# data[].attributes.body
Argument: Project 2025 is dangerous and conservatives need to be stopped

# data[].attributes.body
Yes they must be stopped

# data[].attributes.body
No they are going to bring America back to its former glory

# data[].attributes.body
Some believe that America has become too open and progressive. They might feel as though their kids have been exposed to too much and want to restore traditional American values to society. We need to look at the kind of people who agree with the conservative promise, because those who support it most likely benefit from it. Women, minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, immigrants, and many others will suffer from conservative policies that restrict their rights. For example, abortion rights are being threatened in this doctrine, so women who want to protect their healthcare rights should not support this mandate.

# data[].attributes.body
Surface level understanding: Some might see this mandate and see that they promote family, freedom, safety, sovereignty, and self governance and think they can create a better America. This mandate must be looked deeper into, so an individual can understand what conservatives actually support. They support family, yes, but they want to get rid of abortion to make sure "families" can be forcefully created. They do not support the LGBTQ+ community and do not recognize gay marriage. Conservatives want freedom and self governance so that they can gain more power since the federal government has imposed many regulations on their supporting states they disagree with. They want secure borders which means not only getting rid of illegal immigrants who do incredible work in this country, but cutting off ties with China because outsourcing threatens their jobs. Their idea of a safer, freer country only applies to themselves, and they are mainly white men. Everyone else is a threat.

# data[].attributes.body
What rights are being threatened: LGBTQ+ rights (no discussing topics surrounding the community in class, erasure of their history, gay marriage could be threatened, etc.) Women's rights: (Illegalize abortion, promote family over work which could lead to women relying on their husbands for money, etc.) Immigrants rights: (put up a wall, cut off ties with China, more focus on "American" workers, etc.) Environmental policies will be rescinded, because global warming is not something conservatives believe in. They want to ban African American history as well, or at least distort it. Students under their rule will grow up uneducated on the social world and be less likely to promote social change and equality. There are many people that conservative policies will affect, which is why it is important for the public to know exactly what the goals of this mandate are, so they know who to vote for.

# data[].attributes.body
Conservatives want to bring America back to its traditional values and society. They want to Make America Great Again. But when was America so great? Anyone with a moderate understanding of history will know that in the past, white men have been the focus of the country, and have oppressed numerous groups of people. As time progressed and people fought for their rights, we have seen a shift to a more equal society, although we are not quite finished yet. So when conservatives say they want to restore America to its former glory, what time period do they mean by that? Rescinding any progressive policies means going back in time. A discriminatory, segregated time.

# data[].attributes.body
Why are conservatives so scared of wokeism? Is it so bad to try to be politically conscious of the people around you? To promote equality and understanding of those who are different? They want to be able to control the narrative, and educated individuals with an understanding of social justice does not allow them to do so.

# data[].attributes.body
Conservatives want to run this country according to the bible. "Religious freedom" only applies to Christianity. "Right-wing groups do not want to ensure all Americans have religious freedom, but want to impose conservative Christian views on our religiously-diverse country."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A coalition of far-right groups, led by the Heritage Foundation, is planning for the next Republican administration. Project 2025 has received considerable media attention for its $22 million budget, for its plans to expand presidential power over federal agencies, and for specific policies, like rolling back environmental protections.

However, the plan's theocratic elements have gone unscrutinized.

Project 2025 published a book of policy proposals, titled "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," for the next Republican administration. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts opens the book by prioritizing the securing of "our God-given individual rights to live freely" against a "woke" threat. "Today the Left is threatening the tax-exempt status of churches and charities that reject woke progressivism," he claims without evidence. "They will soon turn to Christian schools and clubs with the same totalitarian intent."

Roberts' view that progressives are out to get Christians sets the tone for individual chapters on various federal agencies. While anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ policies run throughout the book, several policy areas stand out.

This is about the next Republican president, whoever it may be, who pushes Christian nationalism.

Roger Severino 's chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services urges the next conservative president to "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family." Severino is concerned that federal programs will be subjected to "nonreligious definitions of marriage and family as put forward by the recently enacted Respect for Marriage Act."

