On the first point, it should be noted that Kennedy used the word "religion" twice and "faith" only once.  Romney, on the other hand, used the word "religion" twenty-five times and "faith" twenty-two times.  So much for the comparison.  For the record, "faith" is what you believe and "religion" is the social traditions by which you display that faith to others.  That's just a personal peeve of mine.  It's odd, though, that Kennedy could give such a stirring speach on defending religious freedom by drawing on other sources of rhetorical power, while Romney is linked solidly to those two words.  Of course, Kennedy was trying to show that he was truly independent of his faith and Romney is trying to show that he is intrinsically tied to his - and that those ties are, in fact, shared by evangelicals.

That's why Romney offers this line worthy of the "War on Christmas":

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.

Really?  So - the atheists that live here in America are not free?  The idea that religion requires freedom is, in fact, at odds with the majority of history and with the ongoing reality of many parts of our current world.  Are people in Iran not religious because they do not have freedom?  What of our ally, Saudi Arabia?  Religion has also survived in some of the most repressive examples of governance - many of the survivors of the Holocaust turned towards their faith to give them strength, and even risked their lives to observe their religion, yet they were, in no way, free.  As soon as the Soviet Union's ban on religion fell, the faithful sprang up as if they had never left - because they hadn't.  Again, at the risk of their lives, they continued to observe their religion as an underground resistance.  

Religion doesn't require freedom at all.  In fact, we remember the martyrs who gave their lives for their religion.  If Romney is ignorant to this, he must be aware of the fact that his own religion was persecuted in its infancy.  That alone displays the cynicism behind his statement.  

Romney goes on to say:

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's "political religion" — the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.

That is, to put it mildly, a crock.  The oath of office does not say, "I promise to God that I will..."  It says, "...so help me God."  The highest promise an individual makes to God is to earnestly strive to discern God's will in our lives and to follow it.  Nothing can ever rise above that promise, or it is a false promise.  The Presidential oath of office is a promise to the American people.  Confusing the two doesn't speak well for a person's ability to carry out either one.  What it does is make an idol of the American Constitution.  Of course, Romney is speaking to a group that has made that an article of faith anyway.  

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

Did he speak this without choking on it?  The man who ran as being "more liberal than Ted Kennedy" is now claiming he hates abortion and is against marriage equality.  

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.

 And this is totally irrelevant.  This is simply the proof that Romney is not trying to give a Kennedy-esque "I'll not be ruled by the religious hierarchy" speech.  He is giving a "I'm ruled by the same religious fanaticism as you" speech.  Kennedy didn't feel it necessary to address the infallibility of the Pope - a statement of religious creed.  I guess I've hammered home the difference between the men and their speeches enough, though.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.

Even when he's right, he's so wrong.  Why didn't he speak up for his fellow New Englander in '04 when John Kerry was under attack for his pro-choice record in direct conflict with the anti-abortion stance of the Catholic Church?  

And every candidate should be a spokesman for his faith.  It is that personal belief in what is right and wrong and why it is right or wrong that shapes the person who would hold office.  If a candidate can't speak honestly about that; then they have no business holding office at all.  

Nor is it off-limits to challenge a candidate's adherence, or lack of, to official church doctrine.  John Kerry's very public disagreement with the Catholic church over abortion rights was, in my opinion, a very good topic that Kerry never really spoke about openly.  Jimmy Carter's Baptist-based pacifism was laid aside (partially) when he handed out the Carter Doctrine.  To the extent that the Mormon Church has a position on political issues, it is a viable area of inquiry for public discussion.

Romney again:

I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.

Well, he's entitled to like whatever he wants about other people.  But I have a few Jewish friends that would be surprised to learn that their traditions are "unchanged through the ages".  You know, not a single one has participated in a religiously-required stoning.  And it's nice to know that Romney values saying your prayers over the other Five Pillars - especially the one where all wealth belongs to God and is only given to humans for stewardship (Zakah).  Does Romney get his impression of other faiths from the Cartoon Network or something?

Romney:

It's important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter, on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

What about us religious people who oppose the "right to life" movement?  Do we share a "common creed of moral convictions"?  Or is that particular rhetorical flourish just meant to smooth over the real differences in theology and creed that exist?  Real tolerance doesn't ignore differences, it honors and celebrates them.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.

Absolutely.  I can't wait for a Romney Presidency so I can bring back human sacrifice.  Of course, he would totally ban the public face of the Religious Right.  Or is he not being serious here?  Oh yeah, I forgot the message of the day: Pander whenever possible.

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.

 Yes, and we should tattoo it on our forehead and rear-ends, too.  But we should make sure we never observe Eid or Diwali.  Kwanzaa is right out.  Everyone who celebrates any holiday in December should damn well be content to hear "Merry Christmas, you heathen!"

Sorry, I'm beginning to gag on this stuff.

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. 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?

Yeah, I bet you'll get a lot of people who say, "HELL NO!  I hate equality, serving one another, and liberty!  Let's bring back slavery, second-class citizenry, and let every man, woman, and child fend for their self."  Moron.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government

Yet our Declaration of Independence says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".  Government is not an indulgence of government, but government is fundamentally necessary for liberty to exist.

A final quote from Romney:

I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty.

 Based on this speech, I'm not sure Romney does.  Either he is ignorant of our own heritage or he is purposely spinning it to appeal to the most authocratic conservative theologically-driven people he can find.

And, to the second part - that Romney doesn't think women should hold office - find a single use of the word "she" or "her".  Or look at this:

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.

This is either an underhanded swipe at Hillary Clinton, or an endorsement of patriarchy.  I grew up in a time when the masculine was an acceptable default for pronoun use - and it is true that no women has ever held the office - but in a contest where the front-running Democrat is a woman, it is a glaring omission.

My final verdict: Relegate this one to the trash heap of history.  It's an unremarkable job of pandering to the far right.