You should really read the whole thing rather than just random selections of pages, in order to understand Madden's argument. For example, you seem to have somehow decided that he focuses on the 1st thru 3rd centuries CE for his comparisons. Actually - as I said upthread - unlike almost everyone else who has written on the subject (including yourself since you made this same assumption), Madden does not compare the U.S. with the Roman EMPIRE but rather with the Roman REPUBLIC.

Madden focuses on the Roman Imperial conquest of Palestine only for purposes of comparison with the current U.S. problems in that area. Specifically, he compares ancient Jewish terrorism with modern Islamic terrorism. Madden finds these to be very similar in nature, since the same motivation lies behind both: ancient Judaism and modern Islam both feel compelled by faith to impose their universalist religions on everyone within their reach through governmental policy. Madden then goes on to propose that the eventual solution for the problems caused to all their neighbors by Islamic extremism will likely be very much like the ancient Roman solution to Jewish extremism. Namely, keep killing the extremists and destroying their cultural icons until they finally learn to separate religion from government. For ancient Judaism, this took the form of the Diaspora and the replacement of the priest with the rabbi. Something slmilar will need to occur (according to Madden) before Islamic extremism will cease to be a problem.

IIRC, Christianity rates only the most passing mention in Madden, since for most of that period it was an obscure sect mostly practiced by slaves.

Also, you seem to have mistaken Madden's comparison of the idealized values and desires of both Roman and American citizens for "consistent policy." Madden argues that these core attributes of the two types of citizen are markedly similar and since it is these values which drive each state's policy over time, said policies end up looking pretty much the same.