Early in the speech, Romney says,

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

He’s referring, of course, to John F Kennedy in the 1960 presidential campaign. I find the comparison insulting.

Kennedy’s message was, "Don’t judge me by my religion, because my religious beliefs are private, and are simply not relevant to my capacity to be a good president." Romney’s message? "I hate non-Christians as much as anybody."

I don’t need to judge him by his religion. This one statement from the speech is plenty for me: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

Really? Can he really believe that? They’ve got plenty of religion in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the like, but damn little of what we’d call freedom.

And freedom requires religion? Then why on earth would the authors of our constitutional freedoms have insisted that we must not make laws respecting the establishment of religion? Why would they have demanded that no religious test be required of those who would hold office? They knew damn well that what freedom requires is restraint of religion, and that religion is inherently opposed to freedom.

Romney’s notion of the first amendment:

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God…. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism.

Well, he’s invited us to compare him to Kennedy, let’s see what Kennedy actually said:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end – where all men and all churches are treated as equal – where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice – where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind – and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty…. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test – even by indirection – for it.

Well, Mr Romney, you, too, are no Jack Kennedy.

This speech should be seen for what it is. It’s an attempt by the Romney campaign to frame a message for the American religious extremists who think Romney’s not Christian enough for them. Of course, in those terms, it’s still an abject failure. These people want to tear down the wall of separation, so an appeal on those grounds is useless, and he can’t actually address the issues they really care about, which are primarily doctrinal, because they’re right. For example, Mormons are not trinitarians – as far as your basic Baptist evangelical wingnut can see, that’s basically polytheism.