I don't actually believe that people are as concerned about voting along religious lines as perhaps 15 years ago. So I don't think the "fake Christian" element means anything. So I'm going to avoid the "Christian Conservative Republican" label because (as the premise of the thread points out), that's not a useful label for clearly sifting out the available positions.

I would say that those who are more partisan are starting to line up behind Trump. Those that are less partisan are starting to seek out third party options. Gary Johnson (Libertarian) is starting to make a push as a legitimate third party candidate, and it's likely that this will take.

I saw the following posted on FB:

I can't speak to whatever MB reads because who knows what he reads and how well he's actually able to correctly convey what was written. But until he's actually able to directly quote conversations, I'm going to strongly distrust his characterizations.

Conservative Christian is a republican demographic. There maybe political reasons to marginalize their influence, but I am considering their viewpoints here rather than arguable scope of influence.

Okay, but the question you asked:

Is simply answered by saying that "Christian conservatives" (as if that label still makes sense) simply aren't voting their religion. They don't NEED to justify their support on religious grounds. It's not part of the internal logic anymore.

That's a viewpoint. Thanks.

Now if I were to consider the influence of the religious right, I would account for Ted Cruz's presumable second place finish and that time he orchestrated shutting down the government.

However the viewpoints of Ted Cruz's supporters now would be an example of the religious segment in the position to consider Trump.

Id guess most would say a fake Christian is better than Clinton.

It's a fair to assume most or many republicans would say that. So that falls under the partisan team justification.

It's more complicated when Trump is also asserted to be a fake conservative. But that is only partially related to political religious viewpoints and is on the blurred lines of a politics-type forum area of the issue. It depends how firm the idea of being a conservative is to person is related and enmeshed with being a Christian. Many folks take the view conservative and Christian are practically synonymous, while by definition this cannot be the absolute case.

Jeb Bush has always staked out a republican conservative Christian identity and positions. His recent statement reads as an viewpoint of abstaining from voting for POTUS based on the presumptive contest of Clinton versus Trump.

One of the justifications I've seen is that we've been wrong in discerning god's intent in the past, and he has used despicable men to do his work in the past, so maybe that's what's happening now.

It's just another example of the tortuous logic the religious will use to find a way to make reality fit their belief system and that particular thought process could easily lead to many conservative Christians voting for him. It's just a variation on the 'mysterious ways' justification.

I will assert again that this is setting up a caricature. It is true that there are some who are trying to vote based purely on a religious basis (ie, "I'd rather vote for a fake Christian than vote for Clinton"), but I don't believe that this is broadly accurate of how most Christian Republicans actually think.

The nuance that is presented here is exactly why speculations about "What is a Conservative Christian Republican to do?" from those who aren't in that category a bit vacuous. It would be better to find what they're *actually* thinking if there is a goal to *understand* what they're thinking instead of speculating upon what they might be thinking.

PS - LOL MB and confirmation bias.

Those some don't try to vote based on a religious basis, they absolutely DO vote based on it! Last I read, atheists poll about as favorably as rapists when it comes to trustworthiness among the devoutly religious.

Not completely vacuous because I'm less concerned about what a conservative Christian republican should do as I am about...

What our political leaders and lawmakers really think and believe. It's sad that they still pretty much have to lie about their personal beliefs and pretend to be religious even if they're not, in order to get elected. There shall be no religious test? I don't think we're there yet.

Keeping a lid on religiosity is a hot potato in part because it is easy to imitate. It's also tricky because it puts a veneer over the moralistic supremacy which underlies conservative social positions which advance upon people in the private. meets public arena.

It's not religious supremacy, it's religious freedom. Actually it is religious moral supremacy.

Religion tethered with politics is the stuff houses of cards are made from.

Clearly, religiosity will have some bearing on their decision-making. I think the error that is often made (at least by Mightyboosh) is the assertion of the level of importance that religiosity takes.

Your statement could equally be applied to race or gender. You can point to any of a number of studies on implicit bias to show that humans make decisions based on skin color, names, or whatever. So it's clearly wrong to deny that race and gender play a role. But it would be wrong to overstate the role of those biases.

Also, I'd encourage you to cite the poll. Context is very, very important when trying to read and understand those polls.

We are there. There is no legal religious test for office. That people will choose religion as a factor in their decision-making is not a violation of this concept.

Politics itself is the house of cards. Religion is just the choice of one deck instead of another.

Politics is a magic show.

What Christians have been doing for the last 30 or so years under the brands of conservative and republican just disappears?

It's not a violation of the constitution, but it sure seems to me a violation of the concept. Try running for president as a Muslim or atheist and you'll see what I mean.

Not really. You just hold unpopular beliefs in a popularity contest. By your logic, any time you hold an unpopular belief, you can claim that the popular view has established a test based on that particular belief.

In Seven States, Atheists Push to End Largely Forgotten Ban.

There are still tests in some state constitutions.

Are appeals to popularity among a prejudice's last gasp or a first?

It ranks right there with strawmen and false dichotomies.

So no prejudice in Christian views of atheists? That would require some unnecessary effort to believe either way. Though atheists can at least support their prejudice within their own brains instead of predicating upon the souls of others,

I don't claim that Christians are without prejudice in the exact same way I don't claim that atheists are without prejudice. I'm just claiming that the basic construction of your statement is both a strawman and a false dichotomy. One might guess you could use your brain to understand this, but that guess might also be wrong.

It's the lack of evidence to support your claim which is about the only thing interesting about it. And that is only interesting in this instance because the now bald repetition sticks out next to the absence.

However, evidence of appeals to popularity and to prejudices made by political Christians, brand conservative, are but a google away.

Feel free to argue with yourself about it, but I'm moving on to how Donald Trump uses appeals to religious-rooted prejudices and how these may align with known conservative Christian prejudices. Muslims, rather than atheists, get it more on this front.

Timely news piece with some related perspectives.

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476651...n-others-adapt

My claim is not evidentiary in nature, so I don't know why a lack of evidence to support it would be meaningful. But it surprises me none that you would struggle to understand that given your inability to understand other things I've said.

The structure of the claim is very obvious to those whose brain is sufficiently well-developed.

Speaking of developed,, a strawman is a developed form, so how and why a statement is a strawman is the evidence for such an assertion.

A false dichotomy requires a demonstration of what is true and what is false related to a comparison or division.

Clearly, like one can see an ad hominem ( insult) and state that it is a meaningless yet sensational distraction from an absence of a discussion point or argument.

And so on.

Far less interesting than considering the pride and prejudices of political religiosity and Donald Trump.