Take the Christian Coalition. With the Christian label and facade in place, that organization became the political arm of U.S. religious fundamentalism, and proceeded to violate every core Christian principle by becoming a functional entity of a major political party whose goal and purpose is the upward transfer of wealth and abandonment of those less fortunate.

Who decides what they are?

This also seems to be the one broken most often.

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 6:31, King James Version

Takes all kinds.

What were Christianity's "core beliefs"? There weren't any. They could differ wildly depending upon who you asked. Christian orthodoxy didn't come about until centuries after the character Jesus was alleged to have died.

Stuff like the Sermon on the Mount, the Pharisee and the Publican, the Good Samaritan, casting the first stone, etc. I'm not advocating for Christianity or any religion, just pointing out that many practitioners tend to ignore their own professed scriptural teachings. What's left is a meaningless label that joins all the other "home team" and tribal associations.

If these were not canon until more than a century after the religion was presumably founded, then we can't assume all Christians had even read them, much less held them in high regard (I would argue, in fact, that Paul the Evangelist, from whom all modern Christians stem, had probably never read any of the Gospels).

I don't mean to get spikey, but it bothers me when people claim -- or seem to claim -- that there exist idealized forms of the world's religions that every practitioner ever to have incurred our ire has seemingly missed. Plato was wrong. There is no realm of ideal forms. Religions are, in large part, what their followers make them.

Conservative Christians haven't missed anything. They are practicing their religion, just as liberal Christians who disregard all that shit in the Bible about hellfire awaiting nonbelievers are practicing theirs. Neither of them are practicing their religions incorrectly; their religions are simply different.

However, the particular Old Testament-esque brand of religion being espoused by today's conservative Christians begs the question of why they are sticking with their preferred namesake, other than the "respectability" and "righteousness" that it conveys.

to perform social welfare services, and that we should instead take care of the poor via private donations through churches and charities.

Are they wrong? How do you know?

For the correct answers someone would have to go through one of his minions who claim to dialogue with him directly on a regular basis. My 99.9% predicted guess is the answer provided would be "appalled".

Does anyone?

Trying to figure out who on earth practices "true" Christianity and how they know it is.

1. No dialogue. But as noted I know of many who make that claim for themselves.
2. No one, by all appearances. Good luck in your quest to figure this one out. Humans appear to be inherently biased and incapable of establishing spiritual criteria, except in a self-serving manner.

The perception of religion appears to be somewhat of a chicken and egg phenomena. Here's a question that I would pose: Which came first? Personal belief systems and associated biases, or the religion that espouses them?

You started this subthread claiming that conservative Christians had "violate(d) every core Christian principle."

But now you admit you really have no way to be sure what a core Christian principle is. Interesting.

Every human being has a personal belief system and biases. We have to be particularly wary of the ones who justify both on religion, essentially making the claim that their beliefs and biases are the same as those espoused by a supreme creator of the universe. No one can possibly know that.

If everyone were an objective logician, nothing would be more important than human life followed by universalized benefit.

What ideologies, including and perhaps especially religion but also jingoistic patriotism, political causes and personality cults do is to overlay something that's more important than both of the above concerns. So if a believer thinks Allah says these people must die or Jesus says these people should suffer in poverty or Koresh says it's ok to diddle kids, then that's more important than life or benefit, including the believer's own. There is a reason there are few atheist critical thinking professors who are suicide bombers, but many religious believers.

Now it can indeed work both ways. Many people would use Mother Teresa as an example, but I think we both know she perpetuated and indeed exacerbated real physical suffering in the name of putative spiritual benefit. So let's use Albert Schweitzer instead. He certainly helped people, and he did so for religious reasons. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say we should take Arthur Shelton's word for his motivation and then not take Schweitzer's. We must assume no belief, no hospitals where none had existed before that he built.

So what we need to ask ourselves is are there more Schweitzer actions or Shelton actions, as exemplars that is. Overall I think the latter predominate, but I'm willing to concede this is a holistic calculation and in some subsets the reverse is true. It comes back to the ingroup thing. I'm very much not in it for the religious majority, but let's think of a poor elderly Mormon widower instead. He's an ingroup member of a sect that devotes great resources to helping their own needy. For him, religion is very much a net positive. But religious fragmentation, variable dedication to truly helping the needy among different sects, and competing self-aggrandizing priorities mean the positive actions of religion, mostly but not always directed inwards (there are some soup kitchens for example that aren't pray-to-eat), are never going to equal the reduction in human life and benefit of their negative actions, which are mostly but not always directed outwards (it's not atheist kids the priests generally bugger for example).

Why is it the morality of nonbelief is always stated in here, but not in other places, in contrast to the morality of belief.

In any event, since the question has been raised, is this about about objective morality or subjective morality?