Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1386 | Did Patrick Clancy Do It? Fact-Checking Lindsay Clancy’s Defenders

Episode Date: August 19, 2026

Allie recaps her debate on “Jubilee” with former evangelical Monte Mader and looks into a common debate strategy called “Gish galloping.” This tactic involves overwhelming an opponent with multiple arguments and talking fast, making it impossible for them to reply to every claim brought up. Allie shows how this method was used by Mader during their debate and explains the best way to respond when it happens. Allie also looks into Mader's claims about the history of abortion and the church and gives a more in-depth response than the debate time allotted. Allie ends by discussing conspiracy theories surrounding the Lindsay Clancy case. Female TikTok users are spreading the idea that Lindsay Clancy’s ex-husband is actually responsible for the murder of their three children — a theory that is not based in fact and helpful to no one. Allie looks at popular songs, books, and TV shows from the past few decades that display female victimhood culture and promote the idea that evil is just misunderstood; she shares her thoughts about how this way of thinking may be influencing how people view this case. She concludes by reminding listeners to not forget that the victims of this case are the children. Do you have a question for Allie? Leave a voicemail at 844-755-5252. Share the Arrows 2026 is on October 10 in Dallas, Texas! Tickets are on sale now at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://sharethearrows.com⁠⁠⁠ Share the Arrows is sponsored by: A'del Natural Cosmetics: AdelNaturalCosmetics.com Range Leather: RangeLeather.com/ALLIE We Heart Nutrition: WeHeartNutrition.com Buy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – Time Codes 0:00 Introduction 3:05 The Debate with Monte 20:06 The Debate Tactic of “Gish Galloping” 33:23 Debunking Monte’s Claims 50:49 TikTok Weighs in on the Lindsey Clancy Case 1:09:33 How Media Shields Women from Blame 1:21:38 A Biblical Response – Today's Sponsors: A'del | Visit AdelNaturalCosmetics.com and enter promo code ALLIE for 25% off your first-time purchase. Patriot Mobile | Go to PatriotMobile.com/ALLIE or call 972-PATRIOT. Use promo code ALLIE for a free month of service. Fellowship Home Loans | Start with a free consultation at FellowshipHomeLoans.com/Allie and receive a $500 credit at closing. Good Ranchers | If you go to ⁠⁠⁠GoodRanchers.com⁠⁠⁠ and subscribe to any box of 100% American meat, you’ll save up to $500 a year! Plus, if you use code ALLIE, you’ll get an additional $25 off your first order. Shopify | Start your free trial at Shopify.com/allie Episodes You May Like: Ep 1380 | Lindsay Clancy Trial: Psychotic Victim or Ruthless Murderer? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1380-lindsay-clancy-trial-psychotic-victim-or-ruthless/id1359249098?i=1000780109968 Ep 1254 | Jubilee Reaction: How to Debate 20 Liberal Christians https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1254-jubilee-reaction-how-to-debate-20-liberal-christians/id1359249098?i=1000732041086 --- ► Buy Allie's book, "You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": https://alliebethstuckey.com/book ► Subscribe to the podcast: iTunes: https://apple.co/2UVssnP Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2FwkXxj ► Connect with Allie on Social Media: https://twitter.com/conservmillen https://www.instagram.com/alliebstuckey/ https://facebook.com/allieBlazeTV/ ► Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Did Patrick Clancy do it? That is the question and the accusation that is circulating on TikTok. And can women actually ever be blamed for doing something evil? Also, my debate with Monty Mayder going through some debate strategies and some logical fallacies to look out for to equip you in conversations about things that are really important. We've got all of that and more on today's episode of Relatable. It's brought to you by our friends at Olive app. Olive is a food scanning app that exposes what the labels don't.

seed oils, dyes, additives, even hidden toxins. If there's something in your baby's food that shouldn't be, Olive shows you clearly, simply, and immediately download Olive today. Hey, y'all, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far. If you have not listened to her, watched Monday's episode about Catherine Crick, the self-appointed apostle, her connection to a man named Dordavey,

the Tanzanian so-called Prophet and the allegations against him. and what Catherine Crick may have known about George Davies' misconduct and really scary sexual predation against some of her friends. You've got to go and check that out. Share that with people in your life who just may need to wake up to what this movement really seems to be about. And remember, pray for everyone involved in that story for both repentance and then healing and protection as well. Today, we are going to get into Lindsay Clancy and the reaction on TikTok, these women who claim to be online sleuths and claim to have some kind of intuition about who really killed Lindsay Clancy's children. And we're going to kind of psychoanalyze this and look at

some of the cultural influences that are creating this narrative in our minds, especially in women, especially in feminist minds, that a woman can never really be guilty. She can never truly be held accountable for anything evil she does because it is probably nuanced, she's probably misunderstood. Now, we covered the Lindsay Clancy trial a couple of weeks ago, and we looked at all of the different angles, all of the antidepressant, so called, the SSRIs that she was on, their interactions, the arguments of the prosecution versus the defense, how we balance understanding and compassion sensitivity, and also with justice and with the realization that these little children were the victims of a brutal murder.

So if you want more details about all of that, the details of the case and the trial, go back and listen to or watch that episode with Lindsay Clancy. But today we'll get into the TikTokification of our justice system and where it shows we are when it comes to the feminist mind in America and why it really, really matters for the discerning Christian. But first, I just want to briefly kind of go through some highlights from my Jubilee debate that came out last Friday against a woman named Monty Mater. She is a very popular, ex-phangelical influencer. I think she's got almost three million followers on Instagram. And we faced off in a format for Jubilee called Face Off.

