LOL. Bernie plays the "Show me the coin of the tribute" card.

[arendt]

The Sanders campaign's strict adherence to the DNC rules is almost Biblical in its irony.

Sorry for the source, but the quote is pure theological exegesis, not politics:

If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay the tribute, He would have been seen as a collaborator with the Roman occupiers and would alienate the people who had just proclaimed Him a king. If Jesus says that the tribute is illegitimate, He risked being branded a political criminal and incurring the wrath of Rome. With either answer, someone would have been likely to kill Him...

After seeing the coin, Jesus then poses a counter-question, "Whose image and inscription is this?" It is again noteworthy that this counter-question and its answer are not necessary to answer the original question of whether it is licit to pay tribute to Caesar. That Jesus asks the counter-question suggests that it and its answer are significant...

It is again noteworthy that the interrogators' answer to Jesus' counter-question about the coin's image and inscription bears little relevance to their original question as to whether it is licit to pay the tribute...

With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one's faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar's claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one's faith is in Caesar, God's claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.

Jesus' counter-question simply invites His listeners to choose allegiances. Remarkably, He has escaped the trap through a clever rhetorical gambit; He has authoritatively refuted His opponents' hostile question by basing His answer in scripture, and yet, He never overtly answers the question originally posed to Him.

a most misunderstood new testament passage/

Bernie's counter question is "What if the DNC authorizes it?". He points out that the claims of DWS and HRC are mutually exclusive, and then he just ducks.

I'm certain this will offend someone.

[JonLeibowitz]

1. It will offend anyone who is willfully unaware about the basic facts of the situation

Bernie has called for more sanctioned debates. That's really all that needs to be said.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/

Good OP.

[arendt]

2. I thought the biblical ref would offend. Apparently not.

"some people" are calling Bernie a "hypocrite" for consistently obeying DWS's rulings.

They are like the pharisees who went away mumbling about how their trap fell apart.

[VulgarPoet]

4. They have their backup plans.

Something something scream FUD to obscure the noise of the weathervane practically catching fire from how fast it's spinning.

[arendt]

6. I get my news from the internet. no idea how this is being spun in corporate media

IMHO, anyone who relies on CM for news is a brainwashed moron. They just dropped the hammer on MSNBC - now even Rachel has to watch what she says. (I think Snyder is such damaged goods they can unmuzzle Rachel just to score points from confused progressives who still think Rachel is in charge of her own show.)

[VulgarPoet]

8. I meant in regards to the corporatist supporters

but I agree with you on relying on the media. For a while I just tried aggregating from a bunch of MSM outlets and trying to read between the lines, but I'm pretty sure that shit was starting to give me ulcers.

[arendt]

13. At this point, as another OP says, the OZ curtain is at risk

Their least obvious manipulation is through the CM, which the brainwashed masses still believe. They play with the scheduling much more and even a dolt will get the picture.

I don't see how they can escalate the CM FUD much more. However, there is always the "terror, terror, terror" distraction, with rough-tough HRC ready to defend us all and make America look like Libya - oops, wrong idea.

[VulgarPoet]

17. Ssssshssh, we're not supposed to mention Libya, Syria, or Iraq around the corporatists!

[arendt]

21. Those places are like leftwing politics in the fifties

They are only allowed to be discussed on pervert sites. Playboy in the 1950s. Counterpunch, globalresearch, informationclearinghouse today.

And never, ever mention the CIA, the Wahabiist Saudis, or the megalomaniac Turkish PM.

[VulgarPoet]

22. I think I'm two for three in my first forty-eight hours.

[arendt]

24. websites or CIA/KSA/Turkey?

Either way, good for a newbie.

[VulgarPoet]

26. The latter. Someone shouldn't have let me start paying attention when I was twelve

because ten years of this horseshit is enough to make anyone bitter.

[arendt]

28. I've been steeping in this poison since 1975

Reality is so warped, I'm amazed a young person can find the truth.

OTOH, the millenials life chances are so f-ed over, that they genuinely need to figure out who is screwing them.

[VulgarPoet]

29. Urgh, I feel you there.

I was a student of journalism growing up. This unfortunately implies heavy cynicism from the jump for the pundits that were once upon a time, respectable journalists. Hope the rest of my generation can get their shit in gear, or the world of Shadowrun will become an unfortunate reality-- minus the high fantasy races and magic. It's fun to tabletop with, but living in it? Might as well swallow a bullet and call it a day; better that than wage-slavery.

