Laboratories for What?

I just finished what passes for discussion with a few people online over on an NPR comment thread. A story that was nominally about the amendment to the Arizona Religious Freedom Act got the ball rolling, though the law described in the comments bears little resemblance to the one that was passed by the state legislature or ultimately vetoed by the governor. If truth is the first casualty of war, then the liberals must believe they are in a battle for their survival. Or, they can get away with saying anything without the media calling them on it, whichever.

There were several disheartening aspects to the discussion, but one that struck me as particularly sad pertained to the first amendment and the establishment clause. The person that I was disagreeing with (debate is far too disciplined a term) was convinced that Christianity could not have had a significant impact on the founding of the nation. I pointed out to him, truthfully, that the framers of the Constitution asserted that the document would only work for a Christian people. It was unsuitable for any other society. At this point, he seemed extremely skeptical. His evidence was the first amendment itself. How could a group of people with so much faith in Christianity not establish it as the state religion, and even go so far as to assure that it could be done in the future (without an amendment)?

Jesus wept.

I have no idea whether the fault is that history is no longer taught or if liberalism is simply that good at eradicating all traces of memory. Either way, it presents a discouraging state of affairs. Here was a person who simply could not imagine people forming a government and not wanting to impose their will upon present and future generations. It wasn't really a surprise, given the earlier comments he had made. He was quite open about his opinions that any religious person unwilling to serve at any position for sake of conscience should be prepared for hefty government penalties, all the while denying any use of force or involuntary servitude. It was a trip into cognitive dissonance that still has my ears ringing.

There was a time when it was taught that the states were to be "laboratories for democracy." Each was to have the maximum allowable freedom to experiment in this new land, and see for themselves what worked, without interference from a central government that had no place in their day to day lives. Successful experiments would be rewarded with prosperity, and the certain knowledge that many would rush to join their state and partake of their excellent system. Other states would view their success, and be encouraged to adopt the best practices as their own, with the idea eventually the worst practices would be abandoned altogether.

It might have worked. If the statists hadn't worked through the courts, it might have worked.

As it is, the federal government now has standardized many things it was never intended to deal with at all. Rather than allowing states to decide their own remedies, Washington encourages dependence on itself, using the states' own money to force compliance with the worst practices. It's not looking good for the American spirit. The laboratory isn't closed, not quite, but a lot of the space is gathering dust. Outside, the night grows darker while a few hopeful people work by candle, and pray for a light to show the way.