Talk:Project 2025/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Remove Christian nationalism

This section is poorly written. I have consolidated the info on Vought in the prior Partner network section. I propose that the remainder of the info is incorporated to the philosophy section. Christian nationalism is not a policy it is a philosophy.Czarking0 (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The section states... "The Washington Post described the plan as "infusing Christian nationalism into every facet of government policy". The influence of Christian nationalist ideology seems to be backed up by RS. Are there more sources that discuss this?

• "Vought sees his and his organization’s mission as “renew[ing] a consensus of America as a nation under God,” per a statement on CRA’s website, and reshaping the government’s contract with the governed. Freedom of religion would remain a protected right, but Vought and his ideological brethren would not shy from using their administration positions to promote Christian doctrine and imbue public policy with it, according to both people familiar with the matter, granted anonymity to avoid retaliation. He makes clear reference to human rights being defined by God, not man." Politico
• "This is the scenario Americans could face in Trump’s second term. Under Trump, Christian nationalists will have unprecedented access to the power of the federal government. Trump’s GOP has unified control of Congress. And a conservative supermajority, which has already blurred the line between separation of church and state in a series of decisions favoring Christian interests, controls the US Supreme Court." CNN

Cheers. DN (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Czarking0 is disputing that The influence of Christian nationalist ideology seems to be backed up by RS. It's a matter of where it belongs in the article. I tend to agree that -- with the content as it is now -- it makes more sense in the philosophical outlook section. Putting aside the terms, when we're talking about something "infused into every facet of policy" that's more an overall philosophy than concrete policy (which is what the rest of the "policies" section is). I'm also noticing we have "Christian values" in the lead but not in the body right now. That needs to be addressed ASAP if it's to remain in the lead, and probably in that philosophical outlook section. That provides an easy lead-in to a line about its characterization as Christian nationalism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this as well. I've noticed over time that the "Christian values" line in the lead is just a leftover-line from when the lead was written extremely differently many months ago. It's a little awkward as it is, and needs more discussion in the body or it should be modified. Just10A (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is where I was going. Czarking0 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0 I would disagree with calling it a philosophy though. It's a political movement. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, though I think there is a bit of a venn diagram between those terms. Either way, it is not a policy? Czarking0 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Does Project 2025 have a significant component of Christian nationalism? From the wikipedia article on Christian nationalism: "Christian nationalism asserts that the United States is a country founded by and for Christians. Christian nationalists in the United States advocate 'a fusion of identitarian Christian identity and cultural conservatism with American civic belonging.'" Some examples of Christian nationalism are Dominion theology, the Seven Mountain Mandate movement and the New Apostolic Reformation. The word "Christian" only appears 6 times in the Project 2025 document. The word "God" only appears 8 times. The word "Jesus" appears not at all. The word "Bible" only appears once, in discussing a document that is a "policy bible" for an organization. The word "gospel" does not appear. The words "sinner" and "heaven" do not appear. The word "hell" only appears once, in the phrase "regulatory Hell." They don't quote any Bible verses. They are not asking for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms or other public displays of the Christian religion. Yes, the document is strongly socially conservative, with anti-transgender and anti-abortion views, which yes, are elements of Christian nationalism, but these are also elements of mainstream conservative Christian theology and fundamentalist Christianity. Some of the authors have biographies (even on Wikipedia) and can be looked up on the Internet. Yes, Project 2025 is strongly influenced by right-wing socially conservative values and probably right-wing Christian values but does it really belong in the same category as Christian nationalists? T g7 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is Kevin Roberts speaking at the National Religious Broadcasters conference. I think that is at least marginal evidence of a Christian Nationalist component to the project. I am not saying that one piece of evidence demonstrates it just that I would use it among other pieces if I was making that argument. Czarking0 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Heritage Foundation published Project 2025. Here is what a Heritage Foundation publication says about religious freedom:

"Religious freedom prevents the cultural majority from using the power of the state to impose their beliefs on others. This protects everyone—religious and nonreligious alike—from the government becoming so powerful that it can tell people what to think and how to act. Conscience has been considered the individual’s most sacred right. A government that intrudes on conscience will not hesitate to intrude on our other freedoms...

Ultimately, everyone benefits from religious freedom.

It covers all people equally—Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists. Religious freedom preserves America’s diversity, where people of different faiths, worldviews, and beliefs can peacefully live together without fear of punishment from the government.

Efforts to repress religious freedom is not just an attack on individual liberty and human dignity, but on the very foundation that has made America strong."

from https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/heritage-explains/religious-freedom-whats-stake-if-we-lose-it . Note they refer to "diversity" positively; not sure how they would square that with opposition to DEI. T g7 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Even tertiary sources such as Britannica identify Christian nationalist views in P2025...

• "While not explicitly endorsing Christian nationalism, Project 2025 shares the Christian nationalist views that “families comprised [sic] of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society.” The Project calls upon the government to “maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family” and contends that laws protecting the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ persons have effectively violated or at least disrespected the religious freedom of Christians. Christian nationalist values are reflected in the project’s recommendation that the religious convictions of employers and health care providers should permit them to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, among other factors, and that the government should “require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath.”

