Perfect Fool

Photo by Epikoros: 30 Meters

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:23:00 GMT

Challenge: to find an interesting shot within 30 meters of where you are. Thanks.

Sailing the Seven C's

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:46:00 GMT

Via The Friendly Atheist:

August Berkshire is the president of the Minnesota Atheists. He wrote a brilliant little piece on the characteristics of atheism. You can link to the full text below, but my favorite bit is this:

"One of the arguments of Pascal’s Wager is that a person loses nothing by believing in a god. This is not true. Accepting Pascal’s Wager means saying that we are willing to abandon reason and evidence as our guides to living, and instead make a leap of faith to… where?"

Clear and concise. As Pope (not the pope) put it, "What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed." Love it.

Download the PDF here: The Seven Cs of Atheism. This is well worth your time.

Jesus & Mo: Straw Men

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:37:00 GMT

I loves me some J & M!

"The Church That Is Run Like a PAC"

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:33:00 GMT

The title of this post is a pull quote from the trailer below.The Movie is "8: The Mormon Proposition."

Another pithy gem is the observation that California is the first state to amend its constitution to take away people's rights. Go see this movie if you can.

NDT Slams the 2012-ers

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:17:00 GMT

I haven't blogged about 2012 in a long time. Once I was going to devote most of this blog to setting to world straight on the subject of the Mayan calendar and the interplanetary cataclysm that certain people are predicting. I had to stop doing it, mainly because it was like playing Whack-A-Mole: knock down one idiot and two more pop up to take his place.

I should have left it to the pros. Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts all the 2012 bed-wetters in their place in just over six minutes. Take that, you latter-day Von Danikens!

Sam Harris: "There is No God (And You Know It)"

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:18:00 GMT

This Sam Harris Article appears in todays online HuffPo . It's a reprint of a piece Harris wrote in 2005. I have no idea why HuffPo decided to re-run it. but the fact that they did just proves the the truth of the adage that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. It just took this particular squirrel five years to locate this nut. But I don't care. It's such an eloquent statement of the facts it deserves to be repeated as much as possible.

There is No God (And You Know It)

Sam Harris
Oct. 6, 2005

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.

Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.

As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.

This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at www.truthdig.com in December.

Clean Up Your Own Mess!

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:12:00 GMT

From Friends of Irony

...Or Like He's Reading Headlines

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:04:00 GMT

Today's Pearls Before Swine reminds me of the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian fiasco, with the Zebra in the role of Israel, the Crocodiles as the Palestinians, and the Elephant playing the part of the UN and world opinion. Israel is far from blameless in this whole mess, but they are still the only nation that still has to justify its very existence more than 60 years after its creation.

The One True Religion

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:16:00 GMT

Using the same basis as all the other One True Religions out there, we find this:

Thanks to Ian at irreligion.org

Prescott AZ, Land of Tolerance

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:00:00 GMT

In case you missed it, the tone of the title above is dripping with irony. Because what are they tolerating, exactly? Blatant racism, that's what.

And using tax dollars and public property to do it.

See the story here

Check out the artwork on a public school in Prescott that has generated this controversy:

See what's so offensive? No? Let me spell it out for you: the non-white child so prominently featured in the right-hand quadrant of the mural. Apparently, there is some question among those denizens of Prescott who marry their cousins as to whether the child in question is a "nigger" or a "spic." For the record--he is the latter. How do we know this? Because that child actually attends the school. The painting is from a photograph.

Horrifying. Using a non-white child as an emblem of the school, and justifying it with the feeble excuse that he's an actual student. Next thing, they'll be teaching those people how to read!

But don't worry, Goobers! All is well. Your inbred voices have been heard. The brave public servants of Prescott, Arizona have decides to lighten the skin of the offending child.

The unAmerican, spineless wimps responsible for repainting the mural ought to have their academic credentials revoked. They certainly have abdicated any claim to moral credentials.

At times like these, I am reminded of one of my (very few) favorite Bible verses: "Do not follow a multitude to do evil." (Ex. 23:2)

Poem: Sharia Law

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:48:00 GMT

My favorite part of this poem is the refrain about "the moderates." Where the hell are they? WHO the hell are they? They need to speak up!

