Romney is a firm believer in the separation of church and state.
Wants to supress free speech? Nonsense.
From what objective and secular logic does he determine that pornography and allegedly violent or offensive TV shows should be censored?
That's right... he's proposing that we legislate his religious beliefs into government policy which affects everyone. The ad clearly states that he wants to improve the culture of America based on his religious views.
If you want to see real attacks on his religion though, how about the fact that Mormonism is a cult that was started by a drunken adulterer and lunatic who tricked people into thinking he could read Egyptian heiroglyphics from a bunch of tablets with special glasses that only he had access to? Or the fact that the church he started makes decisions overturning their past polygamy, racism, and sexism only when suddenly politically expedient?
You see, his church is a complete fraud and sham, but again, what matters here is that he wants to legislate religious beliefs into public policy.
The secular argument is that violence and sex in the media leads to kids becoming more violent and having more sex, and therefore we have a responsibility to regulate the amount of indecency in the culture. This is a secular argument Romney is making. His premise, that violence and sex on TV leads to kids having more sex and being more violent, is almost universally endorsed by experts in the field. The American Psychiatric Association tells us that violent video games, TV shows, and movies lead to kids behaving violently. Are the members of the American Psychiatric Association religious zealots also? To say that the only argument in favor of regulating indecency is religious when the nation's premier mental health organization says there is perfectly secular reason for concern shows that you have no interest in engaging with the facts.
Not only is there a secular argument to be made here, the argument is hardly novel. Ever hear of the Federal Communications Commission?
As for the rest of your post, it is plainly objectionable that you would attack Mitt Romney's faith by launching a proxy attack on the founders of his religion. You know that you can't make a credible attack on Romney's own religious views, which are well inside the American mainstream, so you launch a broadside against Brigham Young and Joseph Smith hoping to succeed in playing a guilt by association game. Its disgusting, frankly.