"The word "God" only appears 8 times. The word "Jesus" appears not at all. The word "Bible" only appears once, in discussing a document that is a "policy bible" for an organization. The word "gospel" does not appear. The words "sinner" and "heaven" do not appear. The word "hell" only appears once...etc...etc...They are not asking for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms or other public displays of the Christian religion."

And?... Russell Vought is a self described Christian nationalist [1]. There are somewhere around 200 mentions of the word abortion... but so what?

Compared to what reliable sources plainly say, these types of correlations do not equate to reasonable evidence for or against Christian nationalist influence on P2025. Using such correlations to make assumptions typically falls under the umbrella of original research and WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

last year Kevin Roberts said to Seb Gorka:

The basis of the plan is public ... There are parts of the plan that we will not share with the Left, the executive orders, the rules and regulations. Just like a good football team, we don't want to tip off our playbook to the Left.[2]

and part of that playbook is Christian dominionism. one does not need to read a whole lot to know that "restoring America as the Christian nation the Founders intended" is a top priority in their world; they see that world fading and this is their last/best chance to save it, so they don't want to derail it by publicly suggesting we're heading to biblical law. this is why we must rely on reliable secondary sources for nearly everything significant we include here. sometimes what is left unsaid, with just a nod and a wink to insiders, is more important than what is explicitly stated.

Lance Wallnau of the New Apostolic Reformation said in 2011:

If you're talking to a secular audience you don't talk about having dominion over them. This whole idea of taking over and that language of takeover, it doesn't actually help. It's good for preaching to the choir and it's shorthand if we interpret it right, but it's very bad for media.

soibangla (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The implication of that logic seems to be that Project 2025 is covertly Christian nationalist, that they are engaged in a conspiracy to implement Christian nationalism in the US. (edited) T g7 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@T g7:@Soibangla:@Darknipples: I appreciate the points you all bring up. Can we come to some consensus on what the article should say, where it should say it, and what sources should be used to back those claims? Czarking0 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

On further reading, I only found two sources, that are heavily biased towards conservatism, that say Project 2025 is not Christian nationalist, while many sources say it is Christian nationalist. So although my personal opinion is that the document as a whole is not Christian nationalist, my viewpoint is not supported by reliable sources. However, I did want to point to one thing -- in the "Philosophical outlook" section, I think that in the sentence "Project 2025 plans to infuse every aspect of federal government with Christian nationalism", the phrase "every aspect" is problematic. "Every aspect" includes a lot of things -- from policy changes that affect millions of people and diplomacy that could prevent or provoke war to copy machines, office furniture, buildings, parking lots, and millions of employees. How would "every" aspect of the government be infused with Christian nationalism? How would office furniture be infused with it? Maybe "many aspects" is better. T g7 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Every aspect was chosen because the source says "every facet of government policy" Czarking0 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been away for a bit and I think the current revision of the lead vis a vis Christian nationalism is very good. Thank you. T g7 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The article speaks a good deal about Christian nationalism but it does not really explore the Catholic element. First, I think it is unclear that Christian nationalism as it is used in this context includes Catholicism. Second, I think the Cathloic influence is notable in and of itself. Kevin Roberts is Catholic, as are several other Mandate authors. Leonard Leo brings additional Catholic influence. Here's one related RS.Czarking0 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Sectioning discussions

I propose that the paragraph beginning with By June 2024, the American Accountability Foundation fits better in the Partner network section. Thoughts? Czarking0 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Right now the paragraph only connects AAF to Heritage, not directly to Project 2025. I would propose incorporating the phrase "the American Accountability Foundation, which is on the advisory board for Project 2025 (ref)https://www.newsweek.com/dei-watchlist-reddit-american-accountability-foundation-donald-trump-2026802 "

However, I don't think the paragraph should be moved from the "Federal staffing" section because 1) this paragraph narrowly focuses on AAF's effort to name federal workers, and 2) it seems like AAF is not really "partners" with Heritage. Rather, they are a much less influential organization that got a grant from Heritage and got a spot on the advisory board which contains more than 50 organizations. T g7 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Well I was basically just using the advisory board as a list of partners. I don't see how to have a list of partners with RS other than their own stated advisory board. On the other hand, I could be interested in just changing the terminology to say "advisory board members" instead of partners throughout. Czarking0 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Mother Jones Quoting

WP:MOTHERJONES, I think the mother jones quotes are undue weight given the litany of real experts and academics providing comment. Some journalist opinion is just not on the same caliber of notable. Czarking0 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2025

Change "and the withdrawal of a pending Biden administration ban on PFAS in drinking water.[240]" to "and the withdrawal of a pending Biden administration proposal to set limits on the industrial discharge amounts of PFAS.[240]"

• • The reference is regarding limits on industrial discharge amounts, not drinking water** 98.29.133.191 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Citation addition in 'Immigration reforms'

"The admission of refugees would be curtailed, and processing fees for asylum seekers would increase, something the Project deems "an opportunity for a significant influx of money".^{[citation needed]}"

Could this cite reference [95]? The part it's quoting is the third paragraph under 'Budget' on pg. 146. (The 179th page of the PDF, to be clear.) Shroom (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. 1101 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove Elections section

@Talib1101: I think creating a whole section of a single source is not warranted. This probably goes for any of the other sections that might have a single source. Also the social media stuff you added to this section does not really fit. Czarking0 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)