GetReligion
Monday, April 14, 2025

Ted Cruz

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

New York Times goes looking for 'conservatives' in Big Apple, but ignores pews

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

To no one's surprise, The New York Times decided to follow up on the Sen. Ted Cruz vs. Donald Trump row over "New York values" and the question of whether many "conservatives" come out of New York City.

But before we get to that story – "Young Republicans in New York" – let me make a few comments that are central to my take on this Times feature.

When if comes to "values" issues, not all Republicans are "conservatives." At the same time, not all values "conservatives" are Republicans. There are still a few cultural conservatives in the Democratic Party and many of them are people of color.

Meanwhile, not all religious believers are Republicans or "values" conservatives. It is quite easy, these days, to find young evangelicals who are not "values" conservatives, or at least not on every issue. It is very hard to fit pro-Catechism Catholics into either major political party these days.

To name one specific policy complication linked to this Times story: There are many conservative religious believers who support same-sex marriage, or same-sex civil unions, but also support efforts to protect the First Amendment and the free exercise of religious beliefs in settings outside the doors of religious sanctuaries.

So with all of that in mind, does it surprise you to know that the one and only place the Times team when to find New York City "conservatives" on "values" issues was a political gathering? This is especially tragic in light of the fact that New York City is, these days, a vibrant city in terms of religious congregations appealing to young believers.

But first, here is the overture:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

That same old question for 2016: What is an 'evangelical,' anyway?

, , , , , , , , , ,
That same old question for 2016: What is an 'evangelical,' anyway?

The Carson- Cruz- Rubio-Trump piety sweepstakes aimed at the vital “evangelical vote” in Iowa has produced recent news that would have been unthinkable a generation ago:

* Businessman Donald Trump brags that “Franklin Graham said incredible things about me” (the evangelist isn’t endorsing anyone), then targets Senator Ted Cruz: “In all fairness, to the best of my knowledge not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba, OK?” Unclear what that means, but it followed Trump’s previous slap at surgeon Carson’s Adventist church after Carson questioned Trump’s faith.

* Preacher’s kid Cruz tells a church rally, “Keep this revival growing. Awaken the body of Christ that we might rise up to pull this country from the abyss,” and quotes the favored Bible verse of evangelical activists, 2 Chronicles 7:14 (“If my people ...”).

* Not to be outdone, Senator Marco Rubio states in an online ad, “Our goal is eternity, the ability to live alongside our Creator and for all time, to accept the free gift of salvation offered to us by Jesus Christ. ... The purpose of our life is to cooperate with God’s plan...“ The Catholic candidate also appoints 15 evangelical, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish notables (e.g. law Professor Michael McConnell, Pastor Rick Warren) as advisors on future religious liberty issues.

* An e-mail blast from Eric Teetsel, late of the Manhattan Declaration now running Rubio’s “faith outreach,” quotes Southern Baptist social-issues spokesman Russell Moore on evangelical constituencies: “Ted Cruz is leading the Jerry Falwell wing, Marco Rubio is leading the Billy Graham wing and Trump is leading the Jimmy Swaggart wing” (the latter a scandal-scarred televangelist).

Political nose-counters note that in 2012, 57 percent of Iowa voters identified as evangelicals (vs. 22 percent in New Hampshire, the second lowest percentage among states behind only Senator Sanders’ Vermont). Iowa polls show Cruz moving well ahead of Carson and Trump in evangelical support, while CNN says nationwide Trump leads Cruz by 45 to 28 percent among white evangelicals. And the Wall Street Journal reports the Cruz camp thinks there are 90 million U.S. evangelicals (!) of whom 54 million didn’t vote in 2012(!!).

Obviously, both politics and religion reporters need to pursue that ever-challenging question, What is an “evangelical”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Think piece meets podcast: Spot the dividing lines between evangelical voters in 2016

, , , , , , , , , , ,

As a rule, here is what happens every week when "Crossroads" host Todd Wilken and I do a radio broadcast or taping session that turns into a podcast. First we pick a GetReligion post, or perhaps my Universal syndicate column for that week, in which we think there are angles to update or explore. Then he asks me a bunch of questions and then we chat.

However, I tried to turn the tables on Wilken in this week's podcast (click here to tune that in), in which we dug deeper into the material I explored in the post that ran with this headline: "Seriously? New York Times story on GOP schism is silent on 'pew gap' issues." He asked me a question and then I turned around and asked the audience – that would be you guys – a series of questions.

What were they? Well, many political journalists are starting to realize that Donald Trump is not the official candidate of American evangelicalism. Thus, I asked these three questions:

* Who are Donald Trump's evangelicals?

