A gentle observation that many of those leaving the NE are moving to places like Oregon, which has one of the lowest percentages of residents who claim any affiliation to a church in the United States. This is also the state with legal use of marijuana for medical purposes, and legal doctor-assisted suicide.

Are those "more advanced" in Dutch's doctrine?

You are free to believe what you want to believe, I have no problem with that. What I am saying is that a society whose members are predominantly Christian, is more advanced than a society that is non-christian. As a society leaves Christianity, that same society will lose its way. I do not proclaim this as blessings from God, but rather a way of thinking, that subtly, sublimally percolates into a society.

This is an argument sometimes even made by Christians against each other (by protestants claiming their supposed work-ethic being superior to the ethos of the catholic)... it's amazing how quickly the religious turn to this argument, even when it is patently absurd. The countries in Europe with the least religiosity are the ones which come out in all the polls as having the best standards of living, happiest people etc.

Dutch, Ipetrich is right. How can you say anything good about christianity, when by your own words, all christians are interpreting the bible completely wrong?
You have said numerous times that you and your group of about 300, are the only ones in the world to understand the bible. So how does all the rest of christianity somehow influence the world if they are wrong in their interpretations of scripture?
And how we treat women and abolition of slavery? That's a real laugh!
How insulting!

His argument seems like a version of Plato's Royal Lie; Plato had proposed that his Republic have a religion to make its citizens virtuous -- a religion that he considered false.

And since most of Xianity is, to him, fake Xianity, then he might as well be embracing the royal-lie theory, since he is claiming that all those fake sects of Xianity have made people do Good Things.

Also, the Xian Churches have had a very poor record in regard to feminism; where are all the female priests and pastors and bishops and archbishops and cardinals and popes? The most we've seen is in the last few decades, and that mostly in the more liberal sects. And feminism has been a mostly secular movement; the most religion in feminism has possibly been some neopagans.

As to science, Richard Carrier has some excellent comments in Blowhard on Myspace Makes Outrageous Claims. As he noted, Xianity had well over a millennium to start the modern scientific revolution -- and totally failed to do so. He also proposes this definition:

By phrases like "scientific ideals," "scientific values," "scientific mindset," I do not mean potentially dogmatic activities like observing the movement of the stars or performing textbook surgery, but a system of beliefs that produces advances in knowledge, including a belief that public evidence and verifiable reason trump all authority in explaining what is and can be, that persuasion by appeal to observable evidence and sound logic is the only valid means of gaining consensus about the truths of this world, that this requires embracing everyone's intellectual freedom to accept, reject, or propose any idea they please, and that it is valuable and good to devote your life in this way to the pursuit of progress in understanding any aspect of nature or existence. Those are the scientific values of which I speak.

and he notes that the Xian Church was against most of that for most of its history, and had to be dragged into accepting that.

Did you ever consider that this exodus may be due in part to greater mobility within the European Union? If a citizen from the Netherlands can find a better job in Denmark or Germany, then wouldn't they be inclined to leave their country of origin? It's easier than ever to do so.

What about foreign immigration from predominantly Muslim countries? Lack of natural resources? Apathy about Dutch culture, or even tourism?

There are a wealth of reasons that could explain why these people are leaving "in droves" (if we can even trust those numbers), and lack of Christian influence within the government or within society does not seem to be one of the more likely ones.

If you had a sociology test with the following question, how would you answer.
Which society, with a predominant belief, is the most advanced industrially?
Is it: A - Bhuddist, B - Christian, C - Jew, D - Muslim, E - Hindu.

I might note that Japan is more Buddhist than any of the other options on the list.

The advanced industrial status of Japan is an argument against Christianity being an important factor in developing an industrial prosperous society.

They are not, I repeat not leaving for financial reasons, they are leaving because they are sick of their liberal government. A quote from one article;
"The new wave of educated migrants are quietly voting with their feet against a multicultural experiment long touted as a model for the world, but increasingly a warning of how good intentions can go wrong."

It seems to me that this is only tangentially related to the point of Christian vs. secularist society. It is perfectly possible to be against a "multicultural experiment", yet still in favour of a secular, even atheist society. For example, the multicultural experiment could be avoided through strict immigration control (which can be enforced secularly with no problems).

Re: the "exodus" from the Netherlands: whether or not it is occurring, and whether or not it is occurring for the reasons you claim, it is only one (rather small) country. Are similar phenomena observable in other, similar countries? If not, why not? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Re: the nature of Christianity advancing liberty and prosperity: why has this only happened in Europe and North America? Why is their no general, readily observable difference in prosperity between, for example, Christian and Muslim regions of Africa? How did China achieve the position of economic strength it occupies today? Why, conversely, is South America so relatively poor? Do you see what I'm getting at?