It could be taken that way in a simplistic/literal sense but the actual premise for the distinction they tried to put into law doesn't even require belief in a diety.
It was born from recognizing that because people are flawed and people in power, be they kings or democratic leaders, become corrupt and often turn on the citizens. So the "right" for a citizen to arm himself had to come from an authority that is above that of any ruler/government. Therefore it is a right that cannot be taken away.
That was a very big concern and debate during the creation of our Constitution. So much so that many of the founders argued that they should not create a 'bill of rights' simply because anything that wasn't specified to that list could be said to be at the whim of the government ...allowed, or not, at the discretion of a king or elected official.
Its kind of hard to strike the sheriff of Nottingham down if he has confiscated all the bows and swords.
It also was born from needing to prevent a government police force being in the control of a ruler like the King of England had and yet have a militia able to form if the need arose to react to any threat from within. Like some states joining forces against other states etc. As it turned out about a hundred years later it worked as planned, states did rise up and rebel and the government won the fight in spite of the fact everyone had guns. (Thanks France and England for not recognizing the confederacy because that would have tipped the scales)