Norman Borlaug, 1914-2009

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:09:00 GMT

I just learned that Norman Borlaug, scientist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient died this past Sunday. He was a giant who single-handedly saved the lives of a billion people. The New York Times said,

Borlaug... develop[ed] genetically unique strains of "semidwarf" wheat, and later rice, that raised food yields as much as sixfold. The result was that a country like India was able to feed its own people as its population grew from 500 million in the mid-1960s, when Borlaug's "Green Revolution" began to take effect, to the current 1.16 billion. Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters. (Emphasis added.)

If you never heard of Norman Borlaug, please read the Wikipedia article on him. That feeling your experienceing is a combination of humility and gratitude.

This man is a hero to the world. He was selfless, modest and brilliant. He was also a life-long non-theist. Yay, our team!

Sinead's Hand

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:11:00 GMT

This is brilliant! Glad to see signs of real civilization emerging after that whole stupid blasphemy law business. I can only hope it catches on. Pass this around to every sympathetic pair of eyeballs you know. (Single eyeballs welcome too!)

Pledge of Allegiance

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:08:00 GMT

This is how I am saying the Pledge from now on!

Thanks to Hemant, The Friendly Atheist

What Were They Trying to Do, Again?

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:53:00 GMT

It probably hasn't occurred to the people who were so upset about President Obama's attempt to "indoctrinate" school children, but they drew far more attention to the speech than it deserved or would have received if they had simply kept their mouths shut about it. The Fool is no fan of Obama, but honestly, what's the big deal here?

Link to LA Times Story

Winner of Contest #3: Name That Logical Fallacy

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:46:00 GMT

Harder Than I Thought

I didn't anticipate the level of response I got from this contest. I also was very impressed with the detailed answers I received from some contestants. (I was less than impressed with what I will call the "minimalist" entries, such as the anonymous reader who replied, "The argument is a fallacy because the guy is a dumbass.")

A word of explanation: informal logic is not an exact science. There can be overlap in the categories, and some fallacies are actually just subspecies of others. The winner was chosen based on not only the number of fallacies named, but how well the contestant defended his choices.

So, after reading through the many hundreds of entries we received here at Perfect Fool Central Command (OK, it was a team of unpaid interns who did the actual reading--The Fool just ate bonbons and drank cocoa) , the winning entry comes from "Mooby the Golden Sock."

Mooby's entry names 13 separate fallacies. Here is his reply:

-             False analogy – This is the fallacy of assuming that if two things are similar in one respect, they are similar in all respects. A legitimate analogy uses comparisons that are relevant to the argument. For instance, as a deer and a dog are both four-legged mammals, one could use a deer’s leg to compare to a dog’s. However, asserting that the dog has antlers would be a false analogy. This story notes the similarity between a barber’s job and God’s job, and uses the analogy to assert that the barber and God are alike in every characteristic.

-         Hasty generalization—This is the fallacy of using the properties of a small sample size to generalize about an entire group. In the story, the narrator uses a sample size of one (the barber) generalize about all beings in service of others. Logically, he could not even draw conclusions about the majority of other barbers from this one barber. Who’s to say that the rest of the barbers don’t actively turn away customers with beards?

-         Accident – The fallacy of ignoring acceptable exceptions to a generalization. The narrator does this when he ignores possible exceptions (such as “not existing”) when he draws the conclusion about God from his (hasty) generalization. Note that this fallacy would still be present even if his generalization was not fallacious.

-         Argument from personal incredulity – This is the fallacy of arriving at a conclusion due to one personally finding a premise unbelievable. The barber explicitly says, “I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

-         Package deal fallacy – The fallacy of assuming two things historically grouped together are always grouped that way. The barber does this when he first speaks of “God” with the assumption of omnibenevolence. Only later does he qualify the God as “loving.”

-         Affirming the consequent – This fallacy states that if A => B, then necessarily B => A. This is fallacious because C could also => B, which would mean that B being true could imply C and not A. In the story, it gets even trickier as 3 terms are used: A + B => C, where A is “X exists,” B is “there are people who don’t use X’s services,” and C is “they don’t come to me.” Here, the narrator concludes C from A and B, and then tries to conclude C from B alone (never mind that pesky A), and then affirm the consequent from C to get A.

-         Straw man – The fallacy where an opposing argument is misrepresented to make it easier to attack. The narrator does this by ignoring the part of the barber’s argument that hinge on God being an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Were he to consider a perfect barber who has the ability and the infinite desire to cut all hair past X length, he would be phrasing his opponent’s argument properly.