The Respect for Marriage Act, passed last year by Congress with strong bipartisan support, requires the federal government and states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages. The law is not religious or nonreligious; it is a constitutionally enacted law of the United States.

Project 2025 appears to call on the next Republican president to draw distinctions between parts of the law as "religious" and "nonreligious." The Bible is not a higher authority than laws passed by Congress, and far-right groups do not have to like American laws to respect that those laws are not overruled by their personal interpretation of the Bible.

Another startling section by Severino concerns C ovid-19 policies, opposition to which has galvanized conservative Christians. He criticizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's actions and wonders "how much risk mitigation is worth the price of shutting down churches on the holiest day of the Christian calendar and far beyond as happened in 2020? What is the proper balance of lives saved versus souls saved?"

That's not a tough question to answer: The federal government does not need to worry about saving souls.

Meanwhile in his chapter on the U.S. Department of Labor, Jonathan Berry frames his proposals as part of divine history. "The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family," he writes, while claiming the Biden administration "has been hostile to people of faith."

Berry worries that "God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day" and blames consumerism and secularism for the decline in Sabbath observance.

But he's not content to reminisce about the good ol' days when Americans went to church. He wants the federal government to push people back to church, and calls on Congress to "encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath." Berry argues this would lead to higher costs that would reduce work on the Sabbath.

Conservatives often frame their policy crusades as part of an effort to expand "religious freedom," a narrative deployed across the Trump administration to gut civil rights protections. But now "Project 2025" is saying the quiet part out loud: Right-wing groups do not want to ensure all Americans have religious freedom, but want to impose conservative Christian views on our religiously-diverse country.

The federal government does not need to worry about saving souls.

Instituting "biblically based" policies, saving souls and inducing Sabbath observance constitute a direct attack on religious freedom, a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, which keeps the government out of religion.

In the chapter on the U.S. Department of State, Kiron K. Skinner writes: "Special attention must be paid to challenges of religious freedom, especially the status of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities, as well as the human trafficking endemic to the region."

There are certainly international religious freedom issues that the president should pay attention to, but our ability to advocate for religious freedom abroad is enabled by our respect for people of all faiths - and nonreligious people - at home. A U.S. president who enacts "biblically based" domestic policies has little to say to heads of government abroad who pursue their own religion-based policies.

Concerns about policies of this kind aren't only about the possible return of former President Donald Trump to office - this is about the next Republican president, whoever it may be, who pushes Christian nationalism. Project 2025 is providing a blueprint for any Republican administration.

It shouldn't need to be said that the Bible shouldn't trump American law, but this campaign season it needs to be repeated, over and over again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Inside the far right's roadmap to introduce Christian theocracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Project 2025 received attention for its $22 million budget and its plans to expand presidential power. It also wants to put the Bible ahead of the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
Conservatives prefer self governance over federal control. Should this become popularized, some states would choose to prohibit gay marriage. "The Respect for Marriage Act requires that all states recognize same-sex unions, but doesn’t require states to issue them. In the seven years since Obergefell was decided, same-sex marriage bans in 35 states across the country have lain dormant. But should Obergefell be overturned, they would again be activated."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Will Happen to Same-Sex Marriage Around the Country if 'Obergefell' Falls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the Supreme Court decides to overturn Obergefell, marriage rights could still be rolled back around the country. Here's how that would look.

# data[].attributes.body
We are going backwards. Regressing as a society is not going to be beneficial for the people. Conservatives place more emphasis on economy over people, the environment, and such, but we have to remember that a thriving economy does not equal a good country. The economy was doing amazing during slavery, because farmers were getting free labor and could make a lot of profit. But there was immense suffering of a certain group of people. It was not fair or just. We can't lose our principles in the name of a somewhat better economy.

# data[].attributes.body
What can we do? At this point the best thing to do is to spread awareness surrounding Project 2025. Make people aware of what conservatives want to do, become educated on what exactly this mandate entails, and get others to vote next election. Being informed is one of the best ways to bring about change, and the more people who understand the dangers of the Conservative Promise, the more voters we have able to prevent them from winning the election.