• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Project 2025 Review - Forward

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I addressed them, you just ignored them.
Nope. You said they're unfounded, and that's it.
Ideas are good or bad independant of who comes up with them. That is my stance. You seem to disagree with it.
I've already addressed this. You keep saying this as if it's new and different, as if you're the only one thinking it. Newsflash: this is old news. This is how most people think. It's also completely irrelevant, since this isn't an issue.

Project 2025 is an agenda that republicans want to push through. It doesn't really matter whether you like some of the ideas. The important part is whether the agenda as a whole is good or bad. The fact is it's bad. If the agenda was "round up all minorities and put them in interment camps", would you care what else was in it? I hope not.

If they have any good ideas, they're welcome to produce them, outside of an agenda they want to push that includes some really bad things. Then we can discuss the ideas on their own. But Project 2025 is bad and should be rejected soundly, regardless of any potential decent ideas in it.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Nope. You said they're unfounded, and that's it.

I've already addressed this. You keep saying this as if it's new and different, as if you're the only one thinking it. Newsflash: this is old news. This is how most people think. It's also completely irrelevant, since this isn't an issue.

Project 2025 is an agenda that republicans want to push through. It doesn't really matter whether you like some of the ideas. The important part is whether the agenda as a whole is good or bad. The fact is it's bad. If the agenda was "round up all minorities and put them in interment camps", would you care what else was in it? I hope not.

If they have any good ideas, they're welcome to produce them, outside of an agenda they want to push that includes some really bad things. Then we can discuss the ideas on their own. But Project 2025 is bad and should be rejected soundly, regardless of any potential decent ideas in it.
I never said I support implementation of the entire document. Not once.
 
There has been much talk about Project 2025. But I found that most people including the media that are commenting on it have never read it. And I understand, it is 922 pages. The recent publication is actually called "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise" (2023), this is part of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project. This publication is pillar 1 of their four pillar plan which they say is:

this volume—puts in one place a consensus view of how major federal agencies must be governed and where disagreement exists brackets out these differences for the next President to choose a path. (Page xiv)

This is a review of the forward of the book, pages 1-17. I plan to read and review the following sections of the book not adding my commentary, just informing a summary of what it is about. I will share my thoughts if anyone is interested. If you would like to comment in this thread on the content feel free to do so. I would like to keep this civil and fact based. I will try as well. We can model what a productive and civil discussion can be without gaslighting or name calling etc. For the record, I am a conservative and an atheist so that is where my perspective and biases may be. I expect to agree and disagree with some of the topic and ideas covered in this but as least I will know what the document actually says.

Link to book: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

A PROMISE TO AMERICA
This section outlines why they wrote this book. It is actually an updated or rewriting of the book they published in 1981, they say:

It was in early 1979—amid stagflation, gas lines, and the Red Army’s invasion of Afghanistan, the nadir of Jimmy Carter’s days of malaise—that Heritage launched the Mandate for Leadership project. (Page 2)

This is a pro conservative and anti left publication and what they believe to be in the best interest of the country:

The bad news today is that our political establishment and cultural elite have once again driven America toward decline. The good news is that we know the way out even though the challenges today are not what they were in the 1970s. Conservatives should be confident that we can rescue our kids, reclaim our culture, revive our economy, and defeat the anti-American Left—at home and abroad. We did it before and will do it again. As Ronald Reagan put it:

Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation. (Page 2)

THE CONSERVATIVE PROMISE
This volume—The Conservative Promise—is the opening salvo of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, launched by The Heritage Foundation and our many partners in April 2022. Its 30 chapters lay out hundreds of clear and concrete policy recommendations for White House offices, Cabinet departments, Congress, and agencies, commissions, and boards. (Page 2)


This document is an outline and instruction manual for the next conservative president they hope to have in 2025. They list four broad fronts they will talk about in more depth in the book:

1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.” (Page 3)


PROMISE #1: RESTORE THE FAMILY AS THE CENTERPIECE OF AMERICAN LIFE AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.
They summarize this as protecting the well being of the family (Page 4). Here are the points they make:

1. The most important community in each of our lives in the family.

2. Fatherlessness is one of the principle problems of our society.

3. They list some ideas to help the family thrive like eliminating marriage penalties in welfare programs and the tax code and installing work requirements for food stamps. They want to ensure charities and churches have tax exempt status. I agree , however, churches should have the same reporting requirements as all non profit organizations.

