That's the title to my latest post on my other blogs. I am not going to reproduce the whole thing here, but rather link to it.
This site studies the religion and the American Founding and for good or ill all sides had invoked the Founding Fathers for their political desires. My post takes a jab at the "Christian Nationalist" conservative evangelicals (why I'm not reproducing it here).
What my post really criticizes is this method of citing verses and chapters of scripture as the ultimate authority to "settle" various moral matters in the political context. I argue why it's not effective and I also assert the Founding Fathers tended NOT to do this. And it's not because they were all Deists. Indeed, there were orthodox evangelical Christians among them like John Witherspoon who likewise, when they made political arguments didn't use the method of citing verses and chapters of scripture (see his Lectures on Moral Philosophy).
Likewise with James Wilson. Personally I don't think he believed the Bible inerrant or infallible (he may have). But even if he did, what he DOESN'T do, in his vast public WORKS where he gave lectures on the "law," is cite it verse and chapter to "settle" political-moral issues. Rather he invokes God and has some positive things, in principle, to say about scripture. But then for all of the substantive rules, he gets to his results without citing verses and chapters of scripture as authority, hardly citing the Bible at all. Witherspoon and Wilson both had this same method that is reminiscent of Aristotle, Aquinas, and the Scottish Enlightenment.
So I think what I argue in my Positive Liberty post, America's Founders like Witherspoon and Wilson understood, in the non-sectarian, eccumenical society they were trying to build, it just was not a good or useful idea. They commonly invoked God in politics but did so without being verse and chapter proof texters.