Not at all, Zoe. For example, I compared the Bible with the 25 points of the National Socialist Program and found that the two disagreed on 20 different principles. You can view that comparison at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/for-the-good-of-the-state.html

That verse speaks of three different roles of government, but it certainly doesn’t speak to HOW the three branches should be organized or the relationship among them. It doesn’t explain how Madison (or Montesquieu) came up with the American version of the three branches of government, as opposed to, for example, the British version of those three branches. Did the British not read the same verse?

Thanks Tom,
A lot of sites are saying that Madison was inspired by the verse at the Const Convention. As you said, blurring the two guys who’s names start with M, into one conspiracy.
Here a link to one such: http://www.seekfind.net/JamesMadison.html
–At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

Thank you for commenting, CL. Unfortunately, I must point out that the view of the “full faith and credit” clause which you have presented was not the view held by the founders of our nation, and it was not accepted by the courts until 1887. The proper view of this clause can be seen in the second sentence of Article IV, Section 1 where we read:
“And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Congress first invoked this power to determine how the acts, records and proceedings of the individual states would be honored throughout the several states in 1790, and one of the most recent examples of this power can be found in DOMA where Congress proclaimed that states do not have to give effect to same-sex marriages which are recognized in other states. Thus the “full faith and credit” clause is actually a grant of power to Congress to prescribe how various laws throughout the individual states are to be merged into a single manner of law to be recognized among the several states. This is very similar to the biblical language which did not require all the individual tribes of Israel to have identical laws but rather that they have “one manner of law.”
Having said that, I will admit that my reliance on Leviticus 24:22 and Exodus 12:49 to demonstrate this point could be called into question since they are speaking of applying this one manner of law to foreigners and not specifically of the application of this principle throughout the several tribes. I am planning to devote a future article to a more expansive study of this principle throughout the Old Testament.
By the way, the Yale Law Journal published an excellent article on the “classic view” of the “full faith and credit” clause, and you can find it online at this link: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/article/the-classic-rule-of-faith-and-credit/

The internet says it’s Montesquieu.
http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-churchstatereply.shtml
The thing here is that Barton’s citing the echoes of arguments that are echoes of arguments–in this case apparently from “America’s God and Country (p. 453), William Federer.”
Looking at the “source” verse and trying to find it in the Constitution yields zero, but Barton’s not just making stuff up from thin air—he’s citing an intricate [and usually shaky] argument he heard somewhere, although the reader/listener is seldom told what or where.
It’s still nonsense, but it’s not the complete non sequitur it appears to be.

@Bill Fortenberry — I’m sorry, but I’ve read your 49 correlations and your recent piece on tying the idea of popular sovereignty back to the bible, and many of your “correlations” hold up only in the most post-modern sense where words just don’t have any fixed meaning. It’s clear that you do not understand all of the legal terms you discuss. And, I don’t think “popular sovereignty” means what you think it means.
Trying not to completely hijack Warren’s comment section, but in your #42, for example, about the “full faith and credit clause,” the clause actually means the complete opposite of what you assert: Rather than making the law uniform across the land, it requires states to recognize public acts and proclamations of other states even if those acts/proclamations were issued by the other state using laws or standards that are different. Thus, a state that doesn’t permit first cousins to marry must recognize the marriages of first cousins who were proclaimed married in a state that DOES recognize such marriages. So within the same state there may be married (by another state) first cousins and first cousins prohibited from marrying. Also, our concept of “federalism” completely contradicts the biblical idea of requiring a uniform law across the whole country.

Can’t the Bible also be used with even more justification as the basis for Communism, Absolute Monarchy, National Socialism etc?
Just cherry-pick as needed.

Kate – I have updated the post to show the verses Barton claims are quoted in the Constitution.