I'm not an expert in that, it's not really up to me to say why the United States and Turkey should be way out ahead or behind in this particular case. It does seem to be the case that of all advanced Western nations the United States is more religious than any other.

Actually, it has to do with a regressive economic landscape. The lack of social contract and adequate protecitions, security means many people run to religion (especially fundie brands) to find succor.

At issue as an index is a measure known as the ‘Gini coefficient’ which registers the degree of economic and income inequality in any given nation, referenced as a decimal. Or, more often (in non-technical venues) as a plain number between 0 and 100.

In terms of practical applications, a Gini index of zero would denote perfect equality. In terms of western industrial nations, most developed European nations and Canada tend to have Gini indices between 24 and 36, the United States' and Mexico's Gini indices are both above 40, indicating that the United States and Mexico have greater inequality..In the whole panoply of criteria, and the full spectrum of research, the Gini coefficient (the prime indicator of income inequality) is the key factor.

To be specific, across the first world (of developed nations) lower economic and income equality correlates with lower religiosity. This pattern is “statistically progressive” according to a recent article in Free Inquiry (Jan. 2009) and “no exceptions are known”.

The warp and woof of advanced, collated sociological research into religiosity and secularism and sociological health as a function of either- is well documented in the aforementioned issue (Vol. 29, No. 1) ‘The Future of Religion’, p. 24. As noted therein, the thrust of this research is that religion is falling like tenpins in all first world democracies, with the exception of the U.S., and that the least dysfunctional societies are the least theistic.

The primary finding that runs likes a thread through all this research is that religious belief and activity is a superficial coping mechanism that is easily cast aside when the majority in a given society enjoy true (not faux) democratic government, and enjoy a secure, comfortable and middle class lifestyle.

Those who claim the universality of religion or that it is integral to human nature commit the basic selection effects error, in that they conveniently overlook the data which show broad secularization of western Europe, Anglo-Australia, Canada and other developed nations.

Indeed, in 18 out of 19 of the most prosperous democracies the share of population reporting absolute belief in a god or gods ranges from between as little as a few percent to at most one-half. In some of these nations, mainly in western Europe, two-thirds proclaim to be either atheists or agnostics. Further, this de-Christianization is not accompanied by any offset via New Age spirituality or other spirituality (as seems to be occurring in the U.S)Recognizing how thoroughly most of the first world has been secularized is an important first step to solving the religious belief question.

The next step, as sociologists note, is to account for the major exception – known as the “American Anomaly”- the only first world democracy wherein 2/3 of the population professes belief in God, and most hold atheists in low regard…..unlike in W. Europe where most religious are held in low regard.

Income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient nails this, as noted, and discloses why so many find refuge in invisible beings and magic powers, prayer. They can't get any help from their government.

The choice is simple and basic: support an eocnomic system with clear redistributive elements to ensure maximum security for all - or watch your country mutate into a nation of god-mongering zealots.

Btw, YES, evolution is an unimpeachable fact. See the 29+ evidences for macro-evolution, which predictions confirm evolution has rendered the fact-based prognostications that validate it as much as Newtonian gravity:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And no, it makes little sense to debate creaitonists, since as James Watson once pointed out, they suffer from mild dementia brought on by their sustained magical ideatiion.

But I just can't shed any tears for this porker. He basically dug himself into his hole with his years of buffoonery and off the wall blather. He is learning, as many have - who blog, or twitter, or put irresponsible material on their Facebook - that there are consequences to actions. For the most ordinary of us it may come when a prospective employer checks us out. But it does come.

I learned my lesson early on this, denied employment for years because employers had seen "leftist" comments I had posted on usenet (alt.economics, alt.politics) back in the mid--90s. At one interview, when the employer mentioned my posts, and why I had made them, I replied, "I thought it was a free country, and the first amendment applied".

He smirked, and made the rejoinder: "Not when an important job is on the line. No, it doesn't"

Now, on much bigger terms, El Rushbo has learned the lesson too. The straight fact is this is NOT a free country, and you can only do so much and attain what you will - so long as you stick to prescribed limits.

Rush went overboard with his talk show rants and remarks, as I did with my usenet posts. We both learned the hard way. There are limits to free speech and when you exceed them, you pay the price. Ask Ward Churchill about that one too. And make no mistake, if you are going to take the exception for one of us - for any reason at all- you do it for all of us.