[Grimm_Wolfe]

The main reason why political and theological topics in chat get suppressed is–as Vilneas pointed–that it gets out of hand too quick. Rule #1 is not a rule to be used to on personal feelings in disagreements, rather it has to be used via a lens of objectiveness. If I said, "I do/don't believe in God", then that's a civil statement. However, if I said, "I do/don't believe in God and all the people who disagree with me are <insert pejorative>", then that violates the rule in question. Rule #1 does not prevent heated disagreements, it's used primarily to address crass, outspoken bigotry or overtly offensive rudeness. Simply put, political and theological discussions in chat are suppressed as they cause people to become defensive–or offensive in some cases–and then say something ban-worthy they would not have said otherwise.

I understand that you just want to be yourself, but you have to understand there are people in world–especially online–who will be at your throat if you say what they believe to be false. That's the hazard you face when you bring your own identity online. This goes both ways, and rivaling parties are both culpable in being uncivil at times as I've banned people on both sides. When unimportant people disagree with you online, that's when you say, "Cool story, bro", move on with your day, and don't ruminate on what they think–they're not worth your time.