Mitt Romney today gave his speech on faith. I wrote the other day that he would touch on nothing about the Mormon faith as far as details are concerned, and I was absolutely right. So if Mitt Romney was trying to counter misconceptions evangelicals and others have about his role as a Latter Day Saint, he’s not done so. Still, the speech is interesting, if not all that revealing about how Mitt Romney will satisfy the thirst of the bloc of Republican voters who reject his candicacy because of his Mormonism. To that end, it may have done zero good for him except to give him a national stage.

Let me parse a few segments of the speech. From the New York Times transcript of it:

“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 Adams’ 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 Mitt Romney tells us that religion is important, both to individual Americans and to our leaders, and he’s promising that his religion is important to him. The implication there is that he’ll tell exactly how his religion is important to him. I’ll assume he’ll say something about the moral guidance his religion gives him. But he goes nowhere later in the speech to dispel the notion in the minds of the radical religious right in this country that Mormonism is an anathema to Christianity. (I’d prefer a quote from Sam Adams, instead of John. . . but I love Sam’s beer.)

There was ZERO doubt Mitt Romney would compare himself to Jack Kennedy, and I find that distasteful, given that he holds no values in common with Jack, at least as far as his theory of governance.

“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.

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

Dan Quayle was the last Republican who tried on the mantle of Kennedy, and he failed miserably. But Romney tries to use Jack Kennedy, a political icon, no matter whether you agree with his politics or not, with a certain cynicism in my view. I’m offended that he uses Jack Kennedy, and I suppose that’s a visceral reaction on may part, offended by a man who has flip flopped on religious issues just to get votes, something Jack never did. Mitt here is trying to hitch his own reputation to a star of our political firmament, and that’s just dishonest, as is his flip flopping.

After ducking the questions of what his religion is about, after ducking the notion of the power of the First President of the Mormon religion, Romney quickly skips to discuss the notion of religion in our public life. And he’s a complete sop to the evangelicals here, claiming, by implication, that we should have Christian symbols dominating our public spaces.

“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.

“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.

What God, Mitt? Are we talking about your God? Are we talking about the God of the Trinity, which your religion does not recognize, or are we talking of the God of the Mayans? You are too timid to say anything about that, Mitt Romney, as you are too timid to say anything about your respect for particular Americans who believe differently from you. No comments about Jews here. No comments about atheists, or even those of us Christians who fervently believe in peace and respect for all American citizens, which your Flip flops, Mitt Romeny, have belied. Yeah, I’m talking about gay citizens, Mitt, and the fact that my religion, and that our constitution guarantees the rights of all citizens to pursue their rights to happiness. For gay citizens, many of whom are God-fearing and God-loving, believe their aspirations to love their partners, to adopt and raise children morally and ethically, are discriminated by your religion, Mitt Romney, and you need to address that, unless, of course, you intend to merely pander to the Republican Religious Right. But Mitt Romeny, in the complete lack of wisdom of this speech, ignores issues, just as he ignores spelling out the details about his Mormon religion.

I’m particularly offended by Romeny abusing the religious nature of Philadelphia’s role in our notions of religious freedom in our country. I live here. I know that Franklin was a Deist, who believed in a God, but not that any particular religion had the correct call to God. And I believe in Jefferson, whose Declaration was written here. Romney’s speech lampoons these founding fathers, to my view, and as such he shoudl be seen as a man who merely wants to be all things to all people, in the worst notion of politicians. These words should offend the evangelicals:

“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.

“Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments’, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

“Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

“And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God … they founded this great nation.

What a cynical use of my Philadelphia heroes. Each one of those men believed in God, I’ll warrant. Many of them, Quakers, believed in peace. Romney, from his stances on Iraq, shows nothing about that. Every one of them believed in the full freedom of all Americans to believe that as they will, and Romney, with his flip flops on abortion and gay rights shows a very ambiguous sense of whether Americans and their own faith will be respected.

Of course, the most notable thing here is the contrast between Jack Kennedy and Mitt Romney. Jack was certain to say that the Bishops and Pope of his religion, Catholicism, would not rule his decisions. Mitt Romney gives us no details about his own religion, not even to the extent of identifying who that hierarchy who rules it is. Why? He’s afraid to detail that, as I said before.

What a disappointing speech, but I guarantee Mitt Romney will get good press out of this one.