To my knowledge, and as one typically pinged to such, this article is the only one that outright denigrates the Catholic faith since the great censure of 7/19/2015 , and was posted by one who most likely did not know of that.
Yet what was manifestly banned was not all posting of provocative articles by those who take their faith seriously (thus are strong conservatives), and which would basically make many of the very rules of the RF superfluous,but what was manifestly banned was the daily "sport" of outright attacks on Catholic faith, while later threads exhorted that the attacking of each other's faith by conservatives stop.
But certain RCs it seems, as expected, presumed this was a none-way censure, and RCs alone continued to post provocative articles about Catholic distinctives, and as such call for reproof of their elitist one true church, which does not even consider Protestant churches worthy to properly be called such, then thus that has followed..
And why would Prot. articles be banned, celebrating or explaining a faith that was the predominate historical faith of America, many of whose founders were understandably wary of Catholics, while provocative articles like "How the Rosary Led Me to Christ" (10/11/2015),and 3 days later, "Our Lady of Fatima – Her Prophecies and Warnings Remain as Essential as Ever!" and 2 days later, "Fox News’s Kirsten Powers announces: “I’m becoming Catholic!†(10/16/2015) and more are allowed?
In addition, while rel. caucus threads typically see about 6 replies, and political ones maybe 50, it is provocative religion threads which often literally see hundreds (sometimes thousands) of replies, and indeed the most posts out of any subject.
Which, besides giving FR a higher rating in traffic, and often appearing in Google searches on Cath/Prot issues of debate, testifies to the commitment to religious beliefs among many conservatives.
One can hardly expect that such conservatives, whose beliefs flow from their faith, should be banned from expressing them and only speak on conservatives beliefs they agree on in the interest of saving American, when the historical faith of America was predominately Protestant, and thus protecting freedom of religious expression, even if favoring that faith.
To deny both would not be consistent with American ideals, and to censure Prots while allowing only RCs to promote their distinctive faith is closer to favoring the Cath. monarchy essentially many anti-American RCs advocate. That would neither be Christian or American.
Yet FR is not a public street, but a privately owned forum (which has basically banned Mormons), and thus i propose, and only as a guest here along with others who support conservative beliefs and traditional American values, that articles promoting distinctive faith beliefs or a particular church be limited to perhaps two per week, while allowing the sometimes heated debate under the balanced rules of the FR and under the and traditionally fair and religion moderators.
Your response?
I think they post such articles thinking every reply gets time off in purgatory.