And I want to get into a little bit about the format that. might not have been obvious from the get-go some of the things about the rules. And my strategies for how I approach debates like this, as you guys probably know, this was my second Jubilee debate, very, very different than the surrounded debate that I did last October. And we'll go through just a couple back and forths. And then we will also go through one of the claims that she made. And we will go through the details that we didn't have time to go through in the actual

debate. And I also want to highlight a specific strategy in how you guys can navigate it in your everyday life and how to spot it. So first, let's just talk about what this debate was. We already put up the thumbnail. If you haven't watched the full debate, I really encourage you to rather than just looking at the clips, it's hard to capture what really happened in the back and forth in just 90 seconds or 60 seconds. So this was a very interesting format. The rules are this. So each of us brought two claims. I had my two claims. She had her two claims. My two claims were about abortion. Christians cannot or must oppose abortion and also Christians cannot affirm same sex marriage. Her two claims were that America is not and will never be a Christian nation and also

that patriarchy, not feminism is at odds with Christ ministry and teaching. So four total claims and there our 16 minutes per claim that we get to go back and forth. And that is split into her eight minutes and my eight minutes. Now, we can use our eight minutes however we want to. When we are done speaking, we had to press this little clock that signified that the other person could talk. But while the other person was talking, they could talk for their full eight minutes at once if they wanted to. they could only talk for 30 seconds or 10 seconds or they could talk for three minutes. However, they wanted to use their time they could, but you could not interject. She couldn't interrupt me.

I was not allowed to interrupt her. It was really more of a monologue off. Like it was her monologue than my monologue. It wasn't really a back and forth. The reason why I don't find that conducive to coming to a clarifying point or coming to a place of understanding and commonality at all, why I actually. don't think this format is helpful for the audience, even if it feels less stressful, is because you cannot respond to the other person's claim. Because they make too many claims in a matter of,

say, five minutes that they're talking, you've got to pick and choose what claims you are going to respond to. And never do you have the ability to stop and say, hang on a second, hang on. Hang on. You just said that, but earlier you said that, can you help me understand how those two things go together? Or hang on a second. Can you please define that? That's what I prefer to do in debates. That's why I loved surrounded. It's probably a stressful experience, maybe for the viewer. Maybe it stresses you out that they're running to the chair and we're going back and forth

and all of that. But I liked that. And there is a way to be able to interject and to clarify it and to follow up without being rude and interrupting. You can go back and watch my surrounded debate and you can see kind of how I balance those two things of allowing the person to really get out their argument, but quickly following up with a clarification and defining our terms. As you guys have heard me say, so often defining your terms is the most important part of any debate. Defining your own terms and making

them define their terms so that you can get on the same page. Let me play you an example of us attempting to do that, even though it's really difficult because again, when the person goes on for five or six minutes, you only have so many claims that you can actually address, especially if someone's trying to give like a two-minute history lesson on something, the most important thing you can do is get down to brass tax. The most important thing you can do is get back to the claim. Because if we get off the reservation and start going down this history back and forth, then we lose sight of what is actually being argued. So that's kind of what happened here. We started talking about abortion. She starts talking about the long historical

precedent of conservatives trying to oppose abortion, which we'll get into in just a minute. And this is my rerouting us back to the main point. Here is Sout 1. Well, first let me say this is her part of her claim. And then the second clip will be me clarifying what that actually means, Sot 1. I want to talk about definitions a little bit because I know that it's emotionally compelling to say killing babies. It's not a baby. That's not me being contrary.

And that's accuracy. Embryo up to the end of eight weeks. And then we have a fetus. And I think it's very important so that we're actually getting to the facts of the matter. But what we are saying is we're not saying you can go up and kill someone anytime you want. The distinction here is do my organs, does my bloodstream, does my marrow have to keep them alive? Do I have to put myself in harm's way or risk death in order for this life to be viable? I think you have an absolutely solid argument after viability.

But we know that that is not when the bulk of abortions happen. Late second and third trimester is almost exclusively for fatal fetal abnormalities, stillbirths, partial miscarriage. marriages and medical emergencies and medical professionals should be allowed to make that call in conjunction with their patient and their patient's safety. First of all, fetus is Latin for a small child, and so we can get into the semantics of it. It's all a human being. I mean, just because we call a child a toddler, we call a child a baby, doesn't mean that it's not a child, doesn't mean that it's not a human.

Adolescent teen, these are all different designations that we use for different stages of life. That doesn't change the value of someone. Viability, extremely arbitrary standard for whether or, or not a person should be murdered. I mean, we're not just talking about, okay, is it okay for the dentist to pull a tooth? We are talking about, is it okay for a doctor, for an abortion provider, to be able to inject the heart of a baby to cause cardiac arrest and then induce delivery to kill that baby and then to throw that baby away like toxic waste?

