That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones.

The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

This sweeping claim is supported by anecdotes of the sort radio talk-show hosts purvey.

This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous.

Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn?

Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don't like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform?

They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men -- even holy men.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.

"I increasingly see organized religion as actually my enemy. They treat me as their enemy," said the British actor, who came out 20 years ago. "Not all Christians, of course. Not all Jews, not all Muslims. But the leaders. . . . Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He's basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I'm lost to God, organized religion is to blame."

McKellen revealed his sexuality at age 49 on a British radio show during a debate about anti-gay legislation. He says it's the most important thing he's ever done, and when he's not acting, he spends much of his time lobbying for gay rights. He visits schools in England as part of a program to prevent gay bullying. When he finds a Bible in a hotel room, he rips out the passage in Leviticus that condemns homosexuality.

In his view, Hollywood still hasn't come that far in its attitude toward gays.

"There are still times in my life where I pull back from being totally honest," he said quietly, "and I can't imagine a single straight person who would understand that."

The Vatican announced a stunning decision Tuesday to make it easier for Anglicans to convert, reaching out to those who are disaffected by the election of women and gay bishops to join the Catholic Church's conservative ranks.

Pope Benedict XVI approved a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, including having married priests.

The new Catholic church entities, called personal ordinariates, will be units of faithful established within local Catholic Churches, headed by former Anglican prelates who will provide spiritual care for Anglicans who wish to be Catholic.

They would most closely resemble Catholic military ordinariates, special units of the church established in most countries to provide spiritual care for the members of the armed forces and their dependents.

Anglicans split with Rome in 1534 when English King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment.

The new canonical provision allows married Anglican priests and even seminarians to become ordained Catholic priests - much the same way that Eastern rite priests who are in communion with Rome are allowed to be married. However, married Anglicans couldn't become Catholic bishops.

Dale Neumann was convicted Saturday of killing his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, because he prayed for her instead of taking her to a hospital when her undiagnosed diabetes got so bad that she couldn't eat, drink, walk or speak. She died on the floor of her rural Wisconsin home with her father, mother and a group of people praying for her healing. Neumann says he was simply putting his faith first and following the will of God, but a jury found him guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.

This event raises serious questions about the conflict between individual rights and governmental power, just as abortion does. Both involve innocent and dependent lives with no real power to contest a parent's choices.

Isn't this a Right to Life issue? And if it is, where are the Right to Lifers?

Williams, spiritual leader of the communion, spoke of a "two-tier" or "two-track" model -- one path for those who remain part of the communion's "covenantal structure," and another with "fewer formal expectations" for those who value autonomy.

Episcopalians greeted Williams' letter with a range of emotions. Some criticized him, saying his proposals would relegate their church to second-class status.

Americans are fickle consumers of religion, with about half changing religious affiliations at least once in their lives as they drift away from childhood traditions or stop believing in the teachings of their faiths, according to a national survey released Monday.

Monday's survey, based on follow-up interviews with 2,800 people, delved more deeply into the reasons behind the religious churn among Roman Catholics, Protestants and the unaffiliated. Jews, Muslims and other groups were not included because their numbers were not large enough to produce reliable results, the researchers said.

Many without religious belief also said they found religious people to be hypocritical, judgmental or insincere.

In most cases, former Catholics who are now unaffiliated said they were dissatisfied with the church's teachings on abortion, homosexuality, birth control or treatment of women.

More than two-thirds of those Catholics who switched to Protestantism, meanwhile, said that their spiritual needs were not being met and that they found another religion they preferred.

The survey also showed that 80% of those raised as Protestants have remained so. But more than a quarter of them have switched to a different Protestant tradition -- for example, changing from Presbyterian to Episcopalian.

A carpenter, with questionable parentage, from an unremarkable town, walked the countryside.  He attracted followers, keeping twelve with him and three of those especially close as he spoke to groups large and small.  He was part of an oppressed group - a Jew in a Roman-occupied part of the world. He said and did things that confounded the dominant religious authorities of the day. People flocked to him for a miracle.  There was something he claimed that was outrageous to his fellow Jews: He was G-d.  Arrogance? Insanity? Fraud?  From a man who urged people to forgive each other and love each other?

