Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Social

Socialist1948 Presidential

Norman Thomas

American Presbyterian minister and socialist (1884-1968).

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

Norman Thomas’ 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?

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

Norman Thomas’ answer is based on the following data:

Party influence

Socialist Party Answer: Yes

Importance: Least Important

Reference: “ In keeping church and state separate, we call for the removal of all state-supported forms of religion, including those that ar...” ‐socialistparty-usa.org

ChatGPT

Very strongly agree

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

Thomas was a strong advocate for civil liberties and religious freedom. He would likely agree that government references to God could create a bias against religions that do not believe in 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.

Strongly agree

Yes

Norman Thomas was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He was a strong advocate for civil liberties and separation of church and state. However, there is no specific record of him advocating 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.

Agree

Yes, but do not waste money removing existing references

Thomas was a socialist and likely would have been concerned about the cost of such a project. However, his strong belief in the separation of church and state might lead him to support this measure, despite 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

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

While Thomas might agree that not referencing a specific religion is better than favoring one, he would likely still argue for the complete separation of church and state, including the removal of all religious references. 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.

Strongly disagree

No

Given his advocacy for the separation of church and state, it is unlikely that Thomas would support the continued inclusion of religious references in government and public spaces. 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.

Strongly disagree

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

While Thomas would likely acknowledge the historical importance of religion in the United States, he would probably argue that this does not justify its inclusion in government and public spaces. 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.

Candidate’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

Updated 5 days ago

Party’s support base

Socialist Party Voters’ Answer: Yes

Importance: Somewhat Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 1,517 voters that identify as Socialist.

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


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

Active 4 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

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4 days4D

Bernie Sanders Charges Ahead As Democrats Stall Out

Bernie Sanders launched a tour in red states like Iowa and Nebraska to rally opposition to Donald Trump’s agenda, drawing massive crowds—thousands in Omaha and overflow audiences in Iowa City.Unlike the Democratic Party’s muted response to Trump’s election, Sanders is actively challenging the administration’s plutocratic policies, focusing on billionaire influence and federal deregulation.In Iowa City, Sanders spoke to packed venues, delivering back-to-back speeches to accommodate attendees, a first in his political career, highlighting his enduring appeal.He criticized Trump’s inner circle, including billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, who attended the inauguration, and warned of their control over federal agencies.Sanders galvanized the crowd with historical references—suffrage, slavery, independence—urging grassroots action to counter Trump’s planned $1 trillion tax cuts for the rich and cuts to programs like Medicaid.Attendees expressed frustration with Democratic leaders like Hakeem Jeffries, calling their opposition to Trump weak or nonexistent, while praising Sanders for providing direction.Sanders highlighted the slim Republican House majority (three seats), suggesting constituent pressure could sway vulnerable GOP members to block Trump’s reconciliation bill.Early signs show GOP walkbacks—like Trump’s false claim Medicaid won’t be cut—after outrage over federal grant pauses disrupted services, proving grassroots impact.The crowd, mostly liberal, cheered Sanders’ defense of reproductive rights and jeered Trump’s USAID cuts and Zelensky attacks, though some noted a shift in his base—younger Trump supporters absent.Sanders ended with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, framing the fight as a timeless struggle against billionaire rule, inspiring attendees like Audrey to re-engage and Erin to find hope in solidarity.

▲  1917 replies