Should Trump have been banned from running for president?

[bèlla]

Would you be willing to point to where in their Mandate for Leadership document this occurs, preferably with page numbers?

 

[JSRG]

So I watched a video of the author of Project2025 stating when worship was mandated and there was no room for those who want to keep God's commandment (true Sabbath Exo20:10) unfortunately I thought I could easily find it, but it would take hours to go back to try to find it.

For the record the Sabbath is the seventh day according to God's own Testimony Exo20:10 not Sunday. We cannot substitute a man-made holy day for God's true Sabbath and the Holy Day of the Lord, thus saith the Lord Isa58:13. Only God can sanctify a day Gen2:1-3 only God can sanctify man Eze20:12 and we are called back to worship this God Rev14:7 Exo20:11. Because we can't sanctify ourselves Isa66:17, we need God.

This is getting similar to what Daniel went through. When a decree went out that went against one of God's commandments. Are we going to be faithful like Daniel and obey God or bow to mans popular traditions.


Col2:8 Beware lest anyone [a]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.


In the meantime I'll post this:


According to several sources summarizing Project 2025:

• On page 589 of the “Mandate for Leadership” component of Project 2025, under a heading “Sabbath Rest,” the document states:
• The same and similar summaries make clear that the document treats Sunday as the default day of rest/“Sabbath” for the general population, with exceptions for those whose sincerely held belief gives them a different Sabbath. lakeunionherald.org
• The blueprint therefore proposes a federal labour-law amendment to incentivize (or penalize less) working on Sunday by paying time-and-a-half if one works that “Sabbath” day. libertymagazine.org+1

---

⚠️ Important caveats / context​

• The suggestion is not formally a law yet — it is part of a policy blueprint, not legislation.
• The language indicates “default to Sunday … except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown).” So it includes an accommodation clause for other Sabbath-observing groups. lakeunionherald.org+1
• Multiple commentary sources raise concerns about religious liberty, establishment clause issues, and the prioritisation of Sunday over other Sabbath observance traditions. libertymagazine.org+1
• The Heritage Foundation’s own commentary about Project 2025 (in their overview article) does not dwell on this Sabbath-rest proposal in great detail, so much of the detail comes from external summarising/critique sources. The Heritage Foundation

---

Conclusion​

Yes — within Project 2025, there is a proposal to designate Sunday (with accommodation) as a kind of national communal rest day (a Sabbath-rest) and to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act accordingly. Whether you want to call it a formal “national rest day” is partly semantic, but the effect is very similar: Sunday would function as a default day of rest for workers, with additional compensation for working it.

Now, you again don't actually point to what it is in Project 2025 you're referring to, and instead refer to a "summary" (possibly by AI, which are frequently unreliable) about Project 2025. There have been enough lies or exaggerations about Project 2025 that I am not going to trust any claim about what's in it without someone pointing to exactly what it is.

However, you at least seem to identify that it's what it has to say in regards to Sabbath that matters, and I was able to find that. Again, your claim was:

"If you dive deep in Project2025 this group has declared how we are to think, believe, and when to worship, taking away liberty of conscious."

This is the entirety of what it has to say about the subject:

Sabbath Rest. 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. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers.

Congress should 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. That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead. Houses of worship (to the limited extent they may have FLSA-covered employees) and employers legally required to operate around the clock (such as hospitals and first responders) would be exempt, as would workers otherwise exempt from overtime.

Alternative View. While some conservatives believe that the government should encourage certain religious observance by making it more expensive for employers and consumers to not partake in those observances, other conservatives believe that the government’s role is to protect the free exercise of religion by eliminating barriers as opposed to erecting them. Whereas imposing overtime rules on the Sabbath would lead to higher costs and limited access to goods and services and reduce work available on the Sabbath (while also incentivizing some people—through higher wages—to desire to work on the Sabbath), the proper role of government in helping to enable individuals to practice their religion is to reduce barriers to work options and to fruitful employer and employee relations. The result: ample job options that do not require work on the Sabbath so that individuals in roles that sometimes do require Sabbath work are empowered to negotiate directly with their employer to achieve their desired schedule.

All it recommends doing is workers should be entitled to time and a half pay when working on the "Sabbath." The document then says "That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead."

It is difficult for me to see how any of this equates to them trying to declare "how we are to think, believe, and when to worship, taking away liberty of conscious." Yes, the time and a half suggestion would make employers less likely to want to make people work on that day, but it doesn't prohibit them and does nothing to force anyone to worship at particular times. It even makes a note that "employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time" would have the requirement transfer to that time instead.

