WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney's highly anticipated religion speech yesterday was a political tour de force, rejecting the notion that he'd be bound as president by the leaders of his Mormon Church but also placing his faith among the many religions that constitute the "moral heritage" of the United States.
The speech, delivered with soaring rhetoric and an air of authority, had elements that appealed to those who want a strict separation of church and state and to those who yearn for more religious values in what Romney called "the public square."
Yet the speech was aimed at neither of those groups - or any particular coalition or bloc - but rather at all the people of the United States. With its breadth of spirit, it was the most presidential moment of the 2008 campaign.
"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?" Romney said. "They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united."
Beyond saying he believed in Jesus Christ as the son of God and the savior of mankind, Romney drew the line at discussing specific tenets of his faith - the Pandora's box many political analysts had worried Romney would open in a speech on religion.
The omission will surely strike some Romney critics as a dodge - a way of avoiding a public laundering of doctrinal differences between Mormons and evangelicals. There was never any political gain for Romney in such an airing of doctrines, but he convincingly presented his resistance to do so as a matter of principle.
"There are those who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines," Romney said. "To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
John C. Green, a leading scholar of religion and politics, put it this way: "He decided not to address one type of issue - religious disagreements - but he offered alternative reasons to support his candidacy: common moral values and agreement that faith should play a positive role in politics."
Green said Romney sought to evoke America's tradition of "civil religion" - the idea that the country is based on certain values "under God" that transcend particular denominations.
"In America we can have separation of church and state, but not separation of religion and politics," Green said. "Romney expressed that view very, very effectively in his speech."
Romney sought to demystify Mormonism by placing it among the denominations that defined America's common values. He also found good words to say about evangelical Christians, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostal Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
The pledge of fidelity to America's religious heritage probably alarmed those who believe in a total separation of church and state, but he made clear that he was talking about relatively uncontroversial matters such as putting "under God" on money and allowing multiple religious symbols - such as mangers and menorahs - on public land. There was no mention of flashpoints such as abortion or school prayer.
He also made clear that no church leaders, of his faith or others, should hold sway over a president's decisions in public office. By making such an assertion, he put to rest the most relevant concern about his faith - that it could bind him in ways that would affect his presidency.
Romney's decision to deliver the speech was made after the rise of a key rival - former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas - who is an ordained Baptist minister and has strong support among evangelicals in Iowa, a state Romney has staked out as his own territory. Thus, many observers felt the speech would be geared toward wooing social conservatives to his side.
But Romney steered clear of any overt references to his political agenda, aiming instead to produce a manifesto on the proper role of religion in political life.
His willingness to take on such a task - and his success in drawing broadly acceptable boundaries on such a highly contentious issue - is itself an act of leadership.
For a candidate who has repeatedly been assailed for changing positions and cynically embracing concerns-of-the-moment like illegal immigration, yesterday's speech was a step forward - the work of a statesman, not a cynic.