* Who are Sen. Ted Cruz's evangelicals?

* Who are Sen. Marco Rubio's evangelicals?

Thinking back over our conversation, I now realize that I could have asked some pushy follow-up questions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Wait, what!? You've heard about Iowa's evangelical voters, but what about the ones in New Hampshire?

, , , ,

As the 2016 presidential race — which began sometime during the Paleolithic era — trudges toward actual voting, it's impossible to miss the headlines about candidates courting evangelicals in Iowa.

For a twist, how about a story focusing on religious voters in New Hampshire?

Wait, what!?

I'm always fascinated by coverage of religion in New England. That region boasts the four least religious states in the nation (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts), according to Gallup. Connecticut (at No. 8) and Rhode Island (No. 13) don't trail too far behind.

I wrote this sticky lede for The Christian Chronicle in 2013:

SPRINGFIELD, Vt. — Folks in the Green Mountain State like their economy syrupy sweet.
The rural, thickly forested New England state produces 39 percent of the United States’ maple syrup.
The state’s 626,000 residents are less sweet on religion: Vermont ranks as the nation’s most secular state, according to a 2012 Gallup poll.

So how did evangelicals in New Hampshire — where roughly three out of four residents characterize themselves as nonreligious or only "moderately" religious — gain the attention of Republican operatives?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

On CNN: Did Ted Cruz really call for Jesus to rise from the grave to help his campaign?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

If journalists were going to create a list of topics dear to the heart of the media superstar Pope Francis, one of the items near the top would be his emphasis on the whole church – from the laity in the pews to the bishops in the hierarchy – being seen as the Body of Christ.

The video at the top of this post is a perfect example and the headline on a Catholic.org report summed up the talk this way: "Pope Francis Proclaims the Church is the Living Body of Christ and Calls for Christian Unity."

This metaphor is thoroughly biblical and so simple that even Wikipedia gets the basics right:

In Christian theology, the term Body of Christ has two separate connotations: it may refer to Jesus' statement about the Eucharist at the Last Supper that "This is my body" in Luke 22:19-20, or the explicit usage of the term by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians to refer to the Christian Church.

This is language can, to those outside mainstream Christianity, sound slightly strange – especially when used by politicos in the public square. Take Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, an outspoken – to say the least -- son of an evangelical preacher whose current White House campaign is heavily dependent on the work of activists in pulpits and pews.

Cruz may be a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, but whenever he opens his mouth there is a good chance that some kind of pew-friendly Christian language is going to pop into the public square (kind of like President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s). Often, elite scribes and commentators just don't get it.

Consider the following reference in that New York Times piece that ran under the headline, "Ted Cruz’s Diligent Courting of Evangelicals Pays Off in Iowa."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Seriously? New York Times story on GOP schism is silent on 'pew gap' issues (updated)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As you would expect, the political experts at The New York Times have noticed that, once again, war has broken out between the populist and country-club wings of the Republican Party. Thus, they produced a very interesting piece that ran under the headline, "For Republicans, Mounting Fears of Lasting Split."

This story will be interesting, to GetReligion readers, just as much because of what the editors left out, as well as that they put in. They correctly stress that, this time around, the GOP leaders face fundamental differences on a host of crucial issues such as immigration, rising tides of refugees and how far to go in battles with radical forms of Islam.

It is also interesting that, over and over, the piece equates the candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz with that of billionaire reality-TV star Donald Trump. The implication is that they are appealing to many of the same voters and that there isn't much difference between the two.

But what is missing? To be blunt: Religion.

So, do you remember the "pew gap"? Apparently, it is completely gone or is now irrelevant in GOP debates, as well as the nation has a whole. Is that really true in the GOP? It must be true, because the Times team – in this crucial piece about the threat of a GOP split – completely ignores religious and moral issues (even as the U.S. Supreme Court faces case after case linked to religious liberty issues).

So what is the "pew gap"? Many people used to incorrectly claim that religious people vote for Republicans and non-religious people vote for Democrats. While it is true that highly secular and religiously unaffiliated voters are crucial in the Democratic coalition, there are also religious believers active in doctrinally liberal flocks – which makes them a perfect fit in the modern Democratic Party. However, a crucial "pew gap" fact is that liberal religious groups tend to be smaller in terms of numbers.

