I've pretty well always hated extreme right-wing ideas. I hated them as a Christian, and I hate them presently as an atheist.
There were two articles I wrote several years ago, as a Christian, that I want to briefly mention. One pointed out the error of a person being too extreme either to the right or to the left. The other discussed the fact that there are not always moral absolutes, as many self-proclaimed Christians like to insist. I've grown and learned quite a bit in those six-plus years, so there would definitely be some improvements to those articles if I was to revise them. Overall, though, I understood the dangers and evils of being an extremist and knew that those who claim that there are always moral absolutes do not follow a loving-heart-led moral code, but rather they stick to a rigid "letter of the law" mentality, therefore keeping the applicable written or oral law while breaking the higher law of mercy, justice, and faithfulness, just as the Jesus of the bible is purported to have said (Matt. 23:23-24).
In the United States we are gearing up for a presidential election, and as always, my husband and I have been watching the debates of both parties before the primary election. I always find myself getting so angry and disgusted when watching the Republican debates. I loathe the fact that they even name their party "Republican," for it totally takes away from my ability to proudly say that I am a republican—with a little 'r'—who supports the idea of a democratic republic as a form of government. I enjoyed watching Ron Paul eight years ago, as he was the only person running on the Republican ticket who was worth voting for. I was so happy to hear him that I went against my then-religious beliefs of voting and voted for him in the primary! I didn't vote again after that, though my husband did vote for Obama in the general election. I didn't love Obama at the time, but I will say that I was relieved that he did beat war-loving John McCain.
Unlike the Republican debates this go-around, the democratic debates are worth watching. They tend to talk more about issues that matter a lot more, as they are able. It seems they are not allowed to say much about climate change issues (the most important issue of all, in my strong opinion), because the questions they get do not include that topic. But when they do manage to fit it in, it's pleasing to hear that some really want to do something about it, unlike the Republicans who will mock the fact we have a serious emergency and simply do not give a shit about doing anything about it.
We've been watching the debates over the last few months, and the Republicans only want to talk about how they want us to murder and destroy, to bulk up our military, to be the strongest warriors in the world, as if we are dominating dictators planning to force our will upon everyone else. When they're not talking about that, they are literally bickering at each other like immature children. It's extremely embarrassing, and I find myself wondering each time what citizens of other nations must be thinking if they watch it.
In contrast, there is no childish bickering in the democratic debates. There may be some disagreements, since it is a debate, but they're respectful of each other and do not bicker back and forth, back and forth. They debate the issues and point out their differences in opinion without disgraceful name-calling.
I thought the far right-wingers were evil-minded when I was a Christian, and nothing has changed. It's despicable how they claim to be the "Christian" party, and yet they are nothing but anti-Christ. They do not even know the Jesus of the bible, the most well-known believed-to-be Jewish "christ" or "messiah." They certainly do not have his words written on their hearts; if they're programmed into their minds, it's only in a thoughtless memorization sort of way, not in any serious processing of what the words mean and accepting them as good and wise.
I disliked Marco Rubio from the very beginning. In the very first debate we watched last year, he made it clear that he did not think abortion should even be allowed to save the life of a woman. The act of imagining that as a reality for even a second gripped me with a feeling of fear and strong defense for my right to life. Yet I'd be willing to bet he considers himself "pro-life." Those people do not even know what pro-life means. One thing is certain; he's very anti-abortion, even when abortion is the only way anyone is going to continue living. I've known at least two women of whom I'm aware had their pregnancies terminated when their embryos were growing in one of their Fallopian tubes. I've read numerous real-life stories of women who made the very difficult choice to terminate their second-trimester pregnancies, even those just a mere two weeks from viability, in order to not lose their own lives (and naturally also those of the fetuses). The stories are very sad. There are several reasons why a woman would need to abort to save her own life, including hemorrhage, pre-eclampsia that threatens a fatal stroke, or severe hyperemesis gravidarum for just a few examples. I think most people are at least in support of abortion in life or death cases. I once considered myself fairly anti-abortion, but I always held that a pro-life decision should be made if a woman's life was in danger—save her life by terminating the pregnancy. Ending one life to save another is better than knowingly letting two lives end.
Marco Rubio looked as if he was possessed by a demon, if such were really a thing, during President Obama's last State of the Union address. I'd thought if there was really a wicked being called Satan, maybe he was sitting there, going by the name of Marco. The only thing his eyes and facial features manifested was pure hate. How a person could sit there with a hateful expression and evil-flashing eyes when Obama said all the good things he did is beyond my comprehension.
I won't even bother talking in depth about Rick Santorum, as I was disgusted that he even ran again; I hated listening to the man the last time he ran. Why anyone would even consider desiring such a person to preside over our nation boggles my mind. I'm glad we didn't have to watch him, nor Mike Huckabee, for very long this time. I could go on and on about Santorum alone.
Ted Cruz isn't a lot better than Santorum.
Then there's the woman who doesn't hide her personality as a bitch, Carly Fiorina. I'm not sure whether she ever smiles sincerely about anything good. It's been beyond annoying to listen to her repeat endlessly that we need to "take back our country," whatever that means, while she bobbles her head constantly.
Ben Carson seems like he'd be a real likable individual, to me, just to be able to talk to and get along with, and I love his calm, gentle voice, but he's definitely not president material. I dislike some of his policy ideas, for sure. (Update: I no longer care for Ben Carson much. He ruined his reputation by joining Trump's Cabinet.)
