John F. Kennedy's speech (text here) began by saying there were more important issues in the campaign than his religion. This set the tone for his speech which was very forceful and unapologetic. Kennedy would later bring up his military service and his brother's death in combat as examples of his undivided loyalty. Finally, Kennedy's second to last paragraph was basically, `if I lose, you'll all show the world what a bunch of bigots Americans are'

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.

The tone of Romney's was markedly less unapologetic--it was mostly forceful at the point Romney defended his beliefs, but not all Americans' personal beliefs.

Romney's speech almost immediately begins with talking about radical Islam. How ironic is it that in a speech on religious tolerance, Romney would begin by declaring America at war with an extreme religious belief? Contrast this to Kennedy who stressed the idea of the slippery slope of persecution of religious beliefs: "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."

A critical difference between Romney and Kennedy was the separation of church and state. Kennedy said this should be "absolute." Romney addresses the issue by saying what the Righties want to hear:

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.

Why? What's wrong? Is the public square the place to make religious statements? If so, I want a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster next to every nativity scene in America.

Romney then said, "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government."

You know, I wonder if God has a gift receipt, because a lot of men had to kill other men in order to redeem that 'gift.' Also, the Founders who believed in religious freedom were the "government." So I would say that it is an "indulgence of government" rather than a "gift of God." But then I guess I wouldn't qualify as an American, in Romney's eyes.

Another interesting difference I noted was that Kennedy talked at length about the Catholic Church, whereas Romney mentioned the word `Mormon' only once, focusing more on his own personal morality.

What does this all translate to? Kennedy drew a line in the sand and stood by his principles--that religion and government shouldn't mix, ever. Romney's speech took parts of Kennedy's speech and tried to make it comport with the elements of the Religious Right who want religious beliefs expressed in the public square. Needless to say, it didn't work.

Crossposted at the Liberal Journal and Worldwide Sawdust