If you are looking for the roots of the "pew gap" – the fact that people who frequent pews are more likely to vote Republican – then it's hard to top the 2003 Atlantic Monthly essay called "Blue Movie," written by Thomas Byrne Edsall. This is a flashback, of course, to a campaign dominated by Bill Clinton, not Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

'Nasty' Ted Cruz dares to quote the Bible! Washington Post is stunned and strikes back

, , , , , ,

So let's say that you are a political reporter from The Washington Post and you are covering a rally by Sen. Marco Rubio and, in the middle of remarks to his inner-ring of supporters, he says something in Spanish. The crowd responds with warm applause and cheers.

As a responsible reporter, would you (a) do an online search and find out what this phrase actually meant, (b) talk to someone from the Latino community to learn what the phrase meant, in context, and why it drew cheers or (c) both of the above? It is also possible that a major newsroom like the Post would have assigned someone to cover the Rubio campaign who speaks Spanish, but that is another issue.

Oh wait, there is another option. You could also pull the phrase out of context, assume that you knew what it meant and then, online, make a snarky remark about it. That will show 'em.

This is kind of what happened the other day with some behind-the-scenes remarks by Sen. Ted Cruz. The problem was that this event was covered by someone who appeared not to know anything about language drawn from that obscure book called The Bible. Here's the top of the story:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) told volunteers ... he believes the Republican presidential contest will be decided in the next 90 days, but warned them to get ready for a nasty ride.
"I want to tell everyone to get ready, strap on the full armor of God, get ready for the attacks that are coming," a hoarse-sounding Cruz told volunteers on a conference call. "Come the month of January we ain’t seen nothing yet."
The call, part thank you and update to volunteers and part fundraising pitch where listeners could press a button to give a donation, comes after Cruz's campaign announced it raised nearly $20 million last quarter as the Texas Republican ascended in the polls in both Iowa, the nation's first voting state, and nationally.

Then there was this official Post remark on Twitter, promoting this news report:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why hire experienced religion-beat scribes? The goal is to get the top sources, right?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Time for a religion-beat flashback to a few short months ago. Does anyone remember when most of the mainstream press was absolutely sure that Donald Trump was the darling of evangelical voters from sea to shining sea? Click here for some background on that.

The only problem, of course, is that the GOP field was (and is) so gigantic that the evangelical vote was split a dozen different ways and Trump's modestly large chunk consisted primarily of born-again folks who rarely visited pews. And then there was that interesting WORLD magazine poll of evangelical leaders that found Trump at the bottom of the barrel. I mean, even NPR spotted that poll.

Now, with real, live caucuses and primaries still in the future, the state of mind among evangelical voters remains a crucial variable for Republicans. Ask Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio.

This brings me to an important new Washington Post piece that ran under the headline, "Evangelical leaders are frantically looking for ways to defeat Donald Trump."

Now, your GetReligionistas rarely critique the work of former GetReligionistas. However, it's hard to avoid mentioning one of our former colleagues when she goes to work in a setting as prominent as the Post. So let's just consider this report from Sarah Pulliam Bailey a kind of weekend think piece, to help update readers on the whole Trump-and-evangelicals thing. You can also consider this a promotional piece to to show newsroom managers why they should hire experienced religion-beat professionals.

Now, here's what I want you to do. I want you to read this Post story and then answer this question: What was the most shocking sentence in this report?

OK. Read the story.

Now, are you done? Read to answer the question?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

In story on Paris attacks, U.S. politics and Syrian refugees, is there any room for theology?

, , , , ,

Since the Paris attacks, my Facebook feed has filled up with two things:

1. Temporary profile pictures in the blue, white and red colors of the French flag.

2. Friends debating the pros and cons of allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S.

Michael, a minister, sparked 100-plus comments when he declared:

I know a lot of people will strongly disagree with this, but I think terrorists within our borders is the price we must be willing to pay if absolutely necessary for showing Christ-glorifying love and help to Syrian refugees who live with this evil every day. A sovereign God has called us to help and defend the cause of the immigrant, regardless of the costs. "Your kingdom come, your will be done..."

Phil, also a minister, seemed to take a different position with this status:

The attack on France included at least one Syrian refugee. What will happen to us when we take them in? Do we want to invite our enemies into our house and support them?

Enter Donald Trump into the discussion, courtesy of The Washington Post.

Read the Post's lede, and many of the issues my friends are debating on social media emerge:

BEAUMONT, Tex. — For John Courts, the terrorist attacks in Paris that killed at least 132 people provided more evidence of something he has long suspected: Syrian refugees are not to be trusted.
“I think they’re wolves in sheeps’ clothing,” said Courts, 36, a police officer in this industrial town in southeast Texas who attended a political rally for Donald Trump on Saturday. “Bringing those refugees here is very dangerous. Yeah, they need help, but it’s going to bring terrorism right into our front door.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy