Mitt Romney answered many questions in his speech Thursday on "Faith in America."

But he raised a few as well, and we foresee a day when he will need to answer -- more clearly and forcefully, and for a wider audience -- what he thinks about the relationship between church and state.

On Thursday, the Republican presidential hopeful mainly addressed the concerns of some evangelical voters about his LDS faith. He spoke well in highlighting the role of religion in his life and in the nation's history, while demonstrating that his faith fits squarely in the American tradition of tolerance and pluralism.

Yet some critics said the former Massachusetts governor was fuzzy and seemed to exclude secularists from his rousing picture of how religion has enriched America and helped preserve our freedoms.

Romney could have made a sharper distinction between the roles of government and religion. He also could have stated clearly that while religion has shaped the nation, you don't have to believe in God to be included in the American vision. We are a secular nation that embraces all -- people of faith and those with none at all.

Government must be utterly neutral in matters of religion, which means avoiding the appearance of favor toward a religious view. Icons favoring a religion should be left out of all aspects of American government.

If you disagree, consider the following: A few years ago a judge raised a furor by posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as if to say that they superseded state law. No problem, you sayfi Then answer honestly: How would you feel if you were accused of a serious crime and a Muslim judge had posted parts of Islamic sharia law -- say the parts ordering the subjection of infidels and calling Jews apes and pigs -- behind the benchfi If you're not a Muslim, and especially if you were Jewish, you wouldn't like it.

This point applies to all manner of manifestations of religion in the mechanics of government. People who do not subscribe to any religious view should not be marginalized by a dominant majority with a Judeo-Christian orientation. Government property belongs as much to atheists as it does to believers.

Religion and morality have played an essential role in American history, as Romney pointed out. But they have done so by influencing the hearts, minds and consciences of the people, not by dictating laws or commandeering jointly owned official assets.

Romney stated forcefully that as president he would not take orders from Salt Lake City. This was met with a sneer by Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson, who told KSL Newsradio that Romney is pandering to conservative Christians.

"For any member of the LDS Church to say that they could disregard the leadership of the church, on basic issues that the church is taking a position on, I think is absolutely disingenuous," Anderson said.

We hate to agree with Anderson, but he's right. Romney left himself open to such an attack because he failed to follow through the way that John F. Kennedy did in 1960 when he said he wouldn't take marching orders from the Vatican. Kennedy closed the loop.

Romney: "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

Kennedy: "I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

"But if the time should ever come (and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible) when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

Romney made a point, but Kennedy made his unmistakably.

If Romney's tone was too soft in this instance, in other areas he went too far. In praising the connection between liberty and religion, he commented on an ever more secular Europe and its empty cathedrals. But, as the Washington Post pointed out in an editorial, those societies have prospered as secular democracies.

Then Romney noted: "The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches." He should have emphasized that point more. After all, it was precisely the avoidance of church-state entanglement that allowed religion to flourish in this country. Romney's image of "a symphony of faith" is vibrant and still true despite today's national creep toward godlessness.

Yes, some observers thought Romney's speech excluded non-religious people. Perhaps he should have taken more care to include them. But there are limits to speeches, and this one seemed aimed at one target audience. In other words, if you're an atheist, he wasn't talking to you, and what he did not say about the rights of atheists should not be taken as a signal that he believes you are unwelcome. That issue simply fell outside the scope of a speech whose object was to address the role of religion, not the role of secularism.

Romney might now consider a fireside chat aimed at atheists. Clearly, the nation has benefited greatly from skeptics who scorned organized religion, traditional teachings and the supernatural -- from Thomas Paine to Mark Twain to Clarence Darrow.

In our time, more and more people have joined their ranks. A study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that more than 3 percent of Americans described themselves as agnostics or atheists. Another 7 percent are secularists, who have no religious affiliation, and few or no religious beliefs.

If Romney does make it to the White House, more than 10 percent of the people he would govern fall outside the religious tradition he praises. We don't think for a moment that he intends to oppress or ignore atheists and secular humanists. But he really ought to explain his views about them more clearly.

He was right when he said that separating church from state does not require the removal of religion from public life -- if he meant the lives of the people. But he was wrong to suggest that religious symbology should be endorsed in any manner by government. Because the government belongs to everyone equally, it has a particular duty to remain strictly neutral. There is no room for tacit endorsements of a majority religious tradition, as our highest courts have properly and repeatedly ruled.

Strict separation prevents no one from worship and should not be feared. It is a pernicious myth that when government becomes free of religion, it must be antagonistic toward religion. In truth it is government's very neutrality that fosters confidence in liberty and justice for all, even infidels.

We agree with Romney that religion has an influential role to play in the political process. That is because people's core beliefs affect their desires and judgments. At the same time, religion does not belong overtly in our codes of law (though the code is clearly influenced by it), nor associated with public property.

At bottom, "created equal" means that the atheist has as great a claim to America as the most devout churchgoer.

As columnist Jonah Goldberg recently wrote, "Theology hasn't mattered that much to Americans. Mormons are a good example. Americans didn't want Utah to become a state because Mormon men took too many wives. Mormons dropped polygamy and -- bada bing -- Americans dropped their objections to statehood. ... It is the American way to care about what people do, not about what they think."

This belief was seeded at the beginning of the American experience. Since then, the nation has proceeded along the line that religion may influence government without becoming an explicit part of it.

It is a favorite pastime of some amateur historians to drop names and quotes of Christian leaders who helped create the nation and to conclude that America is therefore a "Christian nation." This is not true. The Founders were not a monolithic bloc; many were secular thinkers. And as a group they created a decidedly secular system.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, for example, helped prevent the adoption of Christianity as the national religion, as advocated by Patrick Henry and others. Later, in 1822, he wrote of the desirability of a "perfect separation" between church and state, noting that "religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."

His words apply equally to a Quran in a courtroom and to a Ten Commandments monument in a public park in Pleasant Grove.

We agree with Romney that religion and its underpinning morality have been wellsprings of what is good in America. But he would be well advised to expand on his remarks. He needs to explain why those without religion should be regarded as second-class citizens; or he needs to state clearly that the blessings of liberty are equally available to all people -- of every religion and of none.

Do you agree?