When I discuss religion and philosophy with theists, my objective is not conversion. The goal is an interesting conversation. As I mentioned elsewhere, one of my neighbors is devout Catholic who invites me over to play table tennis. Often he has friends from the clergy there too. So I have plenty of good opportunities to discuss some meaty topics with devoutly religious people who neither take offense at my beliefs nor lack any confidence in their own. The result is friendly conversations in which, I have to confess, I am sometimes outmatched.
It is in that context I raised the issue of Perigo's article not providing much of a response to theists who have a more sophisticated rationalization for their beliefs than the man in the street. In particular I have had difficulty in trouncing their theodic arguments. Telling them there's no god is weak, and while I know I won't convert anyone, I still want to WIN the debate! So, what am I after here is both more and less serious than you might be thinking.
P.S. Regarding my description of the Anglican church, I'm taking my cue from the many "enemy" (i.e., religious, conservative, liberal, and even leftist) publications I read every month to stay on top of what the non-Objectivist and non-libertarian world is thinking. I have some vague recollection of the incident you referred to, but that wasn't the basis for my characterization.