The Secular Foundations of American Government: Enlightenment Philosophy Over Religious Doctrine
A common claim in American politics is that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, with the Constitution and government based on religious doctrine. However, a close look at the founding documents, the philosophical influences on the framers, and the statements of the founders themselves reveals a very different picture. The American system of government was deliberately built on secular Enlightenment principles, drawn mainly from philosophers John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Baron de Montesquieu, and others, rather than on Christian theology or biblical authority (Ragosta 101). While Christianity clearly influenced American culture and society, the structure of American government represents a revolutionary application of rational, secular political philosophy designed to protect religious freedom by keeping government neutral on matters of faith.
To understand this secular foundation, we need to look at the intellectual world in which the founders lived. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw a major intellectual shift in Europe known as the Enlightenment, marked by an emphasis on reason, observation, natural law, and skepticism toward traditional authority, including religious authority. Enlightenment thinkers tried to understand politics, ethics, and society through rational inquiry rather than divine revelation or biblical interpretation. This philosophical movement deeply shaped how the founders thought. The American founders came from this Enlightenment tradition. They read widely in contemporary and classical political philosophy, and their letters, writings, and the documents they created reflect this secular philosophical foundation far more than biblical theology. While many founders held personal religious beliefs, they deliberately separated these private convictions from the public philosophy behind their new government.
Among the thinkers who shaped American political thought, John Locke probably had the greatest influence. His Second Treatise of Government (1690) provided the intellectual framework for the American Revolution and the structure of American government. Locke’s theory of natural rights forms the backbone of the Declaration of Independence. He argued that in a “state of nature,” before organized government, humans have inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights exist on their own, independent of government or religious authority. They are “natural” rather than granted by kings or taken from scripture. Locke based these rights on a simple idea: each person owns themselves and therefore has the right to their own labor and what they produce.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” he was putting Locke’s philosophy into words. The reference to a “Creator” acknowledges a divine origin to natural law in a Deist way, but importantly does not invoke Christianity specifically, biblical authority, or any particular religious tradition. The rights themselves are described as “self-evident,” knowable through reason, not revelation.
Beyond his theory of natural rights, Locke’s social contract theory changed political philosophy by arguing that legitimate government gets its authority from the consent of the governed, not from divine right or conquest. In Locke’s view, people voluntarily form governments to better protect their pre-existing natural rights. Government is therefore a human creation, a practical arrangement based on rational self-interest, not a divinely ordained institution. This philosophy runs through the Constitution. The Preamble begins with “We the People,” establishing popular sovereignty. The people, not God or religious authority, are the source of governmental power. The Constitution’s legitimacy rests entirely on approval by the people through their representatives, a purely secular process.
Most importantly, Locke argued that when government violates the natural rights it was created to protect, the people have the right, even the duty, to change or abolish that government. The Declaration of Independence is essentially a long application of Locke’s philosophy, listing complaints against King George III and claiming the colonists’ right to form a new government that will better secure their natural rights.
While Locke laid the groundwork for individual rights and limited government, Jean-Jacques Rousseau contributed ideas about popular sovereignty and collective self-governance that influenced American republican thinking. In The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau argued that legitimate political authority comes only from a social contract agreed upon by all citizens. His famous opening line, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” captured the tension between natural human freedom and political obligation (Rousseau 1). Rousseau’s solution was a government based on the “general will”—the collective decision of the people about their common good.
While the American system didn’t adopt Rousseau’s more radical democratic ideas completely, his emphasis on popular sovereignty and the collective right of self-governance influenced American republicanism. The Constitution’s ratification process, requiring approval by popularly elected conventions in the states, showed this principle that governmental legitimacy flows from popular consent. Also, Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality (1755) argued that political inequality and tyranny come from social arrangements, not from nature or divine will. This challenged traditional justifications for monarchy and aristocracy based on divine ordination or natural hierarchy. While the founders didn’t fully embrace Rousseau’s egalitarianism (notably excluding women and enslaved people from full citizenship), his critique of inherited privilege influenced the Constitution’s ban on titles of nobility and its rejection of hereditary political power.
If Locke and Rousseau provided the philosophical justification for American government, Baron de Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748) provided the structural blueprint, especially the principle of separation of powers. Montesquieu argued that liberty is best preserved when governmental power is divided among different institutions that check and balance each other. He identified three types of governmental power (legislative, executive, and judicial) and argued that concentrating these in a single body always leads to tyranny, whether that body is a monarch, an aristocracy, or even a popular assembly (Montesquieu).
This principle is the organizing logic of the U.S. Constitution. Article I gives legislative power to Congress, Article II gives executive power to the President, and Article III gives judicial power to the Supreme Court. The detailed system of checks and balances (presidential veto, congressional override, Senate confirmation of appointments, judicial review) directly follows Montesquieu’s philosophy. Importantly, Montesquieu’s approach is entirely secular and based on reason. He studied various forms of government through observation, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses. His recommendations come from practical political science, not theological principles. The Constitution’s framers followed this same method, engaging in practical debate about institutional design based on historical examples and rational analysis of human nature and political incentives.