That's what we're talking about. So as you can see, there are a million things that I could have responded to even in that. I could have responded to the fact that she's now saying I have a good argument after viability. when earlier she said that life doesn't begin until first breath. So life doesn't actually begin until they're outside of the womb and can breathe on their own. And now she's saying, oh, maybe it's around 24, 24 weeks that you have an argument for being pro-life. I could have addressed this idea that late-term abortion, second and third trimaster, are only for all of these, all of these reasons like the health of the mother, cancer diagnoses. That's not a reason to

abort a child in the second or third trimester. We have babies as young as night. And weeks who are able to be born and survive outside of the womb, if the baby's got to come out, then you deliver the baby. You shouldn't have to kill the baby first. That's a two-day-long process if you're talking about late-term abortion that is obviously dangerous for the child, but also dangerous for the mother. And then I did eventually respond to the biblical support for life starting at conception and also the logical and scientific support of that. But you see how I brought it down to brass tax. Hang on a second. Let's define our terms. That was very difficult. in this kind of format. But if you go watch the entire debate, you will see that that was my

strategy to get us back to the claim, to get us back to the main point. And that's what I encourage you to do as well, because it's really easy when someone is spouting a lot of information that might seem factual because they're very confident to kind of follow them down that trail, but that's called a red herring. That is making an argument that is actually totally unrelated and irrelevant to the logic and the substance of the main claim. it's your job to get back to the main claim and to simplify the abortion conversation as much as you possibly can. So that's all I'll play from that segment. And then we also talked about this idea that America is not a Christian nation and that Christian nationalism are basically

Christians trying to infuse our worldview into law and into public policy and how that shouldn't be allowed. And I have some questions about that. We'll get into that in a second. Let me pause. Let me tell you better for a sponsor. It's fellowship home loans. If buying a home is on your family's list this year, listen up. The smart move is not waiting until you find the perfect house. The smart move is getting prequalified right now before you even start looking because in this market, the good houses sell in days. And if you are not prequalified, you don't have that leg up. If you are trying to buy a house, and that's where fellowship home loans comes in. For 20 years, Mike and Brian have helped families walk into open houses ready to move in with a lender in their corner who can actually

close the deal quickly. They do loans that other lenders can't. They've got different programs. They've got different down payment options, custom solutions based around your family's unique situation. Everything is done in-house with their incredible hardworking team, one roof, one team, all with a servant-led mentality. Get pre-qualified today. Go to fellowship home loans.com slash alley for $500 back at closing. Fellowship home loans, mortgage lending by the book. Nationwide mortgage bankers, DBA Fellowship Home Loans, Equal Housing Lender, NMLS, number 819382. Under the umbrella of the claim that we are not and never will be a Christian nation, we talk about some of that in the founding documents.

But something that I found more interesting was this idea that Christians should only allow our religion to dictate our behavior and that we shouldn't try to influence the law with our beliefs. Not three. Christian conservatives themselves are making these appeals to the Bible as justification for their actions and justifications for the laws they want to pass without a engaging in science or data as an explanation for those laws versus when you look at progressive candidates, for instance, there is typically here's the data, here's what we know, here's why we're proposing this and this is how it works.

But we know that's not true. We know what the science says about something like gender. There really is X, X, X, X, and X, Y. And it's very obvious that a man should not be playing in women's sports. It's an appeal to ideology. It's an appeal to ideology to say, you know, a person can be small enough, can be young enough, that they don't actually have value and rights and that a person's organ actually trumps the right

to life of that little baby. But you do what a lot of progressives do is claim that their views are coming from a place of data. Their views are always coming from a place of science. Their views are coming from this neutral position and conservative Christians. Ours are just coming from subjective

religion, which, yes, I'm not going to lie and say, oh, no, God has nothing to do with my perspective on the value of human life. Of course, I believe all people are made in the image of God, not everyone believes that. That is the thrust of what I believe and is underneath everything I believe. But yes, I can appeal to logic. I can appeal to science to make the argument for why abortion is unethical wrong and therefore should be illegal. Or I can definitely appeal to biology as many

non-Christians do when it comes to the reality of the gender binary, which is the same thing as the reality of the sex binary. And so I just don't think it's quite fair to say progressive candidates are the ones appealing to facts and logic. There's nothing factual or logical by saying that a man can become a woman. You can have that belief, but when you start to legislate that, well, then you're forcing your religious belief on me. You've become your own kind of theocrat. So that's obviously just a ridiculous claim. Progressives claim to be on the side of science and logic and facts. And that is just not true. And it's increasingly obvious that that's not true. the idea that a fetus becomes a person suddenly in the birth canal or the idea that a man can become a woman via declaration,

that is a fanciful ideological belief that they are enforcing through the law on us and on children. It's okay when they do it, but not when we do it. And I point out this hypocrisy, top five. Religion is a fence that I place on my lawn. It is not a fence I can place on your lawn. So when I start to make legislation or vote for bills that it force my, My belief, my belief that is strictly my religious belief on other people where now you have to follow my belief system.

Instead of, I can't participate in that, I can't do that, I don't believe in that for my religion, then you start to actually infringe on the religious liberties of others. You said your religious beliefs are a fence on your own lawn, not a fence that you can put on other people's lawn. But I can think of Christians who have had to abide by beliefs that are not theirs. I think, for example, about Jack Phillips. She's the cake baker out of Colorado masterpiece cake shop. He said, look, I just can't make a cake that celebrates a gay wedding.

