First, and most importantly, is his use of religion as a political weapon – suggesting the very religious test for office he claims to eschew. On the one hand he claims it is a violation of the ban on religious tests to speak about his Mormon beliefs. Yet, this assertion makes his statement that “Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind” even more troubling. If it is wrong to explain his Mormonism because candidates should not talk about their religion, then it was wrong to offer this assertion of faith, which served little purpose other than as a political ploy: to reassure observant Catholics and Protestants – most of all conservative Evangelical Protestants – that he shares their core belief. Such political manipulation demeans religion, and by implying that this was a valid criteria to discuss in determining his qualifications for President, suggested the very religious test for office he claimed to eschew – and did so utilizing religious language that leaves out over 20% of the nation.

Second, as noted above, he declared that explaining anything about the distinctive doctrines of his faith would violate the Constitution’s ban on “religious tests” for office. That would true if, and only if, such discussions would constitute an implicit test for office. But Americans have a right to know how a candidate’s religious beliefs will affect their service in office and how their religious beliefs shape their views on policy issues. When Senator Joe Lieberman, a friend and someone I admire greatly, was nominated for the vice-presidency he answered questions such as: if he doesn’t ride on the Sabbath what happens if an emergency arises and he needs to get to the White House? If he keeps kosher, what happens when he goes on a foreign visit and his hosts don’t have access to kosher food? Many people did not understand the religious obligations that Jews feel they are under and so they quite reasonably asked (or wondered): how might his practices affect his service? And where relevant Senator Lieberman has talked comfortably about how his religious values or beliefs affect his views on public policy issues. In contrast, Governor Romney’s refusal to explain in what ways the religious beliefs and practices of his Mormon faith, a religion largely unknown and not well-understood by Americans, might or might not affect his service or how they shape his political views did little to advance religious literacy or alleviate concerns Americans might have on these questions. His helpful assertion that the authorities of the church would not control his decisions is of course a related but quite distinct issue.

Third and finally, back to politics (of course). I was struck by Governor Romney’s assertion that while separation of church and state is vital to America, “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 merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in American—the religion of secularism.” This assertion repeats the classic blunder that church-state separation opponents make, either ignorantly or manipulatively. There is a fundamental difference between the public sphere and the governmental sphere. In every corner of America I have visited, the radio and television airwaves are filled with religious music and religious programming, the bookshelves filled with religious books; churches are the most common public buildings in America; at this time of year; Christmas, Chanukah and Kwanzaa imagery, symbols, music and celebrations abound; and most relevantly, republican and democratic candidates for office are using religious language and imagery more today than at almost any time in our nation’s history. And church-state separation advocates do not oppose a robust expression of religion in the American public sphere – only in the much narrower government square. The constitution bars the government form endorsing, preferring supporting or opposing religion. This section of Governor Romney’s speech smacked of political manipulation and pandering that marred the contrary points he made elsewhere within the speech.

Let’s allow President Kennedy the last word of contrast:

"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. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."