-         Non-sequitur – I used to have a pet cat, but she died. That explains non-sequitur. The poster’s story is like my pet cat, except it didn’t meow. Therefore, it did not really answer any questions in the video, despite the poster’s claim. This fallacy would have been avoided by explaining the relevance of the story to the question, and then making the argument, rather than letting the story be the argument. For example, my comment about my dead cat is in no way related to the explanation of non-sequitur, making it an example of non-sequitur. The previous sentence, on the other hand, is not a non-sequitur because it establishes its relevance to the explanation of non-sequitur.

Ok, enough with the damn story. I could probably find more, but they’d undoubtedly overlap.
-         Ad hominem – “you are still incrediblyignorant.” – An ad hominem argument draws a conclusion about an argument from a characteristic of the arguer (true or not.) In this case, the poster uses the claim that the video author is “ignorant” to dismiss the arguments in the videos. Even if the video author is truly ignorant, his argument may still be valid. This ad hominem is continued in the next sentence, but rephrased to say that the argument is only valid if the person changes the characteristic in question (i.e. gets a church education.)

-         Bare assertion fallacy – The fallacy of stating an assertion without showing why that assertion is true. The poster claims that one must meet certain criteria to argue without saying why, and in the PS he states that God heals through prosthetic limbs, that “it doesn’t have to be the same thing,” and that it functions “just fine” without any justifications for those statements.

-         Argument from verbosity – The fallacy where one attempts to use the length of an argument to give it credibility. I wouldn’t have included this one, but the guy did apologize for length so I figured it was fair game.

The PS:
-         False attribution – The fallacy where someone appeals to a false source of an action. This can be seen simply by tracing the source of a prosthetic limb to the person who manufactured it or the person who attached it (a.k.a. not God).

-         Equivocation – The fallacy of using a term in two different ways. For instance, responding to a question about the healing of a limb with an example of a prosthetic “healing,” even though the word is being used differently in each instance (physical vs. functional healing).

That's a full thirteen fallacies! Mooby wins his choice of Sin-O-Mints, AtoneMints or Messiah Mints. Runner up was Anna with six. Sorry, Anna, better luck next time. Mooby, send The Fool your snail mail address and you'll soon be the guy with the minty fresh--and logical--breath!

A new contest coming soon!

New Contest: Name That Logical Fallacy

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:00 GMT

I have decided to give the Good Book a rest this time out and let you exercise your brains instead. This week we're going to play "Name That Logical Fallacy." We're going to have such fun!

Here's an email that was originally sent to the forum, Why Won't God Heal Amputees? It is a thoughtful response to the infamous "10 Questions" video.

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed.
As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects..
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
"I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer. "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people?
Would there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber:
"You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber.
"I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because
if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me."
"Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
That'swhat happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him forhelp. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Iapologize for the length, but it explains your questions in your video"10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer" Iappreciate your for being respectful and civil about yourargument(unlike most athiest youtubers), but you are still incrediblyignorant. To argue God or no-God, you need to fully understand bothsides; meaning go to a church, talk with a pastor, etc. Imagine atoddler arguing how to drive a car: they have never drove and don't yethave any logical reasoning. This is my point of view of you arguingthat God does not exist.

P.S. ;God can heal amputees, thrusomething called prosthetic limbs. It doesn't have to be the same thingbut it functions just fine

Thank you for your time.

Now here's the challenge: name the logical fallacies in this post. Name as many as you can, and explain each fallacy briefly.

Please note I said, "briefly."

Here's the important bit: DO NOT POST YOUR ANSWER IN THE COMMENTS. THEY WON'T BE PUBLISHED. EMAIL THE ANSWER TO CODSWALLOP@COMCAST.NET.

The whole business of logical fallacies can be a bit tricky. Some fallacies overlap, or go by different names. There are some broad categories of fallacies which contain narrower definitions within them. So be specific and be thorough.

As always, this is just for fun. Decision of the judges (OK, it's just me) is final and subject to logical fallacies of my own. Prizes will be awarded. Also, I reserve the right to make mistakes.(It's just a tin of frikkin' mints, for FSM's sake!)

Contest closes Monday, August 24, 2009 at 9:00 EDT.