After looking at these philosophical influences, we need to examine the Constitution itself, because the document’s treatment of religion is notable for what it leaves out rather than what it includes. The document that structures American government makes no reference to God, Jesus Christ, Christianity, the Bible, or divine authority. The ban on religious tests, found in Article VI, was controversial and deliberately chosen. Some delegates wanted religious requirements for federal office. The framers deliberately rejected this, deciding that citizenship and official position would be open to people of all faiths, or none. This was revolutionary for its time and represented a clear break from European traditions where political rights were tied to religious conformity (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3).
The First Amendment’s religion clauses further establish this secular foundation. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause create a secular government that protects religious freedom by staying neutral. Government cannot establish an official religion or favor one religion over others, and it cannot prohibit individuals from practicing their chosen faith (U.S. Const. amend. I). This framework doesn’t come from Christian theology. In fact, it contradicts the political theology of most Christian traditions of that era, which assumed some level of state support for and involvement with the church. Instead, it reflects Enlightenment principles: that religious belief should be a matter of individual conscience, that government should be based on reason and consent rather than theological authority, and that religious diversity doesn’t have to threaten political unity if government stays neutral on religious questions.
The founders themselves stated this secular vision with remarkable clarity. The Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under George Washington and unanimously approved by the Senate under John Adams in 1797, contains a particularly revealing statement in Article 11: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]…” (Treaty of Tripoli). This official declaration, made just eight years after the Constitution’s approval by men who had participated in the founding, could hardly be clearer. The treaty explicitly states that the U.S. government is not founded on Christianity, precisely to assure a Muslim nation that American political principles are secular and universal, not religious and particular.
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was deeply influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and highly skeptical of organized religion. In his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786), he argued that “our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry” (Jefferson, Virginia Statute). This treats religious belief as completely separate from citizenship, a radically secular position. Jefferson later described the First Amendment as creating a “wall of separation between Church & State” in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, a metaphor that captures the constitutional philosophy (Jefferson, “Letter to Danbury Baptists”).
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” was perhaps the most philosophically rigorous of the founders. His Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785) presented a powerful argument for religious freedom and separation of church and state based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty and reason. Madison argued that religion must be free from government interference because religious belief and duty are matters of individual conscience, not subject to political authority. He warned that government support for religion always corrupts both government and religion. These arguments are secular and practical, not theological (Madison).
Yet an important distinction must be made between the cultural context of the American founding and the philosophical foundation of American government. There’s no question that most Americans in the founding era were Christians of various denominations. Christian culture, values, ethics, and institutions filled colonial and early American society. Religious language appeared in public discourse, and many Americans understood their personal lives and communities through Christian frameworks. However, the founders deliberately chose not to build the government itself on Christian theology. They could have created a Christian nation with an established church, religious tests for office, and governmental authority rooted in biblical interpretation. Many Americans wanted exactly this. State establishments of religion continued in several states after the federal Constitution was approved.
The founders rejected this path for the federal government. They chose instead to build on secular Enlightenment philosophy: natural rights, social contract, separation of powers, popular sovereignty, and religious neutrality. This wasn’t accidental or minor; it was a conscious choice reflected in the Constitution’s text, the founders’ explanatory writings, and the political debates of the era. The founders understood that in a religiously diverse society (even within Christianity, there were deep divisions between denominations), only a secular government could protect everyone’s religious freedom. A government based on one religious tradition would inevitably privilege that tradition and marginalize others. A government based on Enlightenment principles of natural rights and reason, by contrast, could protect all citizens equally regardless of their religious beliefs. This was the revolutionary insight: religious freedom requires governmental secularism. The Constitution protects Christianity not by establishing it as the foundation of government, but by keeping government neutral toward all religions.
The evidence strongly shows that American government was founded on Enlightenment philosophy rather than Christian theology. The Constitution contains principles drawn from Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and other secular philosophers: natural rights, social contract, popular sovereignty, separation of powers, checks and balances, and religious neutrality. This secular foundation doesn’t represent hostility toward religion, quite the opposite. The founders believed that keeping government secular was the best way to protect religious freedom. Government based on reason and consent, rather than theological authority, could accommodate citizens of all faiths and none, treating all equally under the law.
The confusion between America’s cultural Christianity and its governmental secularism continues because of selective reading of history, mixing up the founders’ personal beliefs with governmental structure, and misunderstanding the founders’ own words. But the documentary evidence, the Constitution’s text, the political philosophy it contains, the founders’ explanatory writings, and official declarations like the Treaty of Tripoli—all point to the same conclusion: the United States government is built on Enlightenment philosophy, not religious doctrine.
