But Robertson, for all his bluster and blunder, may have shifted the tectonic plates by giving evangelicals a green light to support Giuliani and forcing the question: Can evangelicals really afford to let Clinton win just so they can brag about being more virtuous than everyone else?

Michael Cromartie, director of the Evangelicals in Civic Life program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, suggests Robertson's endorsement shows a growing pragmatic streak among religious conservatives. Many have learned, Cromartie says, that "politics is the art of making choices between relative goods and lesser evils.

Some evangelicals still insist they won't vote for Giuliani. Focus on the Family's James Dobson is one. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is another. Both have cited Giuliani's support for abortion and his multiple marriages.

Speaking to Newsweek last month, Land compared a vote for Giuliani to voting for a Klansman and said, "I cannot vote for someone who believes that it's all right to stop a beating heart."

Land also has said that evangelicals might support Mitt Romney despite theological differences. Cromartie agrees, but again, Hillary matters most.

"They just don't want her," he says of evangelicals.

So in 2008, if terror trumps bioethics, and Hillary puts terror in evangelical hearts, what does religious conviction mean? Is religion primarily a matter of virtue -- or of pragmatism?

Next November will tell. In the meantime, a glance at two recent surveys by the Pew Research Center provides a hint: Both parties' front-runners, Clinton and Giuliani, also lead among a broad spectrum of religious groups.

For now, it would appear that pragmatism is virtue, and religion on the right means beating Hillary.