Sign into an existing account

The Constitution was written for people who are of the same race and the same religion and had an assumed interest in action to want the same things. It makes no provision for office holders who want to destroy the country itself. It should have had an amendment that said any office holder that seeks or takes actions that threaten or damage the racial and religious integrity of the United States is guilty of treason.

However since they were all of the same race and same basic Protestant religion exception of a few Catholics they did not feel such a provision was necessary. You can see in the literature which discussed whether or not the states should ratify the new constitution them literally saying it was laughable that the United States would ever welcome muhammadin's in other words Muslims into the United States they literally say that in the collection of writings talking about whether or not the states should ratify the US Constitution called pamphlets on the Constitution written in the 1780s when it was being debated among the states whether or not the Constitution should be ratified.

See "pamphlets on the constitution" at archive
Org

Look for the word Mahometan (may be spelled differently) which was what they called Muslims.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924020874099/page/n6/mode/1up

I'll give you the quote.

"Page n67

hazards these states suffer! Why does not a man pass a law in his family, that no armed soldier shall be quartered in his house by his consent ? The reason is very plain : no man will suffer his liberty to be abridged, or endangered—his disposition and his power are uniformly opposed to any infringement of his rights. In the same manner, the principles and habits, as well as the power of the Americans are directly opposed to standing armies; and there is as little [37J necessity to guard against them by positive constitutions, as to prohibit the establishment of the Mahometan religion. But the constitution provides for our safety; and while it gives Congress power to raise armies, it declares that no appropriation of money to their support shall be for a longer term than two years."


In other words this man who is debating the formation of a national army which some considered a threat considers the idea so ridiculous that an army could be used against its people or the people would stand for it in America that he compares it to the absolute ridiculousness of the establishment of the Muslim religion in america.

He didn't feel there was a need to State anything in the Constitution about armies any more than there was a need to state that they would not allow the establishment of the Muslim religion because he thought both ideas to be so ridiculous.

There are many such cases in the Constitution where things are left unsaid that would have believed to have been such common Sense back then that they would see no possible reason they would have to State anything about it in the constitution.

One example of that is the nation would be Christian in its guidance and governance. In fact many wealthy Jews were denied citizenship in many of the commonwealths than though some desperately tried to gain citizenship such as the infamous Jewish slave ship owner Lopez. He was denied citizenship despite his many inquiries and despite all his money.

Furthermore the only real question of religion that is being referred to in the Constitution is an attempt to try to avoid the bloody conflicts that had existed in England between Catholics and protestants. When Catholics became kings are Queens they often persecuted Protestants and when Protestants came into power they offer persecuted catholics. And the United States could not afford to have such rivalries and bloodline continue and that and that alone is the meaning of any reference to religion or the prohibition of discrimination based on religion in the early documents of the country.

But it was always gone that the Nations guiding principles in primary religion would be christian. Even though it's who occasionally call themselves deists did so under the guise of a Christian deist God.


George Washington in his farewell address to the nation after leaving the presidency States the importance of the unity of the United States and maintaining that. (https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1796-george-washington-s-farewell-address-speech)

"The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and political Principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts; of common dangers, sufferings and successes."

Again the important line is that George Washington States the ultimate importance of maintaining the following
"With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and political Principles."

Any notion that the United States was formed to welcome any religion or Creed or culture is patently false. And as as clearly stated by George Washington -who embodied the principles around which the nation was for more than any other single person- the importance of maintaining and defending that commonality is paramount.