I always hear people speak about the “spirit” of the second amendment right to bear arms. Anti-gun activists claim that it was intended simply to provide protection against enemies, presumably the British, during a time when no strong, national army existed. Fair enough. Why then does that same “spirit” not apply to the first amendment freedom of religion? I just read yet another article about how the ACLU has filed a lawsuit and won against a town that chose to put a sign up in Franklinton, Louisiana, that said, in this case, “Jesus is Lord of Franlinton”. Here’s the argument: wasn’t that amendment to the Constitution enacted to stop tyranically, oppressive rule over people? Wasn’t it designed to keep Americans free from having religion imposed on them, to keep them from having to be part of a religion under duress? By all accounts this small town in Louisiana does believe that Jesus is their lord; their population is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100% Protestant. The sign was paid for with private funds and not taxpayer money. It was on public property, but it didn’t hurt anyone, it simply offended some who drove through the town. Rights exist to protect people from serious threats. There is no freedom from being offended in the Constitution.Scott GoodwinClass of 2001