Though I do think it’s appropriate to ask Romney, “Given that you were previously a religious leader— a Mormon bishop— how can we trust that you’re ready to lead the nation in a purely secular fashion, not privledging the religious over the non-religious, or favoring those who are closer to you in religion?” I think his honest answer would be that he doesn’t actually want to lead in a secular fashion and that he wants to break down the barrier between church and state more.

To quote him:

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 is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

…

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.

…

It’s really stupid to say that you’re going to separate the affairs of government from any religion, while endorsing having god present in the government in many ways. It’s also dishonest.

Romney doesn’t, apparently, consider atheists to be real Americans, either.