For thousands of years, it had been pounded into the minds and hearts of the Jews that there was ONE G-d and that He was spirit, not an idol that could be kept in a room.  He was a unique, personal being, not a "force" or something we call could be or have if we meditated enough.  And yet here was a Jew, this guy who was extremely familiar with the scriptures – including the ones that said there was just one G-d - walking around claiming to be G-d.  He wasn't part of the recognized system of priests and religious leaders, so he posed a threat to them and their comfortable, established way of doing things.  This guy even had the nerve to disrupt their moneymaking schemes.

Enough was enough!

They handed this guy over to the Romans and demanded that he be executed. He was a threat to the religious leaders, and since he'd claimed to be a king, he must be a threat to the Romans, too.  Furthermore, anyone claiming to G-d was being blasphemous, right?  The Roman leader, while spooked a little, didn't find anything wrong with the man, especially after the man explained that his kingdom wasn't of this world.  Yet the Romans needed to keep order, and people were demanding that this "king" die.  The "king" was taken and scourged - whipped so brutally that his skin was shredded.  That wasn't enough.  The people wanted this "king" to die.  And so this carpenter, who had worked with wood for years to make useful things for other people, was forced to carry the very wood he'd be nailed to so that he could hang on a cross bleeding and losing his ability to breathe.

This man who'd preached loved and forgiveness, who had urged people to turn from their sins, who had healed the sick, who had done some controversial things but never anything wrong, was beaten and executed, all in excruciating pain.

That was what we now call "Good" Friday.

If that was all that happened, most of us would never have heard of Good Friday.  Someone may have mentioned this carpenter in an obscure list of Jews who claimed to the Messiah, but most of us would never have heard of this Nazarene.

But it wasn't all that happened.

On Sunday morning, once the holy days and feasts were over, some people who loved this carpenter were returning to care for his body as a final sign of respect.

The body was gone, though.  Nobody ever found the body.  To their shock, this Jesus, who had been scourged and killed, was alive and well - very well - though he still had the holes in his hands from the nails and the hole in his side where a spear had shoved into him to make sure he was dead.  He talked with them, they embraced him, they felt him, they ate with him.  He'd come and go as he pleased over the next several weeks.  Finally, having done what he'd set out to do, he was taken away in a "cloud"... probably a description of what appeared to be a blindingly bright light.

Because of that Sunday when Jesus was first seen alive after being killed, we now have this Good Friday.  Why is this Friday "Good"?

It is no coincidence that Jesus was executed during the Passover season (the Last Supper was a Passover Seder).  Many years before, when the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, there was a night when they slaughtered lambs "without defect" and placed the blood of a lamb on their doorways.  Overnight, when the Lord passed through Egypt with righteous judgment, the firstborn of every household was struck down - but the Lord "passed over" the homes with the blood.  The Jews were subsequently freed from their slavery.

John the Baptist referred to Jesus as "the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world."  Jesus was the ultimate Passover Lamb "without defect" who shed his blood to free all of us from our enslavement to sin.  That Friday was Good because it is the day that our sins against G-d were paid for... by someone other than us!

But that Sunday...

We've all dealt with death in our lives.  We've all had loved ones that have died.  Thousands of years of recorded history tell us that dead people stay dead.

Yet this miracle-working carpenter was seen alive after his death.  People touched him, talked with him, ate with him.  They stuck their fingers in his wounds.

Being modern people, we are understandably skeptical of this.  We don't have video proof.  But what we do have is history, and the testimony of those who were there.  Good Friday had left the followers of Jesus afraid and feeling defeated.  They had shown themselves to be cowardly, and their leader was now dead.

If Easter (Resurrection) Sunday did not happen, how did such people go on to change the world?  Unless they actually encountered a resurrected Jesus, these people would have no reason to face ostracism and martyrdom to proclaim that resurrection and spread the teachings of Jesus.  It is easy to deny the truth to save your life.  Would people be willing to give up everything they had and die for something they knew to be a lie?  No way!

So what does this all mean for me today?  It means that I have a way to be right with G-d, because even though I have done things against Him, Good Friday was the day that those sins were paid for.  I am forgiven.  I also have someone who is my friend, my advocate, someone who knows what it is like to live life on Earth and knows what it is like to feel pain, suffer loss, and to die.  And that Someone has promised me that if I follow Him, everything will be okay.  Death is not the end.  He has conquered death, and someday death, pain, and sorrow will be taken away from me.  He has backed up His "blasphemous claims" with action, showing them not to be blasphemous at all.