I'll make you a cake, but it goes against my religious beliefs. Well, the state of Colorado came after him, and it was only after over a decade of litigation. And his case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, that finally the Supreme Court said, okay, you've got a First Amendment right to be able to express your artistic creativity the way that you want to in a way that aligns with your values. I could go on and on. Jessica Bates, she is a mom out of Oregon. she tried to adopt some kids out of foster care, and they said, look, if you don't abide by what we believe about LGBTQ ideology, then you can't adopt. So everywhere, I actually see progressives

using what I would call their quasi-religious beliefs and say, no, these are neutral. We're enforcing them via legislation. And if you don't abide by them, then you're a bigot. Then you'll get in trouble. So that's what I don't really understand. Why is it Christian nationalism or a for me to say, here's my belief about abortion. I do think it should be reflected in law versus when, say, a progressive does the same thing from their perspective. Yeah, that's the whole thing, is that really it comes down to conservative Christians and conservative Christians alone are the ones who are not allowed to bring our worldview into the voting booth. Look, no law is moral. Every law is a should. We hear this phrase that is so nonsensical

over and over again that you can't legislate morality. I'm not saying that Monty said that, but I hear that a lot. You can't legislate morality. All legislation is moral. Speed limit is moral. It's saying that you can only go this fast because of this underlying moral belief that human life matters and putting human life at risk by driving as fast as you want and driving recklessly is not okay. So every single law has a presupposition that is based in a worldview. about who is in charge, what is right, and what is wrong. There's no such thing as a neutral policy. It's just that progressives want you to believe that they are coming from a place of neutrality when, in fact, they're not. They've got their own religious beliefs, their fanciful, fantastical

beliefs. And we have our beliefs. It's just that ours are backed up by an authority that's higher than ourselves, that transcends the power of the government. It also happens to be the same authority that most of the founders believed in too. So that's the truth. Really, progressives have the power. They have the power, they want the power. It's really not about who wants power and who doesn't. I hear that a lot.

Oh, it's so scary that Christians want power. Well, one worldview is always going to dominate. One worldview is going to dictate what kind of laws we have. The question is which worldview is better? Which one has better fruit? Which one comes up with better, more protective laws? I think we can look at progressive secularism and the fruit that it has produced. Jews throughout history. We can look at 20th century, communism, socialism, the totalitarianism

that came out of atheism and progressivism in the name of elevating the poor and including the marginalized and making life better for the least of these progressivism ended up bearing the fruit of death and destruction and poverty. And I would say Christianity has been the greatest force for good and for liberty throughout all of history, foraging Western civilization, to create the greatest culture and nation that has ever existed for every single kind of person. And so just don't be intimidated by that, by this idea that if you're a Christian conservative, you are the only one who has to check your worldview at the door. It's just not true.

Everyone should be able to bring the fullness of their worldview to the table. And let's duke it out and let's debate and may the best worldview win. All right. Let's get into a little bit of a logic class for a second. I want to talk about a particular strategy that you may see from influencers that you might see online or that you might experience from people in your life. And this is not something that is exclusive to progressives. I see this kind of tactic being used by a lot of people and it's very convincing. And it is a logical fallacy called a gish gallop. And a gish gallop is a debate tactic

where someone gives a rapid fire stream of arguments or, points and some of them might be correct and some of them are not. This is an attempt to kind of overwhelm their opponent or even overwhelm their audience with a quantity of claims that can't actually be debunked because there are so many that if you try to go through each claim one by one, you would end up going down the trail of a red herring of something that actually doesn't have to do with the main point at all. Or you end up having this tangential conversation and then you go off the reservation and you lose the spirit of what the debate is supposed to be about. And it would just take a lot of time. So gish galloping is when someone talks really fast

and tries to overwhelm you with all of these different points. And so your senses are completely overtaken and you're not actually able to break them down one by one. And what I would say, again, is that your response to a gish gallop when someone is going on and on, let me tell you this historical argument. Let me give you all of these so-called facts. Let me, throw all of these things in your face really fast and really confidently so that it seems like I really know what I'm talking about and you couldn't possibly go against me. Your job is not to meet them by responding to every argument or talking just as quickly. Your response has to be slow down. Slow down. You can even say that out loud. Slow down. Hang on a second. I want to go back to the claim.

I want to go back to what you originally said and let me get down to what this actually means. Let me give you an example of what a Gish Gallup can look like. throughout the early church, that it was not considered murder. St. Augustine decided that until the quickening, until viability, it was not considered a crime or murder in the church that was changed by Pope Pius and the 9th in 1869. And the evangelical community within the 20th century didn't really care that much about it. It wasn't a motivator for their voting block and it really wasn't something they rallied around. In fact, in 1968, Christianity today hosted 25 theologians who really debated abortion. Is it right? Is it wrong? When can it happen? When shouldn't it happen?

and they all agreed collectively that in all or some cases it should be permissible. You're part of the Southern Baptist Church Convention, which acknowledged the right of abortion supported it in three separate church edicts, as did the Dallas Theological Seminary, saying that they believed that a woman's right to her body and autonomy superseded all else and that abortion should be permissible in incest cases, as well as for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of the mother. The overwhelming evangelical community supported the passage of Roe. She then goes on to make the argument and we can't play, you know, entire clips on the show would go on and on.