Contest Winner: Best Bible Verse

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:40:00 GMT

Announcing the Winner of Contest #2

I guess the smaller number of entrys may be attributed to the fact that evil characters are always more interesting than the good ones. We had just four contestants. The positive side of this is that the Fool can respond to each entry individually, so you can see why I chose the winner I did.

Pastafarian chose:
Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
Matthew 7.12

A nice choice, and while it gets points for universality, it loses them for being way too familiar a verse. I mean, even Jesus was just paraphrasing Hillel.

Richard Martson gave us eight verses from Song of Songs, which is gorgeous stuff. Unfortunately, the contest asked for a single verse, so while it isn't a disqualifier, it is a negative. Also, there are a lot of typos, which can happen to anybody, but he misspelled the word "breasts," and that I cannot allow. The Fool has his standards.

Dragnet also entered more than one verse. OK, not so bad, just two. But I thought this section from Ecclesiastes was just a weird choice. This is the best in the Bible? I don't get it.

Finally, Sky gave us Isaiah 55:12: "You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands."

I like her explanation of choice: I chose this one because I am a nature lover. I think it's beautiful because it describes the serenity, beauty and life that is found in nature. When I read it, it comes alive and makes me smile.

Nice!

I think the obvious winner is Sky!

Thanks for playing, everybody. A reminder to last week's winners (and to Sky): the prizes are real. OK, they're also real small, but still. If you want your tin of AtoneMints, Messiah Mints or Sin-o-Mints, (these things are SO cool!) just send me a mailing address and I'll pop 'em in the post. If you don't want to give your real name and address to some fool, even a Perfect Fool, I understand, but you have 30 days from date of winning to change your minds.

A new contest will be announced soon!

Contest #2: The Best Bible Verse

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:33:00 GMT

OK, our first contest was a big success, ITFO ("in The Fool's opinion"). Now it's time for a little balance.

The Fool is not one of those people who thinks the entire Bible should be chucked. There's some real poetry in between all those begats and smites and fire baptisms. So that's what we want to see this time: What is the best, most beautiful verse of the Bible?

Now, there are some obvious choices. People love the 23rd Psalm, or I Corinthians 13, and those are fine. But for the purpose of judging this contest, consideration will be given to the obscurity of your selection. You may find, "Jesus wept" the most beautiful verse in the Bible (it's also the shortest, BTW), but so do millions of other people. So dig, people. Pick something not so obvious. Given a choice between one of the beatitudes and something from Nehemiah, the Fool will pick the prophet.

Further consideration will be given to the universality of the verse. If your favorite is something specific to Christianity, it's going to carry less weight than something that people find profound regardless of personal belief.

To enter, just quote the passage (with correct chapter & verse) in the comments. The prize is the same as last time--yummy, heretical mints, winner's choice, three types to choose from:
Fine Print:
This whole thing is free and just for fun. The Fool will not use your email address for any other purpose. The decision of the judges is final and probably wrong. In case of more than one winner (hey, in could happen), duplicate prizes will be awarded. Or not. The Fool reserves the right to alter or terminate this contest at any time for any damn reason or none at all. All entries become property of A Perfect Fool. One entry per IP address per contest. Void where prohibited, restricted, or taxed. So there.

Heinous Bible Verses: We Have a Winner!

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:03:00 GMT

Thanks to everyone who entered. (OK, there were eight entries--not overwhelming, but pretty cool anyway.) According to the hosting stats, a lot of people are reading without registering or commenting, which is really cool.

And we have a winner!

Actually, we have two: The two-way tie is between Airyaman and Kevin Ratzlaff.

Airyaman's entry was Deuteronomy 28:63 "And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it."

The Fool was persuaded by the idea of God taking delight in destroying people. It makes him sound so--human.

Kevin gave us a longer passage. (What translation was that, Kevin?) The part I found compellingly heinous was:

"Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes."

This passage, like so many others in the "Good Book," illustrates the lengths to which people will go in order to rationalize their own disgusting behavior. In the pick-and-choose method of Bible scholarship, this passage would probably go into the discard pile, but why is it in there at all? Biblical morality indeed.

So you guys are the winners of the first-ever Perfect Fool Blog contest. I have your prizes waiting. Just email your mailing addresses to codswallop@comcast.net. Be sure to tell me which type of mints you want.

I have a whole bunch more mints to give away, so I'm busy thinking up a new contest. I'll let you know ASAP.