A recent Gallup poll [1][2] suggests that Americans trust the military and the police force more than they do the church and organized religion.

I'm sure you are quite aware of how polls are conducted and by shifting the wording of the question one can shift the answer received. In this case it appears the question left a considerable amount open to the respondent.

"Now I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one -- a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little? "

My issue here is what the people are basing their confidence on.

Is it the latest buzz in the news (say, Tim Haggard)?
Is it a single bad experience with a church they were just at?
Did someone they know have a bad experience?

Additionally, one must consider the role that each respondent feels the church has in society (which I think more to the point). Thus, asking the average gay person might draw a different response than asking the typical heterosexual person.

The responses do represent a problem, although more than just a trust issue. Obviously, the church/organized religion (euphemisms for the Catholic Church and Evangelical Churches) has done a poor job of not only building trust in the populace, but also maintaining a static purpose in society.

Going further with this, it is reasonable to suggest the church has failed on an academic level as well (possibly more importantly).

Initially the church promulgated the concept of public schools to educate the masses (notably for scripture reading). However, since the inculcation of the public school system into the government they have went not only private, but generally expensively so. This leaves academia up for grabs and allows for a re-education of the masses on a social level (apart from say standard mathematics and reading) by another entity. Thus, the purpose of the church in society changes in the minds of people when it shouldn't.

Looking at a few of the institutions (those with the most recorded responses) the percentage change from its highest year and lowest year we can sort the group on an increasing scale. This allows us to show specifically which institutions had the greatest degree of change.

Maximum change from the highest year to the lowest year

Military	35 percentage points
Banks	30 percentage points
Newspapers	29 percentage points
Congress	28 percentage points
Schools	25 percentage points
Church	23 percentage points
TV News	23 percentage points
Supreme Court	22 percentage points
Organized Labor	20 percentage points
Big Business	16 percentage points

The military has the largest gap followed (in order) by banks, newspapers, congress and schools. The church/organized religion rates number six along with TV News. On a good note, the church isn’t in the top five of fluctuation, which means it has managed to keep a fairly reasonable profile of itself.

It does look like there is a downward trend. We can see that over the years the church has a low point and then a few good years, although the trend still is going down overall. The church has quite a bit of work ahead, not only spiritually, but also academically and socially. One must wonder if the church is up to the task; I’m thinking not—though surprises abound.

Recently I took some time to check into an upcoming show on Comedy Central called, Lil’Bush. If you haven’t seen the show, then take a visit to Amp’d Mobile’s promotional website where you can watch a video or two of the upcoming show.

On the site the show's creator Donick Cary, discusses some of his motivation behind the show.

“I’ve always like the idea of shrinking people down and making them their stupid little versions of themselves. Politically, there’s sort of been less of a voice for any altering views in politics and it seems like your vote doesn’t make much of a difference as it used to.”

Less of a voice? What does he call South Park, The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, Real Time with Bill Mahr, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Air America Radio, stand-up comedians such as Sarah Silverman and Lewis Black, Hollywood (except Mel Gibson), The ACLU, Time Magazine, the public school system, several national newspapers and the list could go on ad nauseum.

I digress. The show satirizes the current administration along with what appears to be ideas the author doesn't agree with. In the episode, "Evolution"[1] Lil' Bush characterizes President George W. Bush as incompetent, against education & insolent. Even more charming is a depiction of God saying, "First of all, I didn't write the Bible; my word is just a template for good." Additionally, the show mocks Dick Cheney, depicting him only capable of grunting (in one clip on all fours barking at naked men piled on top of each other) and refers to Ann Coulter in a derogatory manner (click here for word - censored by Townhall) [2]

Though I enjoy various forms of comedy (including a few previously mentioned shows), this show simply is not funny and appears to put mockery at the forefront. While Mr. Cary feels that his vote doesn't count, I suspect with the advent of this show that tune won't be changing anytime soon (yea, it's that bad and that pointless).

Quite simply, I'd follow the advice from Associated Content and "Avoid it like a disease."[3]

Recently a lawsuit on behalf of Linda Carlson was filed against Eharmony.com for alleged discriminatory practices. According to California law, businesses are not allowed to discriminate against persons on the basis of sexual orientation. A quick review of the arguments for both parties is as follows:

Against Eharmony.com
Same-sex couples who wish to use the service cannot as the options require a person choose either "Man seeking a woman" or a "Woman seeking a man." According to the SFGate.com [1]:

"The proposed class-action suit seeks damages for any gay, lesbian or bisexual Californian who was denied access to the Web site or refrained from using it because of its policy, and an injunction requiring equal access."

Favoring Eharmony.com
Eharmony's claim is that there is no discrimination against gays due to the nature of the site and its origin. Again, quoting the SFGate.com:

"Our rational business basis is that our research database comes from a clinical psychiatrist observing successful marriages vs. non-successful,'' observations based entirely on opposite-sex marriages, Davis said. He said a claim of discrimination against same-sex partners is comparable to a suit against a Japanese restaurant "for discriminating against people who like French food.''

The counter is that Eharmony simply was designed to serve a specific purpose and does not have the adequate research to offer such a service to gay persons.

The truth is simple, Eharmony is not engaging in discrimination for various reasons. Agreeing with Lanny Davis (lawyer for Eharmony), I would also argue that gays are not being overtly discriminated against as it is suggested by the article and John Cloud of Time Magazine.[2]

Both articles suggest (the Time article actually states it) that gays are not permitted to use the site. Malarkey; they are permitted to use the site. A quick tour of the site shows no sign of heterosexual requirements (as in stated). While the site does indeed require a person to pick a person from the opposite sex, there is no limitation imposed upon any person from using the site based on sexual orientation (in other words it doesn't state “No gays” or “Heterosexuals Only”). This may seem like borderline semantics, but rather important I believe to the details of the case. The lawsuit alleges that Eharmony is discriminating against them by simply not offering a service specifically catered to persons based on sexual orientation. If such a case were to win, I believe, this would open the door for many potential lawsuits in the future based on lack of service being stated as active discrimination. Gays and other minorities would be open to file lawsuits when a service offered to the public did not serve a specific need based merely on their minority status. Persons might be inclined to complain that particular clothing stores discriminate by not offering clothing representative of their particular minority status.

It should also be worth noting that such a lawsuit represents the ignorance of persons about their rights and the rights of others. In suing Eharmony, Ms. Carlson assumes the position that she has an inherent right to use the service offered by Eharmony. While I understand California's law against discrimination, it amounts to rubbish in the realm of truth (where I typically reside). The fact is, Eharmony should not be under any obligation by law to offer their services to homosexuals (this works in the reverse as well).

A certain person in my company is gay. During a conversation he noted to me that a particular gay bar he frequents (in another state) has a sign that states, "No Straights Allowed." The reason behind this was due to heterosexual patrons stirring up trouble when being solicited to by gay patrons. The solution? Don't permit heterosexual persons in. This is precisely the point with private business, to be able to offer a service to whom you want, when you want. I have no problems with the restrictions from this bar, and neither should you.

I will agree with Mr. Cloud on one point, the best approach by the gay community isn't lawsuits--though ridicule wasn't quite what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of simply offering a competitive product.