Dear Editor:
Seth Johnson's line of reasoning that a liberal should not have an opinion on who becomes the next pope is specious at best. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to require a "wall of separation" between church and state; thus it not only prohibits government from adopting an official denomination or religion, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion. This - the separation of church and state - is what should prevent liberals from caring about the pope's political affiliation, suggests Johnson.
The next pope will not become president of the United States, nor will he pass any laws here that violate the First Amendment. Separation of church and state does not mean citizens of the United States should not hope that world leaders who share their views be elected. ÿJohnson either does not understand what separation of church and state is or he threw it in his article in an attempt to tarnish one of the founding principles and hoped no one literate would notice how it renders his argument nonsensical.
Johnson goes on to suggest that the picking of the next pope should be left to the red birds, implying that the analysts, panelists and theologians' opinions would somehow decide who the next pope would be. I am fairly sure this is untrue and the Cardinals came to their decision without the help of CNN.
In both of these cases - his desire that liberals not have vocal stances about the political affiliation of the pope and his unhappiness with people other than cardinals suggesting who the next pope should be - Johnson seems to be bothered by people having opinions.
Jason Scotti AU Alumnus CAS