She then goes on to make the argument that the only, she talks about Jerry Falwell, she talks about Liberty University, she talks about Bob Jones. She talks about how evangelicals in the 70s and 80s were really trying to find the issue that was going to rally the base. And segregation was one of those issues. And then they figured out that they could use abortion as a way to kind of mobilize evangelical. but it wasn't sincere that Christians didn't really care about it. And she's trying to make the point that this makes the Christian conservative opposition to abortion superficial, that we're just being manipulated by the patriarchal powers that be to oppose the murder of children. Now, we'll get into the actual fact-based debunking of these claims. But I do just want to point something out that this gish galloping that we just saw, overwhelming seeming facts that she had this script plant. And this was something that I knew going in that this particular format is going to be really good for someone who is not a strong debater, but has a really good command of their monologue. It is really good at memorizing a

narrative and then repeating that. And when that was really demonstrated to me was something that actually wasn't kept in the final version. It was something that was mostly edited out. And the real version, there is a different ordering of the claims, which is fine. That doesn't take away from the integrity of the debate that Jubilee decided to rearrange that. But actually, in the real debate, we first talk about same-sex marriage and I make my claim that Christians should be against it. While her response to my claim about same-sex marriage, she goes on, in real life, she went on for about five minutes about abortion. And she actually says exactly what she said in that clip that we just played that had nothing to do with my claim whatsoever. Here's

a 7. And in the 20th century, evangelicals in America did not really have a particular opinion on abortion overall as a voting block. It really didn't matter. In fact, in the early 70s, the SBC released three church-wide edicts supporting the passage of Roe, that a woman's bodily autonomy was supreme, that for her mental, physical, and spiritual health, that abortion should be on the table in all or some cases. So really, for the bulk of church history, Christians have in some form or another affirmed abortion. Are you saying that all of those people were not Christians? This segment and this claim is about same-sex marriage. So you might have thought that we just played the clip from earlier again. We didn't. This was a separate part of the debate.

This was in response to my claim that Christian should be against same-sex marriage. And as I said, in real life, she went on for five minutes with the exact same verbatim monologue that she actually meant for the abortion claim, which again, in real life, the abortion claim wasn't actually made until later in our debate. So she has a script in her mind. She is very, very good at reciting that script, which is a skill. I'm not, you know, necessarily dunking on that. But I just want you to understand how Gish Galloping works and how this strategy works.

You've got a script in your mind. She memorized the script. She stuck to the script so much so that she wasn't actually listening to my claims. I made a claim about same-sex marriage. And they kept in about 30 seconds of her monologue on abortion that she had repeated again later that I just played you. Okay. So actually, she had her answers canned, ready to go. This was not a debate where she was willing to go back and forth with anything I was saying.

If you watch the debate, you can see that I'm trying to address some of her points. I'm trying to say, you said this. Here's my response to that. And instead of her engaging with those things, she instead did her monologues, which were almost verbatim, the monologue that she also puts on her social media. So I understand why her supporters, if you follow her social media and you're like, okay, this is exactly what I expected for Monty to repeat the same. things that she says on social media here, no matter what the question was, no matter what

the claim is, then I can see how you enjoyed that. Okay, that's not a debate. That's not an engaging conversation. That's not a back and forth. Again, that is a monologue off where one person is trying to engage and kind of get to a place of commonality at least when it comes to definitions. And the other person is reciting a monologue that may or may not have anything to do with the topic at hand at all. So just understand that. You might be talking to someone in a debate that has a script in front of them that is going to Gish Gaelot, that is going to try to overwhelm you with all different kinds of points, some of which are true, some of which are not true, some of which are compelling, some of which are

not compelling, but just seem so overwhelming. And when someone has memorized his script, it's very hard to poke through that and to get to the point that you want to get to or try to get through to them, you've just got to go back to the main thing. You just got to go back. to the main claim. And my purpose for doing that, my purpose for engaging in these debates at all is not to change Monty's mind. That would be amazing if one day the Holy Spirit changed her mind and changed her heart. It's not to change the mind of her supporters. You can read some of the comments and just how vile they are. I've gotten the most vile messages since this debate was published, not only wishing that I would die, but wishing the baby that I am carrying would die,

that I would miscarry. And so those people, not, I'm not saying all of her followers, but certainly the messages in the comments represent a callousness. My debate is not for them, although, of course, we pray for them as well. My debate is for you. Me going into these situations to go back and forth with these ideas is to hopefully, by the grace of God, exemplify how you can respond with kindness, with respect, with peace, without compromising at all in what is good

right and true. And that is what I also wanted to demonstrate in the Jubilee debate. Can you engage with people with compassion, with humanity, with care, without compromising at all? I think a lot of people, especially Christians, think that in order to love someone, you have to nuance your positions. You have to compromise a little bit. You have to give in just in a few areas in order to relate to someone. You don't have to do that. I think Jesus gives us a really good example of how not to do that, of how to love people, meet them where they are without compromising even a centimeter on what is true. So that's why I do this. It's really for the Christian women in my audience. Yes, if there are people on the fence, one of my favorite comments that I got in the YouTube video of my surrounded debate, the top

comment is someone saying, look, I'm not religious. Like, I don't believe in anything that Ali said, but I don't know any good response to her abortion arguments. And I don't take credit for that. that's all by the grace of God. But that, I mean, that's a win. That's for sure a huge win when something like that happens. And you just have to trust that God is going to use your obedience to his word to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. But my main purpose in going into these things is to show you, here's how you engage.

