Spot on old boy.

Teddy, old chap, I think Andrea is a female, wouldn't you guess? Andrea's thesis is that Mitt shouldn't give the "religion speech" because it would draw too much attention to Mormon doctrinal issues and detract from his political message. Romney would essentially become the Mormon candidate rather than the Republican candidate. It may already be too late for that. Still, I agree that he shouldn't give the speech, but for a different reason. Since he and I share the same religion but differing political views, I would prefer that he not become a spokesman for LDS doctrine. I find certain aspects of his political ideas in conflict with my own understanding of LDS principles, so the less he says about the church the better.

The focus of Kennedy's speech was the old prejudice that Catholics were unthinking robots who took orders from the Pope. He asserted that he would not govern as a Catholic but as an American. He decreased his "Catholicness". In the intervening decades we have learned that there was never much risk that Kennedy would worry about obedience to his church's expectations for behavior.

The criticisms of Mormons that have been extended by some people to Romney are focused not on concerns about Gordon B. Hinckley telling him what to do, but rather on Mormons believing strange things and therefore being suspected of lack of intelligence or judgment.

I think that Romney should make a speech, but the focus should be on the American tradition of religious liberty and toleration. He can then cite the LDS doctrines on that issue as examples of the proper relationship between church and state in America, including total freedom of worship for all creeds guaranteed by government, obedience to government authority, and belief that America has been blessed with its freedom (endowed by our Creator) and has served an historical role as a liberator of other nations, including Japan and Germany and Eastern Europe.

Romney should avoid a speech that says "Mormons really are nice and not weird", because it would reinforce a concept of him being a minority person rather than a leader of all Americans. A speech that centers on the concept of preserving religious freedom and tolerance, while affirming that his heritage as a Mormon reinforces those American ideals, will portray Mormonism as a source of idealism and integrity that he can take with him into the White House.

Romney's Mormon heritage means he will protect everyone's religious freedom. That should be the message anytime someone asks a "Mormon question".

Raymond -- Good point. I agree. The only purpose of a "religious" speech by Romney should be to affirm that he will not take political marching orders from Salt Lake (matched by a statement by the Church that it would not try to give any such direction). Aside from that, he might just say that the Church is the faith of his fathers, that he would never sacrifice it for political advantage (maybe comparing himself favorably with Henry of Navarre and his "Paris is worth a Mass" cynicism), and that he is grateful the American tradition of religious tolerance doesn't require him to make such a choice.

If I were Romney I wouldn't talk about the LDS church and the idea of the separation of church and state. There has not been a lot of talk nationally about the lack of such separation in Utah (as compared to other states), but this would certainly become a bigger issue if attention was drawn to it. This would probably play as a positive in the Republican primary but would be a big negative in the general election. People in battleground states would find the ideas of release time to visit the seminaries adjacent to our public schools and the cozy relationship between our colleges and the institute to be a little strange and uncomfortable. The offensive points of the Proclamation on the Family could drive away women voters. This wouldn't be important if Church statements couldn't easily be seen as political statements, but the support drive for the anti-gay marriage amendment put an end to the idea that they are separate.
Romney would be best laying low or at least making statements about freedom of religion and respect for other faiths from his personal perspective (to establish himself as an individual) rather than from an LDS perspective.

Release time is unique to Utah. In CA, where I went to High School, I got out of bed at 5am, to be in my seminary class by 6am. We did not have dedicated buildings across from the High School. We went to our ward building. I would have liked to have had that type of refuge from the rigors of High School. I think Romney does not need to talk about his faith. Clinton talked all the time about his faith, even was photographed carrying his bible to and from church. Yet, he still cheated on his wife. So, let's keep religion out of race.

Yes, it is Utah that has a problem, not the LDS church in general. It is Utah that would be held up as an example of how the LDS church and separation of church and state are not exactly synonymous. If we had more California and Nevada mormons in Utah it would probably be less of a problem.
As for release time, when I was in high school I would have liked to have a period off to get high and think about spiritual things. They didn't give me that in California either.

I can't conceive of voting for any of the Republicans (except possibly Ron Paul) in the presidential election. But just case, if Romney ends up the Republican nominee I would like to know to what degree his theology will influence his foreign policy in the middle east with respect to Israel, the Palestinians, and the Islamic world. It's a fair question.

Lew Jeppson,
Probably not as much as Bush's theology (corporate evangelical?) has.

Romney's religious views are not the point. His radical changes in viewpoint/ideology are going to beat him to death.

People can't trust someone that has changed so much when it appears the changes were for political advantage.

This isn't a case of a religion making a candidate look bad, but one of a candidate unable to convince voters that he, the candidate, knows who he is, politically or religiously.

How could any practicing Mormon describe polygamy as "disgusting?" So Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were disgusting? Or was this a statement based on political expediency?

I think Andrea and Gopherus, are right. There are plenty of people that know who the Mormons are, and are not afraid of them. A speech would not convince the bigots that hate Mormons to change. I think most Americans would appreciate it, if religion were not part of presidential politics.

Liberty,
Of course Smith and Young were disgusting in that aspect of their lives. We can excuse them, partially, because they thought it was right and lived in a different time. We know better now. A polygamist today is much more vile than a polygamist 150+ years ago.

Religion aside: I wish Mitt would crawl back under his rock. What a plastic persona. He gives Clinton relative integrity.