Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy is the president of The Interfaith Alliance, and host of State of Belief on Air America Radio.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's speech Thursday was more evidence to support what I have already thought about the use of faith in the presidential race.

The attention given to Romney's Mormon faith is unfortunately not the only example of the disproportionate role that religion has played in the 2008 presidential election. Senator John McCain has referred to the U.S. as a Christian nation, senators Clinton and Obama continue to work aggressively to secure the endorsements of clergy, and I am anxious to know what Rudy Giuliani promised Pat Robertson to receive his endorsement.

But this week, the story is about Mitt Romney and his speech. Romney sought to allay any fears that he will use the government to advance his religion or that his political decisions will be made on the basis of theology. Great. Now, I would like Romney to get on with talking about the issues on which the presidency should be decided-issues such as the economy, health care, war and terrorism.

Even before delivering the speech, comparisons were being made to John F. Kennedy's historic speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association during the 1960 election. That speech helped alleviate voters' doubts and concerns about the possibility of a Catholic president. The parallel was not lost on Romney, who referred to Kennedy in his speech, and I think he should be commended for saying, "I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

This election is not and should not be about any candidate's religion. Indeed, Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office. The Founders of our nation outlined a variety of qualifications for public office, including age, citizenship and residency. But they specifically exempted religion from qualifying or disqualifying a candidate. With brilliant prescience, the pragmatic visionaries anticipated an America with vast religious diversity. They knew the dangers of entanglement between the institutions of religion and government, and they sought to prohibit such dangers in a manner that protected the integrity of government and the sanctity of religion.

Romney's rhetoric was eloquent. Now what about his actions? Romney needs to pay heed to the warning he has sounded. So, let's watch. While in his speech Romney declared that religious doctrine should not determine public policy, a few lines later he articulated a ringing promise that his religious convictions would inform his political decisions if he is elected to sit in the Oval Office. He gave no hint of recognizing the rights and freedoms of people who embrace no religion. It's disappointing - although hardly unexpected - that certain sections of Romney's speech were designed to pander to the Religious Right. It also struck me as a cheap shot when he spoke out against those who would defend a high wall between church and state.

Whoever is elected president will stand in the great tradition of national leadership only by underscoring his or her commitment to the founders' vision and, thus, their commitment to assuring separation between the dictates of his religious faith, and the promise that every president must make to protect and defend the Constitution.

I do commend Romney for stressing the importance of religious freedom as a campaign issue. I hope his words will inspire and encourage other candidates to pledge their support to religious freedom as well and, along with Romney, to campaign in such a way that we have confidence that they have meant what they said.