Jeb Bush actually has had a few worthy ideas, like pointing out to the rest of the foolish Republicans that it's asinine to think we can just deport eleven million Mexicans back to Mexico and proposing a fair way for those adults who came over to pay back coming here without going through the legal process. I don't want to see Jeb as the president either, but if I had to vote for one of the running Republicans, he would be my choice over the others.
Rand Paul is a disappointment. I like his father, but Rand falls severely short. It disgusted me to hear him discount climate change, and I've heard him talk about other things that caused me to shake his head. He's better than most of them, in my opinion, but he's infected with a lot of the "conservative" ideals. (The party is not conservative with going to war, not conservative of the environment, and not conservative with government spending, as war is at the top of government spending.) I will at least say for Rand that he has seemed to adopt his father's foreign policy ideals, more or less, which earns him my respect as far as that is concerned.
Chris Christie I mostly dislike. He actually said a few sensible things, but I don't even remember what they were. However, I do remember one very idiotic thing he said. He figured we should shoot down Russian aircraft if they fly in a U.S.-demanded "no-fly-zone" in Syria. Well, who are we to impose a no-fly zone in another nation? Who appointed us as world king dictator? I don't remember which one, two, or three candidates followed him up in that particular debate and slammed Christie on his stupidity, but I'm glad for it. We certainly do not need anyone presiding over our nation who would exercise such poor judgment as that.
John Kasich, I thought at first, was ok. I got to thinking that he was quite a bit different than the others. He seemed to be independent in his thinking. But then as more debates occurred, and he said more, I started to really dislike a lot of what he was saying. Then there's the fact that he has habitually rambled on and on, even when he's been told his time was up.
Then there's Donald Trump. Trump has really brought out in the open those who are haters in their hearts. If they hated secretly before, they are not afraid to express that hate in the open now. I shake my head sadly at the state of the "Bible Belt," which is, ironically, the most antichrist section of the nation. I will soon write in detail with plenty of factual evidence to elaborate on this statement, in another post. Donald Trump started out as ridiculous entertainment, but he quickly entered the realm of seriously dangerous behavior. This billionaire who incites hatred has numerous very loyal followers, which eerily reminds me of Hitler's uprising and others like it. I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a Muslim right now. He wants to ban all Muslims—even U.S. citizens who are away visiting or serving in the military—from the U.S. until things are supposedly sorted out with Islam, and he wants every member of Islam to be identified and tracked.
What does it take to get these nutcases to understand that most Muslims are not violent terrorists, just as most Christians are not violent terrorists, despite the fact that some are? Why do the Republicans only focus on "radical Islamic terrorists" but do not even so much as mention "radical Christian terrorists?" Why was Dylan Roof's shooting up African Americans in their peaceful church service not discussed, nor Robert Dear's massacre of innocent individuals in a Planned Parenthood clinic? A quick Google search will reveal that radical Christian terrorists have killed more people, and have carried out more attacks, in the U.S. since 9/11 than Islamic terrorists. There have also been so many mass gun shootings, but the Republicans lie and will have you believe the government wants to ban all guns, when the truth is that we can simply make it more difficult for violent or mentally ill people to gain access to guns, which would reduce violence and deaths. It seems it's not terrorism or deaths that these candidates and their followers are against, but rather people who are Muslim instead of Christian. If all Muslims are automatically evil and dangerous because a small minority are violent terrorists, then all Christians must be automatically the same because of their violent terrorizing minority. These people lack logic! They also lack compassion and fair judgment. Besides all this, most of the victims in the world who are injured, murdered, or otherwise victimized by Islamic terrorists are Muslims! Chew on that. Muslims also hate Islamic terrorists more than anyone else, which ought to make fine logical sense. Christians don't want to be misrepresented by Christian terrorists, and atheists don't want a bad reputation when an atheist carries out an act of terrorism.
If Jesus was alive and present in the world, he would not be impressed one bit by any of what is going on in the right-wing circus these clowns are running. He would reject his name being used by these bearers of bad fruit. He would say things like, "You don't even know me" (Matt. 7:23) and "You people give me lip service while dealing wickedly in your hearts and actions" (Matt. 15:8).
There is no talk of trying to care for the environmental disaster that is going to lead to more and more death and destruction to various species, including us, and ecosystems. These people are not discussing how they can help people out of poverty and provide them a better education which leads to better parenting and reduced crime. They're not talking about how they can put a stop to corporate bribes (since they're the ones taking the bribes) to government officials to protect evil corporate interests. They're not considering how they can pass a law to make the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. They're not deliberating on how they can ban cruel horrors like factory-farming. They clearly do not give any care to encourage growth in clean technology. They're not demanding the end of private prisons that encourage more arrests of people who don't need to be locked up so that these people can get richer. They're not putting an end to the insane "war on drugs" and making moves to decriminalize cannabis and get drug-addicted people help instead of locking them up. They are not demanding that pharmaceutical companies make their lifesaving drugs affordable to those who need them. They're not fighting for parents to get a fair family leave package after the birth of a child. They are not bothered that our healthcare system is embarrassing when compared to those of other developed nations, with citizens spending outrageous amounts of money for much worse results. They certainly are not making any moves to be the number-one peacemaking country on the planet.
In other words, they don't care about the same things Jesus cared about—helping the poor, the care of the planet, the healing of the sick, generosity, grace, compassion, kind treatment of animals, and peacemaking, among others.
The better portion of America's right-wing, in other words, is anti-Christ.