[marlakay]

14. I like Rachel

But slowly starting to lose some respect over her choosing career and money over true beliefs, the Rachel i listened to for years on radio wouldn't have done that.

She probably tells herself I am doing overall good, like the blue dog dems excusing why they they don't stick up for dem ideas.

[arendt]

19. I agree with you.

She has only been muzzled for about six months. I stopped watching after one month.

When allowed, she is a fabulous investigative reporter for really complex stuff. That is no longer allowed in the CM. I, like you, suppose she likes the money and celebrity too much to let it go.

Golden handcuffs for her. Big loss for the progressives.

[kristopher]

27. +1

[Motown_Johnny]

3. He didn't duck. He says he wants even more sanctioned debates

and if he gets them he will agree to the unsanctioned one (assuming it is sanctioned as part of the agreement).

He saw the bluff and raised. They will most likely fold. I am guessing it won't be a "debate" but a forum or town hall.


He did the same thing, in roughly the same time frame, when the DNC cut off his campaign's access to voters lists.


Both times he upped the stakes within a matter of hours and had the cards to back it up.

I think we now know which one will be able to handle the Republicans better.

Don't try to raise the stakes on Bernie.

[arendt]

5. Yes he wants more. But, he didn't pick a side...

he left DWS and HRC to duke it out, and look like idiots.

As I said, almost Biblical in its irony.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Yep. He left DWS and HRC to duke it out. Brilliant strategy.

[Jackilope]

10. +1000 n/t

[AtomicKitten]

7. His response to the conundrum is brilliant in its simplicity.

[arendt]

11. grammar nazi here: conundrum. :-)

[AtomicKitten]

12. thanks - crappy phone with auto-correct

[arendt]

16. I hate autocorrect, especially on website names!

I wanted to look up "databases", and it autocorrected to "data ba ses" for some idiot reason.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I'm a medical transcriptionist. Today it changed LithoClast (pneumatic lithotriptor) to Volkswagen.

Oy.

[arendt]

25. OUch. Have you tried Dragon? n/t

[Gregorian]

15. This is really fascinating. I was trying dissect the logic behind choosing.

And I saw several ideas on the forum as to how Bernie should and should not proceed. I began going through the logic. If he doesn't go how do they criticize him. If he goes, how do they criticize him. He obeyed the rule the DNC set up. But I couldn't put the whole thing into perspective. I think you've done that.

An important aspect is that he had already asked for more debates, and been denied.

I don't know if Jeff Weaver was in on this, but however they're making decisions is very effective.

[arendt]

18. I felt the situation needed a meme even an Evangelical would grok.

I am well aware of Chomsky's "conciseness filter".

[arendt]

23. Bedtime for this bonzo. Plz continue to discuss/spread this meme. n/t

[merrily]

31. Not offended, but wondering why the Sanders's campaign is putting out interpretations of the Bible?

While I am all in for Bernie Sanders, I interpret that passage very differently. I reach my conclusion based on my own reading of the Bible and not on the conclusion of any Biblical scholars.

My recollection (too late on the East Coast to be be googling for exact wording, y'all) of the wording in the King James Version is:

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

I do not read that as merely an endorsement of paying taxes. The sentence is imperative, meaning it is a a direct command . For those who believe in the divinity of Christ, this is God in human form, commanding people. To do what? Commanding them to pay to government the taxes one owes government and to tender to God, or to give God, what belongs to God.

It's not either government or God, but government and God. You owe each one different things. For me, there is also an undertone of separation of government and state. I think my interpretation is right in line with, not only the actual wording, but with Democratic Party principles.

Probably also relevant: Tiberius, who was emperor at this time, had refused to be worshipped as a god. However, Augustus Caesar had declared his father, Julius Caesar, a god and himself the son of God. Even Tiberius had allowed one temple to be built for him. So, Jesus (or whomever) may have been saying, in effect, pay your taxes to Caesar, but worship only the God of the Jews, not any Caesar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_%28ancient_Rome%29

[arendt]

32. oh, please. I am NOT the sanders CAMPAIGN

Not even bothering to respond to the rest of this deliberate provocation.

[merrily]

33. I never said or implied that were the Sanders' Campaign. What an odd reply!

A post expressing my view of the Bible verse in the OP is deliberate provocation? ok.