1776 only land owners could vote
1790 Naturalization Act requires white race can vote
1856 all white men, not exclusively land owners, can vote
1857 Dred Scott decision: African descendants not citizens
1868 male former slaves could vote but state prevented them
1870 no discrimination explicitly by race, so other restrictions are created
1920 women can vote
1952 Asians may become citizens
1965 Voting rights act--against discriminations
Based on this table, only a niggling atheist, who can vote but cannot be elected, would complain about his/her civil rights. Someone with faith in the objective truth much of which is undiscovered and some of which is understood can just forget about it--nobody can even understand such a faith. (That’s my faith and I don’t want to share it.) And he/she cannot look to secularists for help, because too many of them are both anti-faith perhaps due to pride in reason and anti-religion perhaps due to absolutism.
I use the phrase "a people," because "We the People of the United States," is totalitarian and thereby an ideal that can be approached only asymptotically. Not surprisingly, it’s similar to a religious claim to being a god’s people. Today, many people talk of the preamble, but almost no one uses it to guide civic governance. The literal sentence is a civic contract, often misguidedly labeled "social" and worse, "secular," which too often means both anti-religion and anti-faith. Civic is a very powerful term that implies cooperation respecting the common affairs of human needs. Most civic issues, such as queuing to enter a sports arena, can be settled by candid discussion, but some issues, such as vehicular traffic control, add risk and therefore civic laws are required to establish civil order. "Civic laws" distinguish the civic function from military and church functions with their laws. The issues at stake are public issues, but “civic” carries with it the obligation to negotiate resolution, and the basis for mediation is physics, rather than religion. I speculate that about 70% of Americans would use the preamble to establish civic liberty, leaving criminals, evils, and other persons who want domestic alienation as the 30% of "We the People of the United States." Politically dividing inhabitants based on their commitment and trust in the preamble would be beneficial, and perhaps the 30% guess would decline as benefits emerged.
 Online at: http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf .
 Online at: www.globalmountainsummit.org/statue-of-liberty.html .
 Online at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty#Dedication
 Online at: constitutioncenter.org/timeline/flash/cw.html .
 Online at: www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-696 re TOWN OF GREECE v. GALLOWAY .
 Online at: www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/03/settlement_over_harassment_of.html .