Furthermore, we should look at the "Alternate View" paragraph. The Project 2025 document actually on various occasions will offer different views on matters, and this is one. Thus we can see that some of hte people involved in writing it disagree with the whole time and a half idea and that "the government’s role is to protect the free exercise of religion by eliminating barriers as opposed to erecting them" and "the proper role of government in helping to enable individuals to practice their religion is to reduce barriers to work options and to fruitful employer and employee relations."

So the bottom line is this portion of Project 2025 (1) does not enforce how to think, (2) does not enforce what to believe, and (3) does not enforce when to worship. And even what it does suggest is clearly not universally agreed by the writers.

 

[JSRG]

View attachment 371883
View attachment 371885
View attachment 371886
View attachment 371887

So the above is a conglomeration of four different pages. The first two you at least specify because it shows the page number, and the last one says "613 of 920", but the middle one is left unclear. I can search through the document to fnid it, but it would have been preferable had it been specified.

Again, the original claim was "If you dive deep in Project2025 this group has declared how we are to think, believe, and when to worship, taking away liberty of conscious." I have already discussed how the first two ones do not do this. The third one is just complaining about the length of the COVID shutdowns with a brief complaint of how it was preventing Easter services ("For example, 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?") Again, there is nothing here requiring people to think or believe anything in particular, and the one mention of "when to worship" is just them saying the CDC should have let people worship when they wanted to, the exact opposite of telling them when to worship.

The final one, while throwing in a (somewhat needless) religious reference, is just talking about the importance of labor policy. Again, nothing about what to think, believe, or when to worship.

If these are the evidences that Project 2025 is declaring "how we are to think, believe, and when to worship, taking away liberty of conscious" then it looks to me like this, like so many other things, is a false accusation of it.

 

[Aaron112]

"how we are to think, believe, and when to worship, taking away liberty of conscious"

i.e. the direction of society (including and not limited to chruches and religion) to always as often as possible cause death and prevent life from every or many directions.

 

[bèlla]

Again, the original claim was "If you dive deep in Project2025 this group has declared how we are to think, believe, and when to worship, taking away liberty of conscious." I have already discussed how the first two ones do not do this.

I shared four screenshots that included information related to religion. I have no intention of combing the document to find what you’re seeking. I’ve provided significant evidence of the agenda set forth that adversely impacts American citizens. That’s my lone concern not debates.

~bella

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Now, you again don't actually point to what it is in Project 2025 you're referring to, and instead refer to a "summary" (possibly by AI, which are frequently unreliable) about Project 2025. There have been enough lies or exaggerations about Project 2025 that I am not going to trust any claim about what's in it without someone pointing to exactly what it is.

However, you at least seem to identify that it's what it has to say in regards to Sabbath that matters, and I was able to find that. Again, your claim was:

"If you dive deep in Project2025 this group has declared how we are to think, believe, and when to worship, taking away liberty of conscious."

This is the entirety of what it has to say about the subject:

Sabbath Rest. 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. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers.

Congress should 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. That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead. Houses of worship (to the limited extent they may have FLSA-covered employees) and employers legally required to operate around the clock (such as hospitals and first responders) would be exempt, as would workers otherwise exempt from overtime.

Alternative View. While some conservatives believe that the government should encourage certain religious observance by making it more expensive for employers and consumers to not partake in those observances, other conservatives believe that the government’s role is to protect the free exercise of religion by eliminating barriers as opposed to erecting them. Whereas imposing overtime rules on the Sabbath would lead to higher costs and limited access to goods and services and reduce work available on the Sabbath (while also incentivizing some people—through higher wages—to desire to work on the Sabbath), the proper role of government in helping to enable individuals to practice their religion is to reduce barriers to work options and to fruitful employer and employee relations. The result: ample job options that do not require work on the Sabbath so that individuals in roles that sometimes do require Sabbath work are empowered to negotiate directly with their employer to achieve their desired schedule.

All it recommends doing is workers should be entitled to time and a half pay when working on the "Sabbath." The document then says "That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead."

It is difficult for me to see how any of this equates to them trying to declare "how we are to think, believe, and when to worship, taking away liberty of conscious." Yes, the time and a half suggestion would make employers less likely to want to make people work on that day, but it doesn't prohibit them and does nothing to force anyone to worship at particular times. It even makes a note that "employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time" would have the requirement transfer to that time instead.

Furthermore, we should look at the "Alternate View" paragraph. The Project 2025 document actually on various occasions will offer different views on matters, and this is one. Thus we can see that some of hte people involved in writing it disagree with the whole time and a half idea and that "the government’s role is to protect the free exercise of religion by eliminating barriers as opposed to erecting them" and "the proper role of government in helping to enable individuals to practice their religion is to reduce barriers to work options and to fruitful employer and employee relations."