This understanding is not merely of historical interest. Today, the United States faces a serious threat from the deliberate blurring of the line between religion and government that the founders worked so carefully to establish. When political leaders claim that America is a “Christian nation” and attempt to encode specific religious beliefs into law, they undermine the very foundation that has allowed American democracy to function for over two centuries. The secular framework the founders created was not designed to suppress religion but to protect it, and to protect democracy itself, by ensuring that governmental power would never be wielded in the name of any particular faith.
The dangers of violating this principle are becoming increasingly apparent. When government aligns itself with a particular religious viewpoint, several destructive consequences follow. First, it creates a de facto religious test for full participation in civic life, exactly what Article VI of the Constitution prohibits. Citizens who don’t share the dominant religious view become second-class participants in their own democracy. Second, it corrupts religion itself, as Madison warned. When religious institutions become entangled with political power, they inevitably lose their moral authority and become tools of partisan politics rather than sources of spiritual guidance. Third, and most critically, it breaks the social contract on which American democracy depends.
The founders understood that in a diverse society, democracy can only function if the government remains a neutral arbiter, a referee that doesn’t favor any team. When government abandons neutrality and adopts a religious identity, it can no longer serve all citizens equally. Those outside the favored religious group no longer have reason to view the government as legitimate or to accept its decisions. The consent of the governed, which Locke identified as the only legitimate basis for political authority, begins to erode. What follows is not just political dysfunction but a fundamental breakdown of democratic governance.
We see this erosion happening in real time. Efforts to restrict reproductive rights based on religious doctrine rather than secular reasoning, attempts to allow discrimination against LGBTQ individuals in the name of “religious freedom,” proposals to mandate prayer or religious instruction in public schools, and the insistence that judges should interpret law according to religious principles rather than constitutional text—all of these represent a dangerous retreat from the Enlightenment principles that made American democracy possible. These are not simply policy disagreements; they represent a fundamental challenge to the secular framework that has allowed people of all faiths and none to coexist as equal citizens.
The stakes could not be higher. Democracy is fragile. It depends on shared agreement about the rules of the game, on the belief that all citizens have equal standing, and on the idea that political questions should be decided through reason and debate rather than by appeals to divine authority. When one faction claims that its political positions are not just preferable but divinely ordained, rational debate becomes impossible. Compromise, the lifeblood of democracy, becomes heresy. Those who disagree are not just political opponents but enemies of God. This is precisely the dynamic that the founders sought to prevent by creating a secular government.
The irony is bitter. Those who most loudly proclaim America’s Christian founding are actively working to dismantle the secular framework that has actually protected religious freedom in America. The founders’ genius was in recognizing that government power and religious authority must remain separate precisely because both are important. When they merge, both are corrupted, and freedom, both religious and political, is lost. We have historical examples of what happens when government and religion fuse: theocracy, religious persecution, sectarian violence, and the death of democracy. The founders studied these examples and consciously chose a different path.
This secular foundation represents one of the founders’ greatest achievements. By separating governmental authority from religious authority, they created a framework that has protected religious freedom and accommodated extraordinary religious diversity while maintaining political unity. For over two centuries, this framework has worked. Americans have been free to practice their faiths, to change their faiths, or to reject faith altogether, all while participating as equal citizens in democratic governance. This was not inevitable; it was the result of a deliberate choice to build government on reason, consent, and natural rights rather than on religious authority.
Understanding this foundation correctly is not just an academic exercise. It is essential for preserving American democracy in an era when that democracy faces genuine threats. The founders gave us a gift: a system of government that protects both religious freedom and political equality by keeping the two separate. Abandoning that separation in pursuit of religious nationalism will not make America more faithful or more moral. It will make America less free and less democratic. The path back to health lies in rediscovering and recommitting to the Enlightenment principles on which this nation’s government was actually built—principles of reason, equality, natural rights, and religious neutrality that have served us well for over two centuries and remain our best hope for the future.
Works Cited
Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.” 1 Jan. 1802. Founders Online, National Archives, founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-36-02-0152-0006.
—. Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. 16 Jan. 1786. Encyclopedia Virginia, encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/virginia-statute-for-establishing-religious-freedom-1786/.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm.
Madison, James. Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. 1785. Bill of Rights Institute, billofrightsinstitute.org.
Montesquieu, Baron de. The Spirit of the Laws. 1748. Translated by Thomas Nugent, Online Library of Liberty, oll.libertyfund.org/titles/montesquieu-complete-works-vol-1-the-spirit-of-laws.
Ragosta, John A. Religious Freedom: Jefferson’s Legacy, America’s Creed. University of Virginia Press, 2013.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. 1762. Translated by G. D. H. Cole, Constitution Society, http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm.
Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. 10 June 1797. Article 11. Avalon Project, Yale Law School, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp.
United States. Constitution. 1787. National Archives, http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript.
The Relearning 
Leave a comment