I think John Doe is responding to the classist feel to the post. For instance, my grandfather didn't graduate. But he revolutionized farming in South Georgia after studying erosion control, I couldn't name someone I would rather be stranded anywhere with, he could grow food for a family of four from a teaspoonful of dirt, and he routinely caught fish with his bare hands.
A hick? Maybe by your standards. But your standards seem skewed negatively away from recognizing that education doesn't automatically confer intellect, anymore than intellect automatically inspires education. IF someone finds education distasteful and looks down on rational thinking, then of course they will be more susceptible to JWs or any other kind of superstition. But, being from a rural area doesn't make people more superstitious or less intelligent.
They probably know different things than city dwellers, but they could survive just fine without city dwellers. City dwellers depend on rural people for food, though. (Not that city dwellers EAT hicks, that isn't my point...) Your post did have a disparaging tone toward the whole CONCEPT of rural people. I invite you to visit slums of any major city and see whether all city living is indicative of an intense interest in education. I invite you to visit any major city Public High School and see for yourself whether city dwellers place a higher premium on education.
I agree, to an extent, with John Doe's reaction. I definitely agree with Odrade's post that in rural areas "churchiness" is a social thing as much as a superstitious thing. Cults tend to collect the societal outcasts, whether city dwellers or rural folk.