4. Pornography should be made illegal. They even go as far as saying this:

It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. (Page 5)

5. Promote parental authority in schools: Schools serve parents,not the other way around (Page 5)

6. Abortion should be illegal across the country.

President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion. Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the heroism of every choice to become a mother. Alternative options to abortion, especially adoption, should receive federal and state support. (Page 6)

PROMISE #2: DISMANTLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND RETURN SELF-GOVERNANCE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
They make the statement: Conservatives desire a smaller government ot for its own sake, but for the sake of human flourishing. (Page 6)

Some points they make are:

1. Federal budgets are no longer passed per the constitution and gives examples how they are passed.

2. How they define Administrative State:

The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. (Page 7)

They point out that administrators are making law and appropriating money they are not authorized to do. Here are some of their examples:

A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes;

Bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, following the lead of a feckless Administration, order border and immigration enforcement agencies to help migrants criminally enter our country with impunity;

Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms;

Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists;

Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and

Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion. (page 7 and 8)


It advocates congress taking back their constitutional duties from the administrative state. The last point in this section it makes is:

The next conservative President must end the Left’s social experimentation with the military, restore warfighting as its sole mission, and set defeating the threat of the Chinese Communist Party as its highest priority. (Page 9)
I won't quote both. I suppose thank you for going through it. Though I disagree with any notion that there is a single thing worth saving in it. The concept of simply wanting whats best for one and ones children is admirable I suppose. I have seen in the previous comments that you aren't here to debate that project 2025 is as a whole defendable or anything and I'm sure you are tried of arguing in the comments about the same things over and over. But I am curious is there anything in it that you have read that you do feel is a solid piece that we should strive for?
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
I won't quote both. I suppose thank you for going through it. Though I disagree with any notion that there is a single thing worth saving in it. The concept of simply wanting whats best for one and ones children is admirable I suppose. I have seen in the previous comments that you aren't here to debate that project 2025 is as a whole defendable or anything and I'm sure you are tried of arguing in the comments about the same things over and over. But I am curious is there anything in it that you have read that you do feel is a solid piece that we should strive for?
I think the policies to support families are good, FERC reforms that will make sure energy companies are transferring more economic benefits to customers, reassigning responsibility for prosecuting election-related offenses from the civil rights division to the criminal division, VISA reciprocity, hire and promote on merit and not DEI, Support free speech and hold big tech accountable for their censorship. These are a few I agree with.
 
I think the policies to support families are good, FERC reforms that will make sure energy companies are transferring more economic benefits to customers, reassigning responsibility for prosecuting election-related offenses from the civil rights division to the criminal division, VISA reciprocity, hire and promote on merit and not DEI, Support free speech and hold big tech accountable for their censorship. These are a few I agree with.
I am pretty sure I see where you are coming from on most of these points. I disagree with them but I think I know where your headspace is at at least. The one I am a little confused about is the election related offenses. Is there something specific that motivates you in that one? That is one I also don't necessarily disagree with.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure I see where you are coming from on most of these points. I disagree with them but I think I know where your headspace is at at least. The one I am a little confused about is the election related offenses. Is there something specific that motivates you in that one? That is one I also don't necessarily disagree with.
The cases of fraud should be investigated as crimes and not civil issues.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
So you support the criminal indictments in Georgia


and Arizona


and Michigan


These are all republicans, including Trump as as involved party.
 
The cases of fraud should be investigated as crimes and not civil issues.
Sure. I am on board with that. However isn't it already a felony? What exactly is it going to change? While I think voter fraud is important and I have no problems with it being upheld to a high standard I think voter suppression and electoral interference should be even higher on the list of both priorities and offenses. Jerrymandering for example should be a felony. Elections made under jerrymandered should probably be thrown out and re-done after new lines have been drawn. Or if and this is a pure hypothetical a really high up official in the government who was loosing an election attempted to pressure or threaten election officials in order to win said election should be barred from ever running from office again and see some time behind bars. Purely hypothetically.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A plan of action that scraps out existing democratic constitutional republic for a theocratic oligarchy. No thanks.
This is why so many Christians love it,
including posters here. The end of secular
government...the rise of Christian Dominionism.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I've read it. It is a manifesto for Christian nationalism. It would eliminate the existing system of checks and balances, centralizing government and placing the presidency at the center of unchecked authority. Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court would be tokens, instruments of whoever is in the White House.
Once upon a time that was the stuff of dystopic fiction.

