Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz Booed Off Stage at Christian Gala

"Anti-Semitism...[rearing] its ugly head," says Cruz


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is defending his Wednesday night remarks at a Washington event—comments which drew boos he attributed to "anti-Semitism…[rearing] its ugly head."

The senator was booed at an event hosted by a Christian group in Washington, leaving the stage after the hostility did not subside.

In a lengthy statement issued after the event, Cruz said he had "no choice" but to walk away after "a vocal and angry minority" criticized his comments in support of Israel.

NEXT: Congresswoman Reacts to the ISIS War Drive: 'I'm Glad People Have This 9/11 Mentality Again'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Joos whacked Jebiz!!!

  2. The video of it is funny.

  3. You know who else got booed off stage?

    1. The President?

    2. Fatty Arbuckle?

  4. Ted Cruz: Socon Superstar

  5. That was weird. Christians, especially evangelicals should support Israel. Probably some lefty Catholics in the crowd.

    1. Catholics aren’t real Christians. Catholics worship idols and some old ch’mo in a funny hat.

      1. Leaving Protestants as real Christians!

      2. Is that something like how we say Islamists aren’t Muslims?

        Next we’ll start relying on subtle theological distinctions to define public policy. In that case, perhaps we should turn over some authority to theologians.

        It’s not a separation of church and state, because no true religion would allow helping a secular rule.

  6. These were Middle-Eastern Christians, not American Catholics or Evangelicals. Interesting that Reason chose to exclude that little piece of information.

    1. Thanks for the heads up. Here is the website for the event:


      It seems to be Christian Arabs that organized the event. So, yeah. Anti-Jewish Arabs. How’s that Christian tolerance working? What a bunch of losers.

      1. Wow, you know very little about the Middle East’s Christians. Up until the end of World War 1, the Christians of the Middle East composed up of a large portion of the population. It wasn’t until towards the end of World War 1 that many suffered extreme persecution at the hands of the Ottomans. This persecution continued as the West carved up territory after the war. The reason being because it sewed extreme anti-Christian sentiments amongst the Arab Muslims. The West never cared for the Middle East’s Christians. They never cared during the Crusades, and they don’t care today. The Middle East Christians always reap the worst of consequences for their Western Christian brethen’s deeds.

        I’m sure there are some anti-semites amongst those Christians who boo’d, but to make support for the state of Israel a prerequisite for Western support of a minority that is facing a very real genocide at the moment is just plain ridiculous and insulting. At the same token, a lot of those Christians might have a personal reason for booing, such as losing their land due to settlements? You think Israel actually decides Palestinian Christians don’t have their land taken?

    2. *Interesting that Reason chose to exclude that little piece of information.*

      Not really. They leave out information all the time unless it makes Rand Paul look good or cops look bad.

    3. Reason is only a feed of what The Washington Post reported. You’re supposed to follow the link if you want the full story.

      So it was actually The Washington Post that “chose to exclude that little piece of information.”

      1. Perhaps but the 24/7 headline is not that same as the WaPo headline – leading me to believe that Reason crafted their own headline.

        1. Reason may have crafted the headline, which says what the WaPo (which also doesn’t mention Middle Eastern) one does more concisely, but the body text here is copied and pasted from the WaPo article. The part mentioning the Middle Eastern nature of the group was later in the article. If you look at the other posts on 24/7, it’s pretty standard for Reason to post the first 2-3 paragraphs here (in this case, they posted the first 3). Also, what exactly is so “interesting” about the group being Middle Eastern? Am I supposed to think that because Reason’s headline is not “Middle Easterners boo Ted Cruz off stage” that they’re furthering some PC agenda or some shit?

          1. I couldn’t care less what you think Cali. I find it interesting that Reason took a headline that purports to show Christians in a bad light – and does! – but failed to differentiate between the homegrown variety and the more anti-semitic variety that hails from the Middle East. You and I both know that tossing the word ‘Christian’ into a headline with negative connotations is meant entirely to refer to Catholics and Evangelicals in the US – who are most certainly not anti-semitic by and large but because the are or may be “SoCons” are meted out for vilification by Reason.

            1. The headline by itself doesn’t show anyone in a bad light – it’s entirely dependent on what Ted Cruz said and why people booed. Which is why you’re supposed to read the article. If you have your panties in a bunch because Reason didn’t make it clear in their headline that it was those damn racist Arabs and not the good white American Christians who booed, then that’s your problem.

              And while I think booing someone off stage for those comments is extremely low-class, that doesn’t mean it’s automatically due just to anti-Semitism. Disagreeing with pro-Israeli comments doesn’t mean you hate Jews. If someone made similar comments, but with regards to Palestinians instead of Israel, at a conservative or evangelical gathering, and was booed for it, would that mean that the crowd is racist against Palestinians?

      2. Isaac Bartram, Reason magazine does not choose which information it leaves out? This magazine doesn’t exactly tout a willingness to confine news coverage to what is presented in the press.

        1. 24/7 is just a collection of articles from other sites, with the first 2 or 3 paragraphs copied and pasted here.

  7. Not surprising since religion by its very nature is exclusionary.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.