So the bottom line is this portion of Project 2025 (1) does not enforce how to think, (2) does not enforce what to believe, and (3) does not enforce when to worship. And even what it does suggest is clearly not universally agreed by the writers.

What I said was what I heard from the author of Project2025 from his own mouth about Sunday needs to be a national rest day and when asked about Sabbath keepers, his answer was there is no room to please everyone (for those who wants to keep the Sabbath according to the commandment.) They have to service the majority. I'll find the video, I just don't have hours to go back and look for it right now.

What is written in Project 2025 is disturbing enough. Calling Sunday the Sabbath. They are not above God to alter His Sabbath Exo20:10 Exo31:18 and yes the Sabbath is about worship Isa66:23 Mat 15:3-14 Mark7:7-13 Rom6:16 Lev23:3 and its about God's authority Eze20:20 Exo 20:11 Exo 31:18 or do we listen to someone else. What we see in Project2025 is the first step of violation of conscious that will continue through the breakdown of the constitution between church and state. Mandating time and a half for employers if working on Sunday based on their interpretation of God’s Sabbath that is contrary to what God said is a violation of conscious and how it all starts. Forcing employers to pay extra based on their religious beliefs is a violation of the constitution of church and state. Just like previously when the Sabbath was to be a fast day (despite no Scripture) and the first day a feast day, trying to make the Sabbath as a day of gloom instead of the delight it is meant to be Isa58:13-14. It’s a slippery slope.

 

[JSRG]

What I said was what I heard from the author of Project2025 from his own mouth about Sunday needs to be a national rest day and when asked about Sabbath keepers, his answer was there is no room to please everyone (for those who wants to keep the Sabbath according to the commandment.) They have to service the majority. I'll find the video, I just don't have hours to go back and look for it right now.

There is no single "author" of Project 2025. There's a bunch of them. In any event, what Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership itself says--not one person who was maybe involved, but the actual document--was that the rules would be different for anyone who considered Saturday to the Sabbath, and also mentions as an "Alternate view" that maybe the whole time and a half thing isn't a great idea because they shouldn't be erecting barriers. So the document itself doesn't do what you said it did, and even if someone did (somehow) arrive at that interpretation, it immediately acknowledges that others--presumably including some of its authors--disagree with that approach. Project 2025 does that on a number of occasions, giving one suggestion but offering an "Alternate view" that maybe that suggestion isn't so good. Heck, some parts of it are outright arguing essays, like on the subject of tariffs where one person wrote about why they're a good idea and another person wrote about how they're not.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

There is no single "author" of Project 2025. There's a bunch of them. In any event, what Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership itself says--not one person who was maybe involved, but the actual document--was that the rules would be different for anyone who considered Saturday to the Sabbath, and also mentions as an "Alternate view" that maybe the whole time and a half thing isn't a great idea because they shouldn't be erecting barriers. So the document itself doesn't do what you said it did, and even if someone did (somehow) arrive at that interpretation, it immediately acknowledges that others--presumably including some of its authors--disagree with that approach. Project 2025 does that on a number of occasions, giving one suggestion but offering an "Alternate view" that maybe that suggestion isn't so good. Heck, some parts of it are outright arguing essays, like on the subject of tariffs where one person wrote about why they're a good idea and another person wrote about how they're not.

I know that, this was from the main person behind it.

Forcing employers to pay time and half on Sundays but not on Saturdays based on their religious beliefs is a violation of the constitution of separation of church and state basically punishing people who honor the true Sabbath Exo20:10 that wants to work the other 6 days as God said Exo20:9. Once a bill like this gets introduced and passed, it’s much easier to make changes and updates, which they will. Maybe you are not an employer but paying time and a half on a weekly basis is going to hurt a lot of businesses all based on their own religious agendas, that is not even supported by the Bible. The new head of DOL happens to be an author of Project2025.

I am okay agreeing to disagree.

 

[bèlla]

I am okay agreeing to disagree.

Do not waste your energy discussing it. Weakness always cowers and tucks its head when boldness is required. But those of us who aren’t afraid will do what we must and our voices will be heard on high. The Lord hastens to His word. As you encounter things that trouble you on this subject and others hit them with the word and request His justice, judgment and recompense to the aggressor, victims and the ones sitting on the sidelines doing nothing including christians.

Whoever shuts his ears at the cry of the poor Will cry out himself and not be answered.

~bella