This is all I can imagine we'll end up with. Some states are going to force religious laws on their population and others will not. People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states under religious law will continue to decline.
The same way states that push abstinence only sex-ed see higher rates of teenage pregnancy those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc.
> People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states will continue to decline.
People with resources will be able to evade the bans relatively easily or flee if they can't
Those with fewer resources will be less able to leave.
> those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc.
And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure.
> And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure.
Maybe this is something that will have to change. It all does risk bringing us closer to going back to when we were "these untied states" instead of "the untied states" though.
> those states under religious law will continue to decline.
Is there any evidence for this? I've met many people on this very site who live in "states under religious law" and the state is prosperous, with the added benefits of freedom and liberty compared to other states.
The same way states that push abstinence only sex-ed see higher rates of teenage pregnancy those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc.