I don’t know if the standard of English was really higher or not. If it was, was it wrong to point that out. Yes and no. Was it inflammatory? Yes. Was it politically correct? No. Bigoted? I don’t think so. Granted, if this had been minorities vs whites and he pointed out that the minorities didn’t speak English as well as the whites it might have been true, but it also would have been unnecessary and extremely provocative (in a bad way). Everyone knows that society discriminates against minorities and that many minority groups do not receive the same opportunities for education as majority groups. To say, “hey all the latinos who called in spoke poor English” would just be rubbing it in). I think the difference between your examples (race, sexual orientation, and gender) is that religion is not pre-determined. You choose what religion to join and whether or not you will be a part of any religion. No one would argue that you can’t choose your religion. I think he just gets a little carried away in the relief he feels that the station got a lot of calls supporting his show. Non-believers really are a small minority of people in America. There was a poll recently that said only a small percentage of people would vote for an atheist for President (far less than would vote for a homosexual, a black person, or many other minorities).
—
A Gallup poll in 1999 asked American voters the following question: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an X would you vote for that person?” X took on the following values: Catholic, Jew, Baptist, Mormon, black, homosexual, woman, atheist. Six out of the eight categories secured better than 90 percent approval. But only 59 percent would vote for a homosexual, and just 49 percent would vote for an atheist. Bear in mind that there are 29 million Americans who describe themselves as nonreligious, secular, atheist, or agnostic.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/view.html?pg=2
—

Also, about the study. The intepretation they suggest is that “education appears to decrease belief in the returns to religious activity.” Their evidence is that “high attendance denominations (e.g. Mormons, Baptists, Catholics) strongly affirm rewards to religious adherence, usually in the afterlife.” On the other hand, “the doctrines of low attendance denominations (e.g. Episcopalians, Reform Jews) often explicitly deny any connection between religiosity and worldly success. These denominations may even deny and explicit connection between religious activity and rewards after death.”

But of course Angela’s right that this is only an interpretation. The data are that more educated people are more likely to go to church, but that within their specific churches the more educated attend less frequently than the less educated. So what are some alternative explanations?

Maybe educated people are simply busier with their jobs and have less time to go to church. Maybe educated people have a more personal relationship with God based on private prayer and therefore feel they have less need for attending church in a formal church setting. Maybe people with less education have harder lives and are therefore more reliant on the social network of the church. These are just some things of the top of my head. Long posts.