"Friendly Atheist" Hemant Mehta posted today that even though Trump pandered to Christians (he means evangelicals) during his campaign, "it's not like (Trump's) act was ever believable. The man never lived like a 'Christian' and he sure as hell didn't know how to speak their language."
(That's par for the grammar course at his blog.)
If you or I went on Mehta's blog and asserted that Trump is not a true, or real, or genuine Christian (or just plain not a Christian), we'd instantly be leaped on by his comment section angels for allegedly committing the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Which we wouldn't be doing, of course, because a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning, not a false or debatable proposition. For instance, if I say, "No man loves cats," I'd be guilty of making a universal proposition that happens to be false (and easily falsifiable--simply point to a male who loves cats), but I wouldn't be committing a logical fallacy.
However, by Mehta's standards, any "true such-and-such" claim does count as a logical fallacy, which must in fairness include his own example. (His use of quotes around "Christian" alters nothing in this regard.) Heck, Mehta even unfavorably compares Trump's Christian creds to Hillary's, as if to suggest that hers are more authentic. Why is this a problem, especially since I agree with that conclusion? Because on-line seculars have been shouting for the past ten years or more that, because there are umpteen differing definitions of "Christian," no one definition is better or worse or more authentic than another. And that we C.'s are too stupid to dig this. And here's Mehta, deeming Hillary's brand as better. As more genuine, even.
My, my--the loud sound of bagpipes coming from the FA blog. (Secular in-joke.)
I expect better from these folks. Actually, no, I don't.