He doesn't want me to cut the heads off of people just because they don't believe in Him.  He doesn't want me to fly airliners into skyscrapers to kill people going about their lives.  He wants me to do things like love others and take care of the needs of others.  This is why so many have built hospitals, universities, and charities in His name.

It isn't about going to church regularly.  It isn't about trying to convince people that my life is perfect.  It isn't about making sure I can retire wealthy.  It isn't about getting everyone else to see things the way I do. It isn't even about keeping a checklist of rules and sticking to that checklist.  It isn't about "getting it right" on my own before I can approach G-d, because that will never happen.

It IS about having a peace with G-d, knowing that He forgives the horrible things I've done and may yet still do if I simply ask Him to.  It is about having fellowship with that Nazarene who rose from the grave and still lives, because He deserves my allegiance and because He did life right.

There are people who believe that everything is an accident, a series of extremely unlikely coincidences.  Sunsets. Surf. Waterfalls. Roses. Redwood trees. Chocolate.  Wine.  Galaxies.  Eagles. Puppies. Kittens. Sex.  Newborn babies.  Those are all accidents?  I don't think so.  All of the complexity in the cells of our own bodies, all of the symbiotic systems of the natural world, where organisms depend on each other for survival.  Those all "just happened"?  I don't think so.  The world is beautiful and amazing, and it is not accidental or inconsequential that a Jew who was without sin and claimed to be G-d suffered and died at Passover and then rose from the dead.

Yes, there is something broken about the world, as evidenced by all of the suffering.  But the fix is in.  The victory was demonstrated almost 2000 years ago.  I can't ignore that.  That has to have an impact in my life, how I view life, and how I live life.  My Lord humbled Himself, suffered and died for me.  And then, He beat death, and someday, He's going to kick death - and its parent, sin - down the stairs, and shut the door on them.  The world won't be broken anymore.  I can't know everything about what the future will bring, but as long as I'm holding on to Him, I'll be in the best company there is.  And since I love Him, as long as I'm around, I should seek to love others, meet their needs, and follow His lead.

May you have a reflective Good Friday and a Joyous Resurrection Sunday.

We are on the verge - within 10 years - of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity.

This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants.

In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism.

Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses.

Being against [marriage neutering] and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence.

We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.

Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

The money will dry up.

Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success.

Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa.

Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ?

But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?

The Dykes on Bikes tossed bouquets as they led the city's 38th annual gay pride parade down Market Street.

In an interview Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the measure "a waste of time."

"I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman," Schwarzenegger said. "But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don't want to force on anyone else."

Overseas, gay pride marches in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia and the Czech Republic city of Brno came under attack Saturday by extremists who threw rocks and eggs.

No serious injuries were reported.

Did Rosales wake up and decide "I am and always will be straight"? I doubt it, and there is no reason to think that a homosexual would do that either.

Finally, Rosales' completely ludicrous argument that now people are going to rush their horses down the aisle is not only ignorant, but insulting. Moreover, there is no likelihood of this happening soon because as far as I know, horses can't give consent.

Has Rosales met many animal-sexuals lately?

It all boils down to this: it is time for everyone, especially the government, to get out of individuals' private lives.

At the end of the day, nothing about gay marriage will alter Rosales' or any other straight person's life.

All it will do is ensure basic human (Yes, homosexuals are human) rights and further equality in our nation.

And, hopefully, years from now, kids will learn about this time and wonder why this was such a big deal.

As a gay man, I can testify from first-hand experience that I was born this way.

And his statement that "same-sex coupling is unnatural and is never an expression of love" reveals a disturbing lack of understanding of human relationships and love.

Two gay men and two lesbian women in a committed relationship is an expression of love, regardless of whether anyone else finds it distasteful.

The fact that this issue (an initiative to legally ban gay marriage) is on our ballot (again) poignantly demonstrates the stubbornly oppressive attitudes of fringe Religious organizations.

Why not a law against consuming pork? Eating pork is against the religions of many Californians – so why not a law to ban all from doing so?

Rosales should be mindful that the Bible was used to defend the institution of slavery.

The Bible was used to defend the laws forbidding interracial marriage.

There are so many things threatening this planet right now that deserve our attention. Why then are the morally righteous so obsessed with trivial matters like gay couples?

Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay rights from its base in Washington, D.C., featured on its website a photo of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin of San Francisco, who have lived together since the Eisenhower administration.

In May, the California Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated the Constitution.

