The authors of our Constitution knew perfectly well what they did

lifted from Vårt Land.no (poor google translate, but you get the idea)

Just days away from the celebration of our Constitution’s 200th anniversary, media grapple with anti-Semitic sentiments central to its core values.

‘ Locked Jews out deliberately ‘
112 of the Eidsvolls Constitution – fathers knew what they were doing when they decided to shut Jews out of Norway . – There was not any work accident, says Håkon Harket .
By Arne Guttormsen
Published: 2 May 2014

Political economist and publisher Harket has the last six years scrutinized archives and conclude that our Jewish section was adopted deliberately . Nicolai Wergeland had with him a draft of the Jewish section to Eidsvoll: ” No Person af the Jewish faith must come inside Norways borders , much less dwell there. ”
With intent.

Harket has wanted to find out how one of the world’s most liberal constitutions could contain a clause that shut people out people . What was said ? Who said that? And where were they thoughts come from?
Among the fifteen who sat in the Constitutional Committee were four theologians , six lawyers, three officers , one chamberlain and one professor of Greek. None of them were farmers .
– The anti-Semitic Jew paragraph was not in a work accident. The Constitution, paragraph 2 was composed of our most enlightened men, Harket says .

Cover up. The book “the Paragraph” refutes his myths and untruths . He confronts not only  Nicolai Wergeland , but also with his son Henrik .when the father of our 17 May celebrations father almost 30 years later struggled to get Jewish section repealed , he gave a false impression of how this section came to be.
– Henrik Wergeland had practically grown up with primary sources , but it remains a fact that the Jewish section’s heaviest opponent remained silent when he would give posterity a credible explanation of how this section was to occur , Harket says .
He did not conceal his father Nicolai and his own boss Georg Sverdrup played a role, but still leaving the impression that it was the uneducated peasant who prevented Jews to enter the realm .
Illuminated basement darkness. The debate about the Jews’ civil rights had been recognized since the 1780s . Office of the Assembly’s premier members knew this international debate very well. The debate contributed to the approximately 2,400 Danish Jews to get their bourgeois blank check on March 29 a few weeks before the Jews were denied access to the country in the Norwegian Constitution.
– It is fair to say that the ideas behind the Jewish section is taken from the European darkest cellar  , but it is so, Enlightenment cellar dark , Harket says .
Constitution father , magistrate Christian Magnus Falsen , argued political “Because the Jew can never be a good citizen of any state in which non-Jews reigns . ” He was joined by Nicolai Wergeland , “Because a true Jew can never be a good citizen . ” Georg Sverdrup warned that the Jews would become “a state within a state “.
– How much of the argument is ecclesiastical ideas ?
– The church and the secular mindset is to some extent overlapping . The priests in the National Assembly played an important role on both sides of the debate . But the argument was political . Bergen bishop Johan Nordahl Brun could have made ​​a difference , he was known as a true friend of the Jewish people , but he was not at Eidsvoll There is Enlightenment ideas as voice , even among priests . I have not found any direct references to Luther’s insane hatred of the material from Eidsvoll. Voltaire, Michaelis , Kant, Fichte and Buchholz , however, had a demonstrable direct influence on the ideas .
Also we . Harket stressed that he did not look down at Eidsvoll men .
– I am rather impressed by their wide orientation . What strikes me is their arrogance , and that at the same time can be so enlightened and yet so blind , he said.
That he believes there is every reason to think through even today. It is not always the learned scholars sanctimonious figures execute the best judgment . He stressed that what they thought and decided does not make  the eidsvoll fathers responsible for the genocide that took place 130 years later, but it also can not apply other rules for Norwegian historiography than for German. The texts they relied on are among the classics of anti-Semitism . Our responsibility is to confront , rather than deny , the ideas that motivated this section , he said.
Unexplored . Although section occupies a central position in what we think we know about 1814 , it has largely been an unexplored field , says Harket . He is the first to have done a thorough reading of Falsens handwriting of Moses and the Hebrews , but also his universal historical notes in many volumes have been remained nearly untouched .
– Why is not researched , do you think ?
– I do not know, but it is striking that such a central part of our history is little researched as a rich material has been available all along.
It was working on the book Jew Hatred (2005 ) it became clear to Harket that the real story of the Constitution Jew paragraph was written. At the time, he suggested that it must have been about delivered prejudice from the religious tradition combined with reading the fruits of the newer anti-Semitic literature.
Reading fruits . He recalls that the French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire , on the one hand, the source of the general tolerance and on the other to contempt for Judaism. In Falsens manuscripts have Harket met a reader who is deeply committed and broadly oriented beyond the Nordic .
– He had extensive knowledge of the particular German , French and Latin original writings. He read not only ” major , provided by foreign authors ,” but also their sources – the ancient profanskribentene that enlightenment poets, dramatists , historians , philosophers and theologians in the late 1700s attributed so much weight. Falsen is fully in line with the passage of the burning issues in Europe , demonstrates Harket .
Greater consensus . In the debate said Falsen little. First, in a footnote derived from 1817 declares his sight so that there is no room for doubt : ” The Jew Always be aware not perfectly paa arbejde ; whole day is he Luur , if he can fravinde any one Fordeel »
– Did not speak against this section ?
– Count Wedel Jarlsberg was one of the few to some extent speaking Jewish cause. The lawyer and fruit farmer Arnoldus Koren from Ullensvik demanded full freedom of religion, but without prejudice to the Jewish question in particular. His posts were among the meeting’s most liberal , but came from its minimum hiring member. Koren was called both a clown and a fool . And it does not seem like he participated in the debate beyond reading their odd thoughts aloud meeting. Prost Peter Hount referenced on the desire to make exceptions to a general prohibition of particularly gifted Jews.
– Enlightenment theologian and pastor His Midelfart should have emphasized the inhumane and intolerant to exclude a large group of fellow human beings because of religious differences. Midelfart was the one who really fought a battle . Nicolai Wergeland said that ” The Israelis, have the whole world as their Fatherland, they ought to give us this faraway corner to ourselves.  Hount pointed out the consequences of such thinking : “If any State would follow such illiberal values, then the Jews would be banished from the earth . ” Nicolai Wergeland made this his own argument in 1842 , Harket says .
Also others. How unique was the Jewish section of contemporary constitutions ? The French Jews were in the constitution of 1791 for the first time treated as equal citizens. In the U.S. Constitution is religious liberty principle the foundation for the requirements of human rights . The Spanish Cádiz Constitution of 1812 stands out to continue the country’s tradition of religious coercion, but their law directed not against Jews in particular , but against all other faiths .
Ahead of its time . In 1821, given all Bremen Jews passport. No new should be allowed . Set in a contemporary European perspective, it’s as good sense to say that the Norwegian constitution clause was ahead of its time, as it was after my arrival , Harket says .
Jew paragraph
Constitution , paragraph 2, adopted at Eidsvoll in 1814 has been named the Jewish section.
“The Evangelical- Lutheran religion remains State’s public religion . The citizens , where professing themselves to it, are obliged to instruct their children tof the same. Jesuits and monastic orders must not be tolerated . Jews are still excluded from Access to the realm . ”
In 1842 Henrik Wergeland succeeded in getting Parliament to treat a repeal of this section .
A majority voted to remove it, but a 51 to 43 vote majority was not large enough to change the Constitution.
By the fourth time consideration was the change adopted in 1851.
Only as late as  the constitution anniversary in 1964 got paragraph 2 the following paragraph 1 : “All citizens of the Realm have free exercise of religion .”