The thrust of the article is that Shakespeare because of his childhood background, had a new vision of England. Point being that not every Warwickshire man could express it, but that only someone from Warwickshire (or similar backwater) could have expressed it.
You may choose to criticise the article on your own grounds, then, but my criticism is that any work which wants to dwell on his childhood Warwickshire roots without dwelling on his childhood religion is being tendentious.
You instead chose to impugn me for making this criticism—which makes me think you don’t like to consider the evidence of Shakespeare’s childhood religion either.
You get a prize because you are finally beginning to understand my argument. I impugn you and the author of the article for the same reason. I don't buy the argument that if you did around in some author's biography, then you have the causes of his art.
Warwickshire and Catholicism aren't evidence of anything. They both exist, but so do stars and kidney pies. So what?