It’s not because they’re christian, which really doesn’t matter honestly, it’s because they separate their agenda from the actual review, giving an honest-to-god(hehe) actual review, while separating their views from the score, instead reviewing it twice.

one for an actual unbiased score and one for their opinion on how it matches up with their (frankly kind of odd) morality and opinions.

The problem with reviewing these days is that people seldom make that separation. It's commendable and it really shouldn't be, but the state of reviewing has gotten so corrupt that it is deserving of praise.

I don't see why not.