Why the Babylon Bee's Argument Is Historically Incomplete

The Babylon Bee recently published a satirical article titled "Get A Load Of These Insane Christian Nationalists Who Believed Rights Come From God And Not The Government." The article mocks the idea that rights come from God rather than government, suggesting this view aligns with “Christian nationalism.”

As satire, the piece is effective. As history, it is incomplete.

What the Founders Actually Believed About Rights

The Declaration of Independence states that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”¹ This reflects a natural-rights tradition strongly influenced by Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke.²

Under this framework, rights exist prior to government and are not granted by political authority.

However, belief in natural rights does not imply support for a religious state.

One can simultaneously believe:

Rights come from God or natural law
Government exists to protect rights, not grant them
Religious liberty applies equally to all citizens
The state should not establish or favor a religion

The Declaration and the Constitution Serve Different Functions

The Declaration of Independence articulated philosophical justification for independence.¹ The Constitution created the governing framework of the United States.³

Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution contains no reference to God, Christianity, or any religious doctrine.³

The Constitution Explicitly Rejects Religious Tests

Article VI states:

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”³

This clause prohibits religious requirements for public office.

The First Amendment Reinforces Religious Neutrality

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”⁴

This establishes both non-establishment and free exercise principles.

James Madison’s View

James Madison argued that rights are grounded beyond government but opposed state involvement in religion.⁵

He viewed religious establishment as a threat to both liberty of conscience and political stability.

The Founders Were Not Theologically Uniform

The founding generation included Christians of various denominations, Deists, and others with differing theological views.²

There was no single unified religious doctrine behind the Constitution.

The Constitution Speaks More Clearly Than Personal Beliefs

The federal Constitution establishes:

No national religion
No religious qualification for office
No preference for Christianity
Protection of religious liberty

The Treaty of Tripoli

In 1797, the United States ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which stated:

“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”⁶

Commonly Cited Figures and What They Actually Represent

Discussions about rights, religion, and the founding often rely on a small set of frequently quoted historical figures. However, these individuals are often cited in ways that blur important distinctions about time, role, and legal authority.

John Locke: Influential, But Not a Constitutional Framer

John Locke was an English philosopher, not an American statesman, and he played no role in drafting either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution. His influence on American political thought was significant, particularly his theory of natural rights and government by consent.¹

However, Locke represents intellectual background theory rather than constitutional intent. His writings help explain the philosophical environment that shaped 18th-century political thought, but they are not evidence of what the Constitution itself established as law.

Benjamin Franklin: Participant, Not Constitutional Architect

Benjamin Franklin was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a signer of the Constitution. However, Franklin was deeply influenced by Enlightenment deism and spent significant time abroad during key revolutionary diplomatic efforts.²

Franklin’s writings tend to emphasize civic virtue, pragmatism, and moral philosophy rather than establishing a theological foundation for government. As a result, his ideas are often cited in broad cultural arguments, but they are not direct constitutional provisions.

Thomas Jefferson: Author of the Declaration, Not the Constitution

Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence but was not present at the Constitutional Convention, as he was serving as minister to France during its drafting.²

Jefferson’s influence is therefore primarily philosophical and rhetorical rather than constitutional. While he helped articulate the principles behind American independence, he did not participate in writing the Constitution itself.

Jefferson’s religious views also diverged significantly from orthodox Christianity. He advocated strong protections for religious liberty and authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a landmark measure that helped shape the American understanding of church-state separation.⁵

Jefferson is also known for compiling The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, often called the "Jefferson Bible." In this work, he removed miracles, the Resurrection, and references to Jesus's divinity, preserving what he considered the moral teachings of Jesus while excluding supernatural elements.¹⁰

These views make Jefferson a complex figure to cite as evidence for a specifically Christian constitutional order. His writings demonstrate respect for religion and natural rights, but they do not support the claim that the federal government was intended to be established as a Christian state.

James Madison and the Actual Constitutional Framework

James Madison, by contrast, was a principal architect of the Constitution and played a central role in both drafting and ratification.³

His writings in the Federalist Papers and his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments reflect a consistent position: religious belief is grounded beyond government authority, but civil government must remain religiously neutral.⁴

George Washington and John Adams: Leadership Without Ecclesiastical Design

George Washington and John Adams illustrate another important distinction: public religious language does not equal constitutional establishment.

Washington often referenced Providence in public rhetoric, while Adams supported religious liberty but did not advocate for a confessional Christian state.⁵

Their language is frequently cited selectively, but neither participated in creating constitutional language establishing Christianity as the foundation of federal authority.

How Historical Arguments Often Mix Incompatible Time Periods

A common feature of modern Christian nationalist arguments is the selective blending of historical figures who lived in different eras, served in different roles, and contributed to entirely different founding documents.

This creates the impression of a unified theological or political vision that spans the entire founding era. In reality, it collapses important distinctions in time, authorship, and constitutional relevance.