And here's something you could say. I will never do it perfectly. There's always going to be things I wish I did and said differently. But I hope to demonstrate how to kind of faithfully engage with secular and progressive of arguments from a biblical perspective. All right, I promise that we would debunk some of the claims that she made about the history of abortion. If you're brought this whole monologue that she gave and you're meant to respond, I think that you should just go to the main point of killing babies is wrong. But it's also good information to learn. And it's good things to know the truth about

the early church on abortion and the evangelical movement in the 20th century and why we actually fight for the lives at the unborn. So we'll get to that in just a second. Let me pause and tell you about our next sponsor. It's Adele Natural Cosmetics. If you come to share the arrows this year, share the arrows on October 10th. You will be able to meet our friends at Adele. They are so awesome. They have been a faithful supporter of the show for years. And I have been a faithful user of their products for years. I absolutely love Adele. I use their essential cleanser, their essential moisturizer. I love especially we're getting into fall, y'all, and we're getting into Christmas time soon.

They always have an amazing holiday line that smells so good. It's so high quality too. You're never going to get anything fake, no synthetic fragrances, no endocrine disruptors. Everything is completely holistic. They are a Jesus first family-centered, unapologetically pro-life family-owned company.

Go to adelell Natural Cosmetics.com. Use code Alley. Check out for 25% off your first purchase. That's Adele Natural Cosmetics.com code Alley. I do just want to say, before we get back into it, if you are looking for apologetics, for theology and for clarity and for courage, if you are looking to be around more like-minded women and you are looking to get Bible-based teaching for one day, come to share the arrows, October 10th, Dallas, Texas. It's going to be an incredible Holy Spirit-filled day. We pray by the grace of God. It has been thus far.

We're so thankful. Share the arrows. This year is brought to by our friends at WeHeart Nutrition. we've got Shane and Shane leading worship. We've got Rosaria Butterfield, Kosti, Hannah Lisa Childers, Natasha Crane, Audrey Broge, Grace Anna Castle, Barry, yours truly. I'm talking to each of the speakers in the next couple weeks, just honing exactly what the talks are going to be. Y'all, it's going to be so good. I cannot wait. Go to share the aeros.com. You can use any of the speakers first names plus the number 15 when you go to Ticketmaster and you can get 15% off your ticket.

Come one, come all. I am so excited about it. Share the arrows.com. All right, let's get into this quick fact check, this idea that Christians didn't care about abortion until like 19, the 1970s. Now, first of all, what happened in the 1970s, y'all? What happened in the 1970s? Roe v. Wade happened. And so, yeah, before that, it wasn't as much of a political debate as it was after the passage of Roe v. Wade. That's obviously going to be true.

Guys, I have even heard conservative pastors repeat that talking point as a way to try to discredit the Republican Party. And those of us who vote Republican, I can't speak for Republican politicians, and our opposition to abortion to try to invalidate it or to act like it's superficial. I'm like, what happened in the 1970s? Roe v. Wade was passed in the 1970s that basically allowed abortion through all nine months for various reasons. Okay.

So of course, that mobilized people. It radicalized the abortion movement. The abortion movement, the pro-abortion movement, by the way, became extremely mobilized before, during, and after the 1970s, too. No one talks about that. Okay, let's back up, though. Let's go to the early church. The claim that the early church did not regard abortion, as killing is wrong.

If we look at the D-DK, it is one of the earliest Christian documents we have that summarizes what the early church believed in the first century. Most scholars date the D-DK to the late first century or the early second century. In its really short summary of the worst sins, it prohibits abortion. You shall not practice magic. you shall not practice witchcraft. You should not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. And you know, it's interesting that the D-DK actually connects the practice of magic with child sacrifice because that's exactly what we see throughout the Old Testament.

When the Lord is warning his people, warning ancient Israel, hey, don't be a part of those cultural practices over there, which include necromancy, which include mediums, which include practicing magic and sorcery, which is forbidden by the way. for God's holy people and is punishable by death. He also says, within those dictates, he says, do not offer your child as a sacrifice to their gods, which apparently was something that was happening. It seems that idolatry, sexual immorality,

and child sacrifice are always intertwined. We even see that in the New Testament. When Paul is talking about worshiping the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever. Amen in Romans 1, this is in a passage about homosexuality, about exchanging natural desires for unnatural ones and the sins which are an abomination to God, sins against your own body, which are sins of sexual immorality.

So from the very beginning, the church understood this because God has understood this and his word has relayed this. So it shows from the very start that Christians have interpreted the Bible as being against abortion. There's a church father and theologian, Turtillion, around 80, 200. He also wrote that Christians may not destroy a baby in the womb in apology, which is a text defending Christian faith, he writes, in our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb. While as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance to hinder a birth is merely a speedier man killing, nor does it matter

whether you take away a life that is born or destroy one that is coming to the birth. Now, Monty claimed also in her Gishgallet that St. Augustine, some people say Augustine, and some people say Augustine, held that until the quickening, until viability was not considered a crime or murder in the church. Well, that was changed by Pope Pius, or she says, that was changed by Pope Pius the 9th

in 1869. Okay, again, that's interesting because she's simultaneously making the claim that Christians didn't say anything or care very much about abortion until the 1970s. And then she's also saying, well, all the way back in 1869, things were changed. So again, that is,

the thing about a gish gallop is like, oh gosh, that seems so overwhelming. You know so much history. But then when you start thinking, hang on, what are you talking about? Are you talking about first breath, which you said earlier? Are you talking about viability? Or you talk about quickening, which is not the same thing as viability, by the way. Quickening is when you can feel the baby move. I felt this baby move around 14 weeks. That's not viability. A baby's not viable until really the right now it's probably 24 weeks. That's what they say, but babies survive earlier than that too. And so you see how we're getting into all of these arbitrary changing, changing standards for when it's okay to kill a person, when it's okay to kill a human being. But when someone talks really fast and confidently, you don't break them down sentence by sentence.

