Campaigned for him even though not old enough to vote for him, she hastens to add.

Well, Mitt Romney gave his "Kennedy" speech on the place of religion in American life and the one thing it wasn't was Kennedy-esque.

How have our mighty constitution and the great founding documents of our democratic republic fallen? Let us count the ways.

ROMNEY: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

That will be the headline of all media discussions of Romney's speech this morning. But what does it mean?

ROMNEY: "Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Yes, that’s right, almost nothing, except, of course, that it implies that freedom and being a religious church or synagogue attendee are inextricably linked.

Romney rightly declined to discuss or defend the tenets of the Mormon church, and he allowed that there should be no religious tests for office holders. As did John Kennedy. What a difference though. Here’s Romney.

ROMNEY: There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam's words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Here’s how John Kennedy began his famous speech:

JFK: While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

Despite Romney’s stirring rejection of religious tests for office, he proceeds to offer the typical boilerplate piety now required of all Republican candidates; you damn well better be a believer. And though he recognizes we are a country of various religions, he doesn’t reference any specific ones, not even the ritual nod to the Judaic aspect of our Judeo-Christian tradition, lest any of the Republican base get the idea that Mitt considers all religious beliefs and tenates equal before the law, although he does manage to wedge in a glancing dismissive reference to what the born-again like to refer to as "secular humanism."

ROMNEY: It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

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. They are wrong.

Note the reference to the right to life. Never fear oh you fundamentalists; Mitt isn’t talking about capitol punishment or eschewing torture. He means just what you want him to mean; no abortion ever, anywhere in America.

I wonder if Mitt Romney thinks that John Kennedy was a prophet of secularism, considering this stirring section of Kennedy’s speech to those Texas clergy delivered all those years ago?

JFK: 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 parishoners 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.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Could any politician state all of that today? Oh sure, no problem declaring all Christians and Jews sort of equal. Imagine, though, with what amazement, Kennedy, had he still been alive, would have gazed upon Catholic Cardinals refusing communion to John Kerry because of his refusal to agree that his private view of abortion should become public policy imposed on all Americans.

Our media Pastor Manders love to remind liberals of Kennedy’s religious references, in particular, the last line of his inaugural speech, when he states that "on earth, God’s work must truly be our own." What they never do is to inquire into the critical meaning of those words.

Why must that work truly be our own? Because this is our realm, and because we have agency within it, but that agency, when it comes to governance and to John F. Kennedy’s view of it can only be viewed as a secular agency. Again, Kennedy, not yet president in 1960:

JFK: That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--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. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I wonder if American Catholics are beginning to realize that George W. Bush has turned over vast public resources to a very specific subset of Protestant denominations? Not to mention infesting public policy with the beliefs of a narrow minority of religious voters.

More important still, why is the SCLM so uninterested in exploring this aspect of Bush’s presidency?

Romney’s speech is clearly aimed primarily at the Protestant religious right, and he wraps himself in the same mangled metaphor of separation of church and state being a banishment of religion from…wait for it…."the public square."

ROMNEY: "The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

Of course this is nonsense. It is a deliberate attempt to confuse government with all of public life. The offices of government take up a tiny space within the public square. Yes, churches are "private institutions," but they operate openly within the public square. Take a look at the public squares around you this holiday season. Is there really an absence of nativity scenes?

In a sense we do have a secular religion that unites all Americans, and it is the wisdom contained in our founding documents. Not for nothing will you find no references to Christianity or Christian nation anywhere among those documents.

Yes, Martin Luther King Jr used biblical references, but he used them as mighty metaphors; his major arguments were based on our civil religion - democratic governance within a democratic republic.

Try and imagine John Kennedy saying what Mitt Romeny did this morning:

ROMNEY: I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty."

What in hell does that mean? Which American president sought to separate whom from which conception of God? Or, from elsewhere in the speech:

ROMNEY: "When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

And how empty do these pronouncements make Romney’s finale?

ROMNEY: These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."

..."My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self -same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."

..."The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

Compare this deeply meaningless call to diversity and dialogue, having narrowed the debate to sentiments meant to assuage just one group of Americans, to the forthright vigor of Kennedy’s logic and prose, courtesy of Ted Sorenson, let us not forget:

JFK: Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God.

Then again, Kennedy said those words in an age when the constitution was still considered to be our greatest strength, not our most dangerous weakness.

NOTE: Please excuse the lack of links; I am still without a computer, save a defunct ancient one that seems to crash in the face of attempts to create clickable links. With that said, take a look at what Steve at "No More Mister Nice Guy," and Barbara at "MajaBlog" have to say about Romney.