"There is no question the images helped," Smith said. "They showed gay and lesbian couples are like other couples. They get married, they have children.”

Eight years ago, when an initiative to ban gay marriage was on the California ballot for the first time, Pastor Jim Garlow of the 2,500-member Skyline Church in San Diego County barely mentioned it from his pulpit.

The dueling messages of the state's clergy reflect passionate divisions in many faiths about the question.

Although pastors cannot urge parishioners from the pulpit to back specific candidates for office, the law does allow advocacy for legislation or initiatives.

I suggest that Pastor Jim Garlow tend to the business of his own congregation and his own faith.

Pandey confirms a truth about marriage that eludes Garlow: Values and customs regarding marriage are primarily cultural, not religious, and change over time.

Just as prejudices against interracial marriage are disappearing, so will biases against same-sex marriage. Fifty years from now, our grandchildren will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) overturned a long-standing ban on the ordination of gays and lesbians Friday, providing yet the latest example of a religious denomination struggling with how, and whether, to incorporate homosexuality into church life.

At the same time, the church's national governing body, meeting in San Jose, refused to alter its definition of marriage, calling it a "covenant between a woman and a man." The actions by the General Assembly came the week after same-sex marriage became legal in California. They also follow the decision of a gathering of Methodists from Southern California and Hawaii, who went against their national church by voting to support same-sex couples who marry and the pastors who welcome them.

Some parishes have left the Episcopal Church, prompting predictions that the issue may tear the denomination apart. In the Presbyterian Church (USA) -- the nation's largest Presbyterian group, with 2.3 million members -- Friday's actions were likely to deepen theological fissures.

The General Assembly voted in favor of the ordination measure 54% to 46%, but its decision must still be approved by a majority of the nation's 173 regional presbyteries over the next year. Several prominent church leaders predicted it would fail.

Even so, gay rights advocates applauded the Presbyterians' decision to amend their constitution, saying the step would end discrimination that has long kept gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people from church service.

"I feel proud of my church today," said Lisa Larges, national coordinator for That All May Freely Serve, an organization that advocates for gay equality in the Presbyterian church.

The measure approved Friday was sponsored by the Presbytery of Boston. It deletes language, approved by the General Assembly in 1996, that requires church elders, deacons and ministers to "live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."

The highest court of the Presbyterian Church USA has found that a California minister did not violate the church's constitution when she officiated at the [“]weddings[“] of same-sex couples in 2004 and 2005.

The decision, announced Tuesday by the church's permanent judicial commission, cleared the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr of San Rafael of misconduct and lifted an earlier ruling of censure against her by a regional church court.

In the decision, the Louisville, Ky.-based panel found that the ceremonies Spahr had performed for the two lesbian couples could not be considered marriages.

Spahr, 65, who has fought for many years for full inclusion of gay and lesbian Presbyterians in the national church, said she was grateful she had been cleared of the misconduct charge but disappointed by the finding on marriage.

"In not seeing same-gender marriages as marriages, the commission holds to the idea that we are separate and unequal," Spahr said in a telephone interview. "And that causes me great pain."

Sara Taylor, Spahr's attorney, said she and her client also were troubled by parts of the ruling.

"It's worrying that the court seems to be attempting to legislate future marriages and restrict them," Taylor said.

"Can you imagine if I said no to these couples, after they come to me and want me to work with them?" Spahr said.

She said she was now counseling six couples, three gay and three straight, and said she expected to officiate at weddings for all of them.

My sister-in-law is a born-again Christian and very outspoken about her beliefs.

She agitates my husband to no end when we are at family gatherings. I can't think of a wedding that we've been to in the last 10 years where she hasn't cornered us about being saved.

We've tried to tell her that we have our own beliefs, and I usually walk away, but my husband gets very stressed and angry and gets into it with her every time.

She even sends tracts to us in birthday cards and other letters. I am tired of having to deal with this. Any suggestions on how to handle this zealot?

Because your husband, however, seems unable to walk away, suggest he try a new approach when responding to his sister. Here's some early American history I read somewhere: Thomas Paine, considered by many a de facto Founding Father, ridiculed the Bible as a long fairy tale of crime and fantasy.

Thomas Jefferson took a razor to the New Testament and cut out everything he thought silly, evil or mystical.

He was left with a very short book.

Then your husband should try to make a case for atheism.

Apoplexy guaranteed.