And of course, I didn't have time to do that with my eight minutes either. So it's true that when commenting on Exodus 21, 22, which addresses the penalty for someone who strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, Augustine suggests that the passage may refer to an unformed embryo. For reference, here is Exodus 21, 22, when men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her child or her children come out. But there is no harm. The one who hit her shall surely be fined as the woman's husband shall impose on him and he shall pay as the damages determined. Here is Augustine's commentary and questions on the heptitook. If therefore, there is an unformed embryo animated in an unformed way, since the great question of the soul is not to be rushed into rash, with thoughtfulness, thoughtless opinion, then on this account, the law does not pertain to homicide

because it is not yet possible to say that a living soul in this body, since it is bereft of sense, if the soul be in flesh that is not yet formed and hence not yet endowed with sense. So although Augustine suggests that the embryo is unformed, this does not mean that he approved of abortion. This passage still treats causing a miscarriage as a punishable crime. So Augustine's question is about the severity of the defense, or of the offense, rather, and whether it should be classified as homicide. And his question is really, when are we in sold? And Augustine doesn't really seem to know. And it could be because he didn't really understand the science at the time, that actually a unique human life with all of his or her DNA is there and present at the moment

of conception. He was probably influenced by the world that he inhabited at the time in the ancient Greco-Roman tradition, there were many competing theories about when babies actually became insoled and therefore became people. So Augustine drew from Aristotle's theory, which was that babies were unsold 40 days after conception for males and 90 days for females. Aristotle wrote this theory sometime between 335 and 322 BC. It was popular until the 19th century. Also, a lot of the early fathers were just influenced by the pagan culture when it came to the idea of children. Before, and after birth. I'm not saying everything that they believed and taught was colored by those pagan beliefs. But remember, at the time in the ancient Greco-Roman world, it was believed that children

were not full people at all, that they were basically on the level of animals and barbarians. They didn't have the fullness of the logos, which they didn't have the fullness of the reason, of rationale, of thinking. That's what that meant. And so their degradation, their objectification than their abuse was routinely justified because of the belief that they lacked full personhood. The only people who had full personhood, and I bring this up in the debate, in this time was the adult free male. And they were the only ones given rights. And so you see how the pagan argument really hasn't changed from all the way back then when Aristotle is trying to separate humanity from personhood, the Greek scholars, the Roman scholars at the time,

trying to separate humanity from personhood in order to justify mistreatment of certain kinds of people, well, the pro-abortion argument is the same today. You're trying to separate humanity from personhood to justify killing. It's no different. Pagan's going to pagan. In his work on marriage and concupiscence, Augustine says that all abortion is a sin, and he even says of married couples that they're not even really married if they resort to these practices. So he says this, sometimes indeed this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness. Or else, if unsuccessful in this to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that his offspring should rather perish than receive vitality,

or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. So abortion. Well, if both parties alike are so flogicious, they are not husband and wife. And if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock, but by debauchery. That is very intense. As for Pius the 9th's 1869 action that Monty cites, it just changed the church's penalty for an early stage abortion to be even more severe. Abortion was already considered a grave sin, but Pius made abortion at any stage in automatic excommunication. Good on Pius the 10th, or Pius the 9th, rather.

Now let's fast forward to evangelicals in the 1960s and 70s because she says that this was all just a ploy to try to get Republicans more power through the evangelicals and that it was really segregation that was a boon for this community at the time. So she says that they didn't care about the issue of abortion until the 70s. Again, Roe v. Wade passed the Supreme Court or it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. So yeah, that would kind of line up immediately after the road decision, though. Christianity today published a response to crime the decision stating in its road decision, the Supreme Court has clearly decided for paganism. That was back when Christianity today pre-Russel more times. Pre-Trump was actually producing Christian content.

And it was exactly right. It was making a decision in favor of paganism and child sacrifice. Also in responding to this new. issue of nationwide abortion. It was a new issue in the 1970s. The Southern Baptist Convention, you heard her cite the SBC, initially adopted resolutions in the 1970s. The 1971 SBC resolution supported legislation allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal deformity, and threats to the mother's emotional, mental, or physical health. But the same resolution also explicitly said the state had a responsibility to affirm the sanctity of human life,

including fetal life, and to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Now, let me just say something about the SBC in 1971 and its resolution on abortion. It was wrong. That is nonsensical. That's a nonsensical position to say that you allow abortion because of the circumstances surrounding a child's conception, because of a diagnosis that the child has, or because the mother has some emotional or mental health problem that makes her not want to have a child and then say that you want to protect the sanctity of life.

What's also not included is that the SBC in the 70s and the early 80s, was sprinting to the left. It wasn't until the 1980s that the SBC had a big conservative reformation and went back to what is good, right and true when it comes to theology, which also affected the politics of the SBC. So this was in the liberalization of the SBC time, saying, yeah, we are okay with abortion in these cases, but not okay in these other cases.