Now it is no longer fiction.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Why repeat this lie? I said I do not support the document 100% but I do agree with some things in it and reject other things That is not supporting Project 2025.
What have you found there that can be tolerated without having fallen into moral bankrupcy?

It is a christian theocracy proposal. It is undefensable.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What have you found there that can be tolerated without having fallen into moral bankrupcy?

It is a christian theocracy proposal. It is undefensable.
Actually, it's defendable if one believes the Bible
is the word of God, & that it should supersede
the Constitution.
Of course, there are problems with it, eg, treason,
religious oppression, ignorance & myth becoming
institutionalized.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Actually, it's defendable if one believes the Bible
is the word of God, & that it should supersede
the Constitution.

I suppose...

Of course, there are problems with it, eg, treason,
religious oppression, ignorance & myth becoming
institutionalized.

There is that.

These are dark times.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
4. Pornography should be made illegal. They even go as far as saying this:

It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. (Page 5)
Let me provide just one example of how the kinds of rules conservatives want to make for other people's lives work. Remember prohibition? "Booze bad, ban it." So they did, and what happened? Crime on a stupendous scale, murder and mayhem, whee what fun -- so much better than an after work tipple, right? What people want, they will find a way to get, whether it's dangerous (we climb Everest at risk of death "because it's there"), or bad for us (yes, some people drink too much and misuse any or every legal substance), or illegal (look to the great successes we're having against fentanyl).

Conservatives, especially religious ones, have a really, really bad record of understanding human nature. Please allow me to write a "worst-case" scenario, based Prohibition (Amendments 18 & 21), of what happens after pornography is totally outlawed:

Initial Legislation

In an effort to combat what is perceived as moral decay and societal harm, the government enacts a sweeping ban on all forms of pornography. This includes films, magazines, websites, and any related materials. The law is met with a mix of approval and outrage, leading to a divided public.

Rise of the Underground Industry

As with Prohibition, the outright ban leads to a surge in illegal production and distribution. Underground pornographic films and materials begin circulating, often of lower quality and with minimal regard for safety or consent (legally mandated with record-keeping rules at present). Organized crime syndicates step in to fill the void, creating a dangerous market where exploitation and abuse are rampant.

Increased Policing and Surveillance

To enforce the ban, law enforcement agencies ramp up efforts, employing extensive surveillance tactics. Innocent individuals are caught in the crossfire, leading to widespread distrust of authorities. The law becomes a tool for harassment, targeting marginalized communities disproportionately and sparking protests.

Black Market Consequences

The black market for pornography flourishes, and consumers resort to risky methods to access content, including unregulated websites that may expose them to malware or illegal content. The lack of regulation leads to rampant abuse and exploitation of performers, often with no recourse for those harmed.

Social Consequences

The ban fuels a culture of shame and secrecy surrounding sexuality. Open discussions about consent, healthy relationships, and sexual education diminish, leading to misinformation and unhealthy attitudes towards sex. People turn to underground forums for advice, where harmful stereotypes and toxic masculinity thrive.

Erosion of Personal Freedoms

As the government tries to enforce the ban, personal freedoms are increasingly eroded. Laws that were meant to regulate pornography start infringing on free speech rights, leading to broader censorship of art, literature, and discussions about sexuality. Artists and creators face legal threats, stifling creativity and expression.

Backlash and Social Unrest

Public discontent grows, resulting in protests and civil disobedience movements. Underground parties and networks form, creating a counterculture that both celebrates and vilifies the ban. These movements sometimes resort to violence, leading to clashes with law enforcement and a further breakdown of societal trust.

Long-Term Fallout

Over time, the black market becomes deeply entrenched. Criminal organizations gain power and wealth, creating a cycle of violence and exploitation. The government, unable to effectively control the situation, is forced to allocate more resources to policing and less to education or health initiatives.

