I'm only going to quibble with one of your points specifically, but I think it relevant and it does have to do with the title of your post. When you have a religion or ideology that overtly or covertly discourages the careful dissection and inspection of even it's own texts with a critical eye, and when that same religion or ideology values faith over the ability to effectively evaluate the accuracy of personally held beliefs, what else would you expect to have happen?

Sure, if we evaluate the evangelical support for Trump from a very generic "Jesus is love" idea or "family values" perspective then on the surface it looks pretty hypocritical, but I would argue that in many cases the very individuals you are criticizing aren't even self-aware enough to realize that what they are doing is counter to their self-expressed ideals.

In other words, it's a bit of the Dunning-Kruger effect at play. They're not "terrible" Christians, they're "typical". because the very criteria and ideals upon which their faith is based don't support the kind of self-awareness and ability to critically evaluate their own ideology in an effective enough manner to understand the apparent discrepancy, which you are pointing out.

Please understand that I'm not universally condemning Christians here, as I know that it is entirely possible to be both highly educated (or intelligent) and be Christian. I'm just saying that when a general ideology has a dim view of science, critical thinking skills, or the ability to evaluate evidence accurately that this kind of an outcome can't entirely be surprising and isn't an inconsistent outcome, based on the core ideology.

They're not even terrible Christians (in general), because they don't meet a self-aware enough criteria upon which to morally judge their character.