refused to give it to him.

If I say, "Here, give this money to your Dad" and you take it but then say, "I'm going to spend it on candy instead." I am within my rights to reclaim it. Obviously the criminal here knew of the conditions required to receive the Eucharist, which is why he hid his intent.

The church, as a structured organization, owns the Eucharist and the building. Individual parishioners can be denied the sacraments or expelled from the community.

Peace
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap