The Pope sure stepped in it this time, didn't he? One offhand remark about the Prophet Muhammad preaching "things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," and the whole world goes apeshit.

But let's give this thing a little context. Last Tuesday, Pope Benedict stopped by his old teaching gig at the University of Regensburg for a bit of discourse with the science faculties. In an erudite, if somewhat opaque address, the Pontiff called for re-integration of theological questions into the realm of rational inquiry. He suggested that the natural sciences necessarily give rise to questions beyond the scope of their methodology, and that only through such a synthesis can we achieve “that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.”

The beginning of the speech more or less tracked Toastmasters International Opening 2A: pleasantries about the venue, followed by a personal reminiscence, followed by a joke foreshadowing the thesis, followed by a statement of the thesis. (Yes, the Pope did tell a joke of sorts, relating a colleague's quip that the University of Bonn, with its two theology divisions, possessed two entire faculties devoted to something that did not even exist.)

The trouble started when the Pope moved into Toastmaster's Transition 3C: "I was reminded of all this recently, when I read..." 3C of course requires a quotation, and the one Benedict chose came from that well-known personality, Manuel II Paleologos, Byzantine emperor from 1391 to 1425. Manuel's point, essentially, was that religious conversion by violence is irrational because "faith is born of the soul, not the body." The Pope used Manuel's statement about Muhammad as a launching point for an examination of the historical relationship between rational inquiry and religious faith. His address never returned to the subject of Islam, nor to the question of enforced conversion.

I think we need to chalk this one up to the "everyone's an idiot" category. On the one side, you have Benedict who, needing a quotation on the theme of rational spirituality, chose one that not only denigrates the central figure and entire belief system of a 1.4 billion-member religion, but trots out the most problematic stereotype plaguing its adherents today. On the other side, you have a Simpsons-like raging horde of reactionaries, setting the world on fire over a mistaken belief that the Pope had endorsed Manuel's viewpoint.

Did any of the people currently setting churches on fire, shooting nuns, recalling ambassadors, et cetera, actually bother to read the Pope's speech? It's right there, in four languages, on the Vatican website. I only ask because I don't find the following conversation very likely:

Point being: everyone's in the wrong here. So let's let the Pope say he's sorry for selecting about the worst page imaginable from Bartlett's, let's let "the Muslim street" apologize for reflexively kirking out, and can we all please just simmer down? Jeez.

I recently was privileged to introduce to you Petersburg, Kentucky's pride and joy, the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. I know you are revving the engines of the John 3:16-Mobile as we speak, but if you examine the museum's website carefully, you will notice a small obstacle to your pilgrimage: the damned thing isn't actually built yet.

How is a poor sinner to help, you wonder? Well, donations are of course appreciated, as are charter memberships. But if you really want to save our children from the Luciferian cesspool of "evolutionary natural history," why not sign up to pray for the museum? By entering your email address, you'll make a one year commitment to fast one day per month, and pray daily that God will "glorify His name in the specific requests relayed to me."

These specific requests, conveniently available online or by weekly email, are grouped by department. So, for instance, the Warehouse Department makes this request:

...while Museum Operations asks the following:

As a public service to those of you who may not have had time to peruse the FBI's application for a warrant to search the Congressional office of Rep. Bill Jefferson, I have digested the application thoroughly and provide you with the following summary:

Dude, they totally have the goods on this guy. Unless the Bureau has engineered a frame-up more elaborate than the LAPD pulled on O.J., Jefferson has been a very naughty fellow.

What I find more amusing are the protestations that this search somehow violated the Constitutional separation of powers. Let us play a round of Armchair Constitutional Scholar, shall we? Below, I will list some instances in which separation-of-powers challenges have been raised. Your task is to identify the challenge that is full of shit:

A) President attempts to seize and federalize nation's steel mills. Mill owners protest that President may not do so without congressional authorization.

B) President refuses to spend money that Congress has appropriated for particular federal programs. Program beneficiaries protest that such refusal violates separation between Congress's power to make laws (including appropriations) and president's duty to "take care that the Laws are faithfully executed."

C) Immigration statute gives single house of Congress power to "veto" executive actions. Administration protests that separation of powers permits Congress to act only via bills approved by both houses and presented for the President's signature.

D) Congressional leadership protests that FBI search of Congressman's office violates separation of powers under the following circumstances: After Congressman resists grand jury subpoena for eight months, FBI obtains search warrant for his office based on 100+ page affidavit indicating the following: Informant wearing wire records Congressman promise to make official visits to Nigeria and Ghana to facilitate approval of telecommunications projects. In exchange for these official acts, Congressman accepts part-interest in the business, registered in his children's names. Meanwhile, businessman pleads guilty to having paid Congressman $400,000+ in bribes for prior, similar deal. Back at the ranch, Congressman tells informant he needs $100,000 to bribe Vice President of Nigeria. Informant later gives Congressman suitcase containing $100,000 in cash. Over dinner, Congressman tells informant he has given money to Nigerian V.P., then passes series of notes to informant demanding greater share of the venture. Jokes "'All these damn notes we're writing . . . as if the FBI is watching." Subsequent search of Congressman's house reveals that he has lied to informant; money has not actually gone to Nigerian V.P. but is instead in Congressman's freezer, neatly wrapped in $10,000 aluminum-foil bundles.

Did you choose D?