Potential Repeal

Years into the ban, a growing movement pushes for the legalization and regulation of pornography. Advocates argue that regulation would lead to safer environments for performers and healthier attitudes towards sexuality. The tide begins to turn, but the damage to societal norms and individual freedoms is profound and lasting.


In this scenario, the ban on pornography leads to numerous unintended consequences, echoing the lessons learned from the era of Prohibition, where well-intentioned legislation spirals into a complex web of social, legal, and moral dilemmas. And to create this scenario, all I had to do was look at history. Remember: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905. From the series Great Ideas of Western Man.

That scenario suggests, or it should if you read it properly, that banning pornography will benefit America the same way prohibition did: a very, very pyrrhic and temporary victory over the demon rum.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Let me provide just one example of how the kinds of rules conservatives want to make for other people's lives work. Remember prohibition? "Booze bad, ban it." So they did, and what happened? Crime on a stupendous scale, murder and mayhem, whee what fun -- so much better than an after work tipple, right? What people want, they will find a way to get, whether it's dangerous (we climb Everest at risk of death "because it's there"), or bad for us (yes, some people drink too much and misuse any or every legal substance), or illegal (look to the great successes we're having against fentanyl).

Conservatives, especially religious ones, have a really, really bad record of understanding human nature. Please allow me to write a "worst-case" scenario, based Prohibition (Amendments 18 & 21), of what happens after pornography is totally outlawed:

Initial Legislation

In an effort to combat what is perceived as moral decay and societal harm, the government enacts a sweeping ban on all forms of pornography. This includes films, magazines, websites, and any related materials. The law is met with a mix of approval and outrage, leading to a divided public.

Rise of the Underground Industry

As with Prohibition, the outright ban leads to a surge in illegal production and distribution. Underground pornographic films and materials begin circulating, often of lower quality and with minimal regard for safety or consent (legally mandated with record-keeping rules at present). Organized crime syndicates step in to fill the void, creating a dangerous market where exploitation and abuse are rampant.

Increased Policing and Surveillance

To enforce the ban, law enforcement agencies ramp up efforts, employing extensive surveillance tactics. Innocent individuals are caught in the crossfire, leading to widespread distrust of authorities. The law becomes a tool for harassment, targeting marginalized communities disproportionately and sparking protests.

Black Market Consequences

The black market for pornography flourishes, and consumers resort to risky methods to access content, including unregulated websites that may expose them to malware or illegal content. The lack of regulation leads to rampant abuse and exploitation of performers, often with no recourse for those harmed.

Social Consequences

The ban fuels a culture of shame and secrecy surrounding sexuality. Open discussions about consent, healthy relationships, and sexual education diminish, leading to misinformation and unhealthy attitudes towards sex. People turn to underground forums for advice, where harmful stereotypes and toxic masculinity thrive.

Erosion of Personal Freedoms

As the government tries to enforce the ban, personal freedoms are increasingly eroded. Laws that were meant to regulate pornography start infringing on free speech rights, leading to broader censorship of art, literature, and discussions about sexuality. Artists and creators face legal threats, stifling creativity and expression.

Backlash and Social Unrest

Public discontent grows, resulting in protests and civil disobedience movements. Underground parties and networks form, creating a counterculture that both celebrates and vilifies the ban. These movements sometimes resort to violence, leading to clashes with law enforcement and a further breakdown of societal trust.

Long-Term Fallout

Over time, the black market becomes deeply entrenched. Criminal organizations gain power and wealth, creating a cycle of violence and exploitation. The government, unable to effectively control the situation, is forced to allocate more resources to policing and less to education or health initiatives.

Potential Repeal

Years into the ban, a growing movement pushes for the legalization and regulation of pornography. Advocates argue that regulation would lead to safer environments for performers and healthier attitudes towards sexuality. The tide begins to turn, but the damage to societal norms and individual freedoms is profound and lasting.


In this scenario, the ban on pornography leads to numerous unintended consequences, echoing the lessons learned from the era of Prohibition, where well-intentioned legislation spirals into a complex web of social, legal, and moral dilemmas. And to create this scenario, all I had to do was look at history. Remember: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905. From the series Great Ideas of Western Man.

That scenario suggests, or it should if you read it properly, that banning pornography will benefit America the same way prohibition did: a very, very pyrrhic and temporary victory over the demon rum.
I don't support banning pornography.
 
Top