While the media watches and wonders what Mitt Romney will have to say tomorrow in his “religion speech”, at least one person is taking the time and trouble to remind us that there are significant political and theological differences between Romney and the man to whom he is being closely compared, John Kennedy:

In 1960, Kennedy had already won the Democratic nomination and, as a Catholic, faced a phalanx of religious groups working publicly against his election. Among them was Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which was opposed in principle to any Catholic as president. An Episcopal bishop, James A. Pike of California, was its best-known spokesman.

Five days before Kennedy’s speech, moreover, a group of prominent Protestant clergymen headed by Norman Vincent Peale and L. Nelson Bell, the editor of Christianity Today and father-in-law of Billy Graham (Mr. Graham himself backed out at the last minute), mobilized the National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom specifically to block Kennedy’s bid. In addition, the Baptist state conventions in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona and Texas had already voted to oppose any Catholic candidate for president. In short, Kennedy knew his adversaries, some of whom were seated right in front of him.

Mr. Romney, in contrast, faces no organized religious opposition he can allude to, no anti-Mormon campaign he can shame — as Kennedy adroitly did — for blatant religious bigotry. On the contrary, most Americans still do not know much about the Mormon Church, and many of them are willing to accept Mr. Romney’s assertion that Mormons are Christians, albeit of a highly unorthodox kind. Unlike Kennedy, he has no ready audience to convince.

In 1960, Protestants who opposed a Catholic in the White House had specific issues Kennedy could address. One was aid to parochial schools, which Kennedy opposed. Another was religious liberty, to which the Catholic Church did not give its official support until Vatican Council II in 1965. Indeed, according to John McGreevy, a historian at Notre Dame, Kennedy’s office had to consult with the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray to find out whether a Catholic could “support, in principle, the religion clauses of the Constitution.” Murray assured him that he could.

There are no such issues facing Mr. Romney. Mormons, having experienced government persecution for their beliefs and practices (especially the early practice of polygamy) are strong supporters of religious liberty and opposed on principle to accepting government funds for their institutions. If Mr. Romney wants to counter issues and false assumptions, he will have to bring them up himself.

Paradoxically, Kennedy was an indifferent Catholic, which is why there really was no reason to fear that he would take orders from the pope. Even the liberal Father Murray thought Kennedy went too far in declaring the total separation of his religion from public life. It was an extreme and ultimately untenable stance he thought he had to take.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, has been a Mormon pastor and the equivalent of a Catholic bishop. Moreover, he is campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination at a time when candidates from both parties are expected to detail how their religion informs their politics — and answer to the news media if they refuse. Kennedy was spared having to explain Catholic doctrines that never mattered much to him. Mr. Romney’s challenge is to avoid talking about controversial Mormon doctrines that to him matter very much indeed.

Meantime, David Kuo has some important points to make on the subject, as well:

What Mitt Romney is trying to do is something radically different whether he realizes it or not.

What Mitt Romney is trying to do is to legitimate a tiny religion in a political context. No speech can ever accomplish that end.

In 1960, nearly 30% of Americans were Catholic. Today fewer than 2% of American are Mormon. More importantly, the fundamental tenets of Mormonism are not compatible with 2,000 years of Christian theology. This is NOT a statement of religious intolerance, it is a statement of theological fact. Mormon theology is in opposition to such basic Christian creeds like the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Mormonism uses the language of Christianity but it is not a Christian religion.

It isn’t even close. And in church after church this coming Sunday morning, pastors will be giving sermons talking about Mormonism – not because they have any stake in the outcome of the primary battle but because they will want to help their congregations understand the theological realities of this political debate. They will talk about Joseph Smith and about Kolob and Oliblish and, yes, special Mormon undergarments.

That is Mitt Romney’s problem. His faith is his problem.

Mormonism does not have the historic roots of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It does not have the historic roots of Hinduism or Buddhism. It is a faith that is younger than America. Americans are deeply, deeply suspicious about it.

And Mitt Romney cannot and will not talk about his faith in such details as to convince Americans it is a mainstream faith.

Whatever happens tomorrow, this will be interesting to watch. Very interesting.

UPDATE: Now that Romney has spoken, you can read some coverage and watch what he had to say at this link.

You can also read the text of the speech.