Different Founding Moments Are Treated as One Event

The American founding was not a single moment but a sequence of distinct political events:

The philosophical period leading up to 1776 (influenced by thinkers like John Locke)¹
The Declaration of Independence (1776), which severed political ties with Britain²
The Articles of Confederation period (1781–1789), a loose confederation of states
The Constitutional Convention (1787), which created a new federal structure³
The ratification and Bill of Rights (1791), which added explicit protections for religion⁴

These events involved different people, different political goals, and different governing structures. However, popular arguments often treat them as if they represent a single unified founding document or single ideological moment.

Philosophers, Diplomats, and Framers Are Blended Together

Figures like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and James Madison are frequently quoted together as if they were co-authors of the same governing text.^1,2,3

In reality:

Locke was an English philosopher writing a century earlier
Jefferson authored the Declaration but did not help write the Constitution
Franklin participated in the Constitutional Convention but was not a primary drafter of its text
Washington presided over the Convention but did not shape its legal language in detail
Madison was a primary architect of the Constitution’s structure and ratification strategy

Treating these figures as a single coordinated theological or constitutional voice produces an oversimplified narrative that does not match the historical record.

Why This Matters

When historical arguments combine individuals from different eras and roles, they can create the appearance of consensus where none existed.

This is especially important when discussing religion and government, because the Constitution itself is the only document that actually defines the structure and authority of the United States federal government.

The relevant question is not what various founders believed across decades of political life, but what principles were encoded into the governing framework they ultimately produced in 1787 and ratified in 1788.

When that distinction is maintained, the historical picture becomes much more precise: influence was broad and diverse, but constitutional authority was deliberately structured to avoid religious establishment.

Common Misquotation Patterns in Popular Arguments

In addition to mixing historical periods and roles, popular arguments about America’s founding often rely on selective quotation of well-known figures. These quotations are sometimes accurate in isolation, but misleading when presented without context or when treated as constitutional authority.

“In God We Trust” and Post-Founding Developments

One common misconception is the assumption that modern national mottos or later historical practices reflect the original constitutional design. For example, the national motto “In God We Trust” did not appear on U.S. currency until the 1860s and was not formally adopted as the national motto until 1956.⁷

Because these developments occurred long after the Founding era, they reflect later cultural and political conditions rather than the original constitutional framework established in 1787–1791.

Selective Use of Washington’s Religious Language

George Washington frequently referred to Providence, divine blessing, or religious virtue in public addresses. These references are often quoted as evidence of a Christian constitutional order.⁸

However, Washington’s ceremonial language was typical of 18th-century public rhetoric and does not appear in the Constitution itself. More importantly, Washington consistently supported religious tolerance and did not advocate for the establishment of a national church.⁸

Quoting Washington’s devotional language while ignoring his constitutional role as presiding officer over a secular framework creates a distorted picture of intent and design.

Misreading the Declaration as Legal Structure

Another frequent issue is treating the Declaration of Independence as if it were the governing law of the United States. Because the Declaration contains references to a “Creator,” it is sometimes used as evidence of a constitutionally established religious foundation.¹

However, the Declaration is not a governing document. It does not establish legal institutions, define governmental powers, or impose constitutional obligations. Those functions belong exclusively to the Constitution.³

Combining Private Belief With Public Law

A further pattern is the assumption that the private religious beliefs of influential figures automatically translate into constitutional design. For example, the personal beliefs of figures such as Washington, Adams, or Franklin are sometimes treated as if they directly define legal intent.^8,9

In constitutional interpretation, however, personal belief is not equivalent to enacted law. The relevant question is not what individuals believed, but what principles were codified into the governing text they produced.

Why These Patterns Matter

These misquotation patterns matter because they shift the discussion away from constitutional text and toward selective cultural memory. When quotations are detached from institutional context, they can appear to support conclusions that the governing documents themselves do not contain.

The Constitution remains the only authoritative statement of federal structure and authority. As a result, historical arguments must ultimately return to its text rather than rely on isolated quotations from influential but contextually distinct figures.

A Note on “Christian Nationalism”

The term “Christian nationalism” is used in multiple ways in modern discourse.

Because of this, debates often conflate personal religious belief with political theology.

The relevant historical question is whether the Constitution established a Christian state. The documentary record suggests it did not.

What Critics of Christian Nationalism Actually Argue

Most critics do not argue that government creates rights.

Rather, they argue that government should not privilege a particular religion.

Conclusion

The Declaration of Independence grounds rights in a Creator.¹

The Constitution creates a government based on consent and explicitly prohibits religious establishment.^3,4

These principles are not contradictory. They define the American constitutional system: rights are not granted by government, and government is not permitted to establish religion.

Whether the term “Christian nationalism” applies to modern movements is debated. What is not debated in the constitutional text is that the United States federal government was not established as a Christian state.