BMRS Debate Breakdown with Blacksite Pod

Debate and Racism Apocalypse Special!

GOOD MORNING BALTIMORE! Blacksite Podcast loves you. Donald Trump says many more racist things. The Democrats Debate. And in local news – Salt Lake city mayoral race, Utah might get Medicaid expansion, and United Utah wants term limits. Sarah Bourne of Blue Mom Red State guests on this week’s episode of… BLACKSITE PODCAST!

Listen now!

 

 

Does Your Vote Really Matter?

 

Utah voters passed 3 progressive policies last November.

  • Prop 2 – legalizing the use of medical marijuana
  • Prop 3 – Expanding Medicaid health insurance
  • Prop 4 – an anti-gerrymandering measure

Utah voters also elected Republicans that are openly against legal marijuana, Medicaid and are pro-gerrymandering. Now, Utah voters are outraged that the newly elected Congressman are dismantling the Props that the people approved coming to the conclusion that your vote doesn’t matter. Is that actually true?

Islamophobia in America

 

American Islamophobia seems to be on the rise. Why? Learn about Islam and you’ll see there is no reason to be afraid at all. In this video, I compare Islam and Mormonism to illustrate just how much the two religions have in common. The Muslim vs Mormon comparison is particularly interesting to me because I live in Utah where Mormonism is the most commonly practiced religion.

The Mormon Church has a radical sect called FLDS that, to this day, practices polygamy. Grown men marry children, there’s widespread sexual abuse and many cases of incest all done with the claim that they are practicing the purest form of Mormonism. Because of this sect, many people who don’t know about Utah or the LDS church have many misconceptions about the faith and people that live here.

Muslims are experiencing the same phenomenon right now. There is a tiny radical sect of Islam that spreads terrorism causing many Muslim misconceptions.

People of Utah should be more sympathetic to a Muslims plight than most people because us Utahans deal with many misconceptions of our own. We understand better than most that one bad apple can ruin it for everyone.

Non-consensual Immorality

Wow, it is absurd to use these two words together. I was reading an article about the Mormon churches conference this past weekend wondering if they were going to address the recent allegations against a former MTC president. This is where I ran into the phrase ‘non-consensual immorality.’ This phrase was used in a talk by Quentin L. Cook, one of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. This was one of the only references to sexual misconduct in the whole conference.

Using that phrase implies that the victim, you know the one that isn’t consenting to said act, in that moment is not being moral. So, to put it in more frank terms, the woman that gets raped committed a non-consensual immorality implying that she is no longer moral. Non-consensual immorality was condemned, yet he reminded the crowd that consensual immorality must also be condemned. In doing this, he lumped all participants, rapist/victim and consensual sexual partners, into the same sinful pile. This makes no sense.

I’m flabbergasted that a leader of such an influential institution would say something like that. It is the obligation of a moral leader to explicitly state that sexual assault has no moral bearing on the victim and that perpetrators must suffer the consequences of their actions through the legal system. They should encourage victims to come forward. They should make clear that the church is committed to investigating any and all accusations in order to keep their members safe from sexual assault. Instead, they made an unclear statement that is open to interpretation. They should have chosen to clear it up that following Sunday through a church wide statement read aloud by the bishop. But they chose to continue to muddy the water.

It seems incredibly tone deaf for the moment right now. It seems like saying this further ingrains the cultural impulse to blame the victim in assault cases. What does a woman have to do to have a credible allegation in the eyes of the public? How do we make a shift away from this when moral leaders are preaching to do the opposite?