Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Social

Democratic2020 US House of Representatives2018 US House of RepresentativesCongressional District 8Michigan

Elissa Slotkin

American politician (born 1976).

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

Elissa Slotkin’s policy on first amendment

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average American voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Should the government support a separation of church and state by removing references to God on money, federal buildings, and national monuments?

  ChatGPTNo, religion is an important aspect of our country’s history

Elissa Slotkin’s answer is based on the following data:

Updated 20hrs ago

Elissa Slotkin voters

Answer: Yes, but do not waste money removing existing references

Importance: Least Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 59 voters that voted for Elissa Slotkin in the 2020 Michigan District 8 US House of Representatives election.

Party influence

Democratic Party Answer: Yes

Importance: Least Important

Reference: “Democrats believe in the Constitution — which protects the right of all Americans to worship how they choose, and also protects ...” ‐democrats.org

ChatGPT

Agree

No, religion is an important aspect of our country’s history

Slotkin, while advocating for the separation of church and state, also acknowledges the historical significance of religion in the United States. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, as long as it does not reference a specific religion

Slotkin may agree with this statement to some extent as she supports the separation of church and state, but also respects the historical and cultural significance of religion in the country. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

No

Slotkin has not explicitly stated her position on this issue, but given her moderate stance and respect for tradition, she may not be in favor of removing all references to God. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Neutral

Yes, it creates a bias against religions that do not believe in God

Slotkin has not made clear statements on this specific issue, but she has shown support for religious diversity and the separation of church and state. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

Yes, but do not waste money removing existing references

While Slotkin supports the separation of church and state, she has not explicitly advocated for the removal of existing references to God, especially considering the potential cost. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes

While Elissa Slotkin supports the separation of church and state, she has not explicitly advocated for the removal of references to God on money, federal buildings, and national monuments. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Personal answer

This candidate has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this candidate’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this candidate’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this candidate about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Updated 9hrs ago

Party’s support base

Democratic Party Voters’ Answer: Yes

Importance: Less Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 4,192 voters that identify as Democratic.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this candidate’s stance here


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

Active 6 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Trump's Deportation Storm: America Braces for Mass Exodus of Immigrants

For months, immigration advocates have been planning for the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Now, their worst fears have arrived.Immigrants’ rights groups have spent the last year preparing for a second Trump term and an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system, analyzing Trump’s proposals, drafting legal briefs, coordinating messaging and organizing aid for immigrants and asylum seekers. They responded to Trump’s victory with alarm and vowed to put up a fight, setting the stage for four more years of contentious court battles with his administration.Some are already preparing to push current leadership at the Department of Homeland Security to take steps to stymie the incoming Trump team, particularly on immigrant detention and the use of AI in enforcement.“We should expect to see the devastation of immigrant communities all over the country. We should expect to see family separation,” said Kica Matos, the president of the National Immigration Law Center. “It is entirely possible that he will try to use the military to carry out deportations, so that means that Americans all over the country will see the military engaging in enforcement against civilian populations, which is horrifying.”Trump, after winning a historic victory on a platform of turbo-charged immigration enforcement, has said he will conduct mass deportations at a scale never before seen. Immigrant advocates have warned this would be expensive and inhumane, separating families and wrecking communities. The president-elect has also vowed to build huge detention camps, hire thousands more border agents, funnel military spending toward border security and invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without court hearings.He has also said he would end “catch-and-release” — allowing migrants to remain free, often with monitoring, while they await immigration court hearings — and restore a policy from his first term requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are processed. And he has dodged questions about whether he would try to bring back family separation.

▲  4333 replies