Not quite a declaration of religious tolerance

How pathetic is it that, in his big speech on why religion shouldn't be a factor in whether or not voters choose to support his presidential candidacy, Mitt Romney found it necessary to throw raw meat to the God-botherers?

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. ...

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. ...

[I]n 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.

Oh for crying out loud. That's not quite, "I believe what I believe, but it's a personal matter. I don't intend to force my beliefs upon others just as I don't want them to force their beliefs upon me."

For some reason, Romney felt obligated to specifically assure the religious bigots that he's one of them, not like those nasty non-Christians or (worse) atheists.

Contrast this with ... oh ... how about Thomas Jefferson?

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

If you're really going to say that religion shouldn't matter, say it shouldn't matter -- don't say, "I'm all right, not like those other guys."