Romney's Religious Test

Mitt Romney's widely anticipated speech on his LDS faith proved to be a monologue on religion's supposed indivisible role in American government and society. Among others are these nuggets:

"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."
Oh? There are a multitude of non-religious people out there who seek freedom with a passion equal to, at least, that of any religious person. In fact, many such non-religious folk can be more passionate about guaranteeing those freedoms to others of minority faiths or no faith at all.

"I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."
But he will, apparently, put the doctrine of religiosity above those "plain duties."

And this,
"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. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

And what is the "original meaning" to which he refers? Article VI of the Constitution says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Now Romney, I'm guessing, must subscribe to the "original intent" camp. Article VI is clear enough. What, then, is this about "the religion of secularism"?
This falsehood which has permeated the land is not a "religion" by negation but a reflection of that original intent. Romney says, as if it's an affront, "religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life."
By public life, I take his meaning to be regarding public policy. If so, then yes. Unqualifiedly, yes. He (and so many others) ought to consider the words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As a newly-minted staunch conservative, Romney ought to consider that a successful government is one that doesn't impose religious belief (no matter how benign) on its citizens. It's also one that doesn't drive to the margins those whose beliefs fall well outside the majority.
It would be remarkable that anyone could not see the danger implicit in Romney's speech. This is particularly so given the current global environment. Romney hasn't been excluded as a participant in public life because of his belief. The shame of it is that by seeking to prove his Republican credentials, he rhetorically excludes others not like himself.
That's a fine way to demonstrate fitness for office.