And this gets to why I find the entire scenario troubling: I simply do not believe that, in this instance, the theological views of the current crop of presidential candidates should matter in how they are viewed as a prospective president.

Don’t get me wrong: I understand very well that the theological divide between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and historic Protestant and Catholic Christianity is significant. This is one of the reasons why the Romney/Kennedy analogy makes no sense - - it’s a lot easier to connect Catholicism and, say, Evangelicalism, than it is to connect Mormonism with either of the other two.

But Romney is not campaigning to be our nation’s theologian-in-chief. And personally, I don’t look to a President or a would-be President for theological wisdom, anyway. I do, however, look for a would-be President to possess leadership capabilities, a solid grasp of the constitutional duties entailed in the presidency, and a well-defined moral compass. And Romney seems to possess all of these, in good measure.

But despite all the furor over Romney, he’s not the problem. The real problem is that far too many Americans apparently don’t grasp that “values” can transcend theological belief systems, and that some values are universal.

Thus is the case with Romney and me. I don’t embrace his theology, and I never will. But his values, so far as I can know them, seem to be consistent with mine, and I would not be uncomfortable in the least to call him President.

As our nation continues to become more culturally and religiously pluralistic, Americans will increasingly be required to think more critically, and more rationally, with respect to these kinds of “faith and values” dilemmas.

In the meantime, Governor Romney is doing the best he can in an awkward situation, a situation brought about by other people’s short-sidedness.