This is no JFK moment, but neither was the divisive farce America witnessed yesterday from the least principled politician possibly ever to attempt the presidency in my lifetime of voting eligibility.

I was raised in a household where my father was an ex-Catholic and my mother was an occasionally observant Jew. As a child, I enjoyed celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah long before I was aware of how much strife organized religion had caused and would continue to cause the country and the world over. I know the Hanukkah blessing in Hebrew, and I know the story of Judah Maccabee. When I’m able, I still help trim the tree after Thanksgiving. And to this day, I celebrate both holidays with my family. But I do not have a Christmas tree up at my own house, and I do not practice either religion that informed my heritage. And apparently, I do not belong in Mitt Romney’s America.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

Romney, against the wishes of some of his advisers, and presumably in an attempt at a counterpoint to the surging Mike Huckabee (a Baptist minister, a true Christian in a conservative America where truth - conservatism, Christianity, conviction - is of utmost importance), in Iowa, South Carolina, and elsewhere, decided he had to magick away his Mormonism, like the political prestidigitator that he is. “Yes,” he says, “I know how to say Jesus and offer generic biblically-based platitudes.” “And yes,” he continues, “secularism is the greatest evil the world has ever known. You and I, my Christian brothers, must stand together and affirm our (we know that Jews and Muslims and Buddhists will come around and just admit that we all have the same) God in this godless realm.” Romney’s speech was not only patently offensive to non-believers but to practitioners of non-Christian religions as well. Religious tolerance does not entail a proclamation of your beliefs about Jesus Christ without being followed by a question: “What are your beliefs? For without knowing them, I cannot challenge my own.” But no spirit of inquiry is present in Romney’s convenient, spotlight-harvesting address.

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.

And besides his intolerance, Romney betrayed a willful ignorance, as well. He was incredibly off-base in his juxtaposition of the Founding Fathers with keeping “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance or “in God we trust” on our currency. These were latter day (pun intended) devices of the Christian right of this country put into place during the Red Scare and the height of McCarthyist anti-Communist tendencies because the Communists were *gasp* atheists. Our original pledge and our original currency didn’t explicitly seek to use our state rituals and apparatus to force nonobservant citizens to observe.

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

And, ultimately, Romney didn’t even do anything to persuade me or anyone else that Mormonism is a religion worth considering a part of the mainstream. What, after all, is the deal with the golden plates? How are the doctrines of faith in this church sufficient to prevent it from being considered a cult, more like Christianity than Scientology? What, after all, is religion? When should it be recognized and respected rather than ridiculed and repulsed?

I fully recognize that there are going to be people of faith fully uncomfortable with my open skepticism and secularism. And I will have to point to my track record as a person of peace, of tolerance, and principle - a person who shares the “American values” Romney outlines - in order to be convincing that I have a moral code. I recognize this as a serious and legitimate challenge.

I think one of the greatest debates that can ever happen and will ever happen is the uncomfortable relationship between church and state. I’ve had many variants of this discussion through the years, and I know that I will have more. But Romney isn’t interested in exploring this issue thoughtfully; he’s interested in a wink and a nod to the religious right, attempting to wolf his way into their midst with his speech of lambcloth, all the while provoking the ire of a considerable minority of Americans like me. Romney’s speech should be seen for what it is: cheap, unprincipled pandering to a base that Karl Rove has successfully convinced all Republican candidates they need in order to get elected: 4 million evangelicals. If The Barna Group is right, and atheists make up 10% of Americans compared to the 8% that are evangelical, where is the pandering on my behalf?

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t begrudge Mitt Romney his right to run for president as a Mormon. Or to practice his religion. I don’t begrudge anyone those rights. What I resent is Romney’s cynical attempt to portray himself as a man of faith who is *wink* one of you while setting himself apart from me, the godless heathen, who seeks stronger protection for the rights of someone like Romney than he clearly does for mine.

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.

But my religion is not secularism, as Romney accuses me and other non-observers of practicing. My religion is the Constitution of the United States of America. I can’t think of anything more patriotic or inclusive.

This post was written by Freddie