Mitt Romney got it wrong in his well-publicized speech about “Faith in America.” A neutral, non-religious, constitutional government—which Romney incorrectly derided as a secular religion—protects Mormons against discrimination much better than would Romney’s government of faith.

According to Romney, an unidentified “they” have established a new religion of secularism that governs American political life. Building on that foundation, Romney then argued that this secular establishment discriminates against people of faith and unfairly prevents real religion from playing its appropriate role at the center of American life.  Refusing to be silenced by the secularists, Romney proclaimed that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind” in an effort to persuade evangelical voters that a Mormon candidate is Christian enough to deserve the presidency of the United States.

Romney’s argument was politically shrewd but legally and morally incorrect. The speech was shrewd because Americans generally oppose discrimination and support the right of those who suffer discrimination to equal participation. With his lecture, Romney joined a chorus of Christians who have argued that American legal and political culture discriminates against religious people by establishing a “culture of disbelief.” To combat that alleged discrimination against faith, Romney vigorously declared his own Christianity and promised more faith-friendly policies. The secularists have had their moment, the speech explained, but now it is time for religion to reclaim the public square.

The word secular has become the problem, blinding Romney to the importance of neutral, non-religious government according to the First Amendment. Romney suggested that secularism is an anti-religious ideology that needs to be replaced by religion if freedom is to prevail. “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. . . . Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone,” he argued. Romney’s reasoning was confused. Some “secular” governments—like Stalin’s Soviet Union—were oppressive, as were Afghanistan’s religious government under the Taliban as well as the Christian states from which the Puritans and Quakers fled to America. The Framers of the Constitution recognized that freedom requires a government in which no ideology or religion imposes its tenets on citizens who do not share that belief.

It is easier to see Romney’s mistake if we replace the word secular with neutral. The First Amendment establishes a neutral government, which does not favor religion or any one religion. That constitutional framework is not a religion of any kind, secular or otherwise; it creates a political system in which no religion dominates. That neutral model stands in stark contrast to the government recommended by Romney, in which religion is required, Christianity is favored, and the non-religious are ignored, all on the basis of opposition to a spurious secular religion.

Mislabeling neutral government as a secular religion opened the door for Romney to focus his speech on how good a Christian he is and to attempt to attract Christian voters on the basis of Christian principles. Romney’s approach also allows Mike Huckabee to campaign as a Christian leader who asks, “Don’t Mormons [like Romney] believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” And it forces Barack Obama to spend more time in Christian churches to quiet unfounded rumors that he is really a Muslim. And so forth. As these examples suggest, discrimination is more likely when the candidates run on their religion than when they support a neutral government. Candidates who oppose neutral government usually do so because they want their own religion to win.