And so the change in the SBC is a part of a much bigger story of the Southern Baptist Convention, and also has nothing to do with actually what is true. There were a lot of people throughout history who were wrong. A lot of people who claim to be Christians who were wrong about all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with them or that what we know to be true about abortion today is somehow negated by them being wrong. That's stupid. Progressives also used to believe certain things that they no longer believe. That does it negate a progressives belief today in the fact that, a man, or like in the idea that a man can become a woman when, you know, 15 years ago,

no progressives said that. They would have said the opposite. They would have thought that was crazy. So what someone believes today is not negated by what someone believed 20 years ago or 50 years ago. By 1976, only five years later, the SBC was calling abortion the termination of an innocent life. In 1977, and explicitly opposed abortion on demand. And by 1980, it's reported prohibiting abortion except to save the mother's life. So this is all happening. as the SBC has a change in leadership, it is moving more theologically conservative. The shift also occurred during a revolution and our ability to observe life inside the womb. Obstetric ultrasound really only became widely available during the 1970s,

with real-time ultrasound becoming increasingly widespread around the end of the decade and into the 1980s. I think if you talk to a lot of our moms, like my mom, my mother-in-law, they were having my sisters-in-law. My mom was having my brothers in the early age. having routine ultrasounds was not normal. Even in the, you know, in the suburban areas or in the cities in the 1980s, sometimes you would get an ultrasound if something was wrong. But that was not routine. But it became more and more routine. 80s and 90s, we saw a window into who these little

human beings were and it became harder and harder to understand and to justify abortion. The killing of these little babies that are so clearly human. There were also, uh, books that were published at the time, movies that were published at the time, like the silent scream that actually analyzed what is happening inside the womb when these babies are being killed. And we saw that these babies are actually seen to scream and cry as the abortion needle is being plunged into their heart to cause a cardiac arrest. And so we're acting like this is all just superficial, nefarious, somehow racist, political pandering when there were very real theological, cultural, and scientific reasons that people were becoming more animated against

abortion. Also, abortion, as I said earlier, it was becoming a nationwide issue on the left. When you look at the history of Planned Parenthood, when you look at the history of NAROL, you will see that before, during, and after the decision of Roe, that they became more public. They became more propagandistic. They began their campaign to go into school. to be called Planned Parenthood. Nairal became very powerful in the 70s and 80s. This began the debates in the presidential campaigns about abortion. This was not simply an evangelical power play.

There were a lot of dynamics that were creating this mobilization of Christians against abortion. I'm so thankful for it because after almost half a century, we got Roe v. Wade overturned because of this animation against this objective evil. So in the centuries of discussion of abortion, Christians have debated issues. There have been Christians on different sides of the issue, like when exactly the baby is in, sold the proper ecclesiastical penalties for abortion, whether there are extreme circumstances where abortion might be acceptable. But they don't override the normative Christian position for literally 2,000 years that babies are people,

killing them through abortion is a sin, that it is wrong. And even if every Christian for the past 2,000 years had been wrong about this, it doesn't change the fact that all humans are people and killing an innocent person is always wrong and should be illegal. Period. That's what you have to get back to. But you also just have to realize that just because someone is confident and talks fast, just because they list what sounds like a bunch of facts,

doesn't mean that what they're saying is actually true. And so don't allow yourself to be overwhelmed with a Gish Gallup. Don't allow yourself to be taken by someone's posture, by someone's confidence, because there were so many factual errors in what was said and so many inconsistencies in her argument over those 16 minutes. I obviously didn't have time to address all of them today or in the debate, but it's important just to slow down and get down to the fundamentals. All right. Now I want to talk about Lindsay Clancy. And I want to talk about the TikTokification of her case and the feminist mind and what it tells us about our culture and especially feminist culture. Let me pause and tell you about Patriot Mobile. So Patriot Mobile

for more than 12 years has been living their values by standing in the gap for every American who believes freedom is worth fighting for. Their business was founded on a simple conviction. If culture is being shaped through commerce, then Americans deserve a real conservative alternative. Today, Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative wireless provider, offering premium priority nationwide service on any of the three major U.S. networks with unlimited data plans, international roaming, and 100% U.S.-based customer support. Make the switch today. You'll be voting with your dollar when you do. You will be aligned with the company that aligns with your values that's fighting for the things that you want to fight for. Go to patriotmobile.com slash

a 72 Patriot. Use promo code Ali for a free month of service. Patriotmobile.com slash alley code Allie. So in our episode on Lindsay Clancy, we talked about Patrick Clancy, how he's taken the stand, some of the things in his testimony, the things that he has said. And I understand why you could look at Patrick Clancy, just look at him and think, oh, I don't know about this guy. He feels a little bit sketchy. That's unfortunate for him, because if you were to paint a picture of what a villain looks like, he would kind of fit the bill of the caricature of a villain. People also don't like the fact that he got married so quickly after this and how he talks on the stand, even his posture. Well, TikTok and the mommy sleuths on that platform have run with this, have run with all of these kind of superficial characteristics of Patrick Clancy.

And they claim to have solved this mystery. And they are pinning the murders on him. Now, just to backtrack a little bit, if you haven't been following this, Lindsay Clancy was a mother, is a mother who has, according to her legal team, admitted to killing her three young children and attempting to kill herself while her husband was out of the house. She is currently on trial to determine whether she can be held criminally responsible for their deaths or whether her postpartum psychosis rendered her not criminally responsible. As I said, we've looked at all of these angles, all the different medications she was on, how she was able to accomplish this. But it does come down to the fact that Lindsay's own team is not disputing

her actions. Her lawsuit against her medical provider says this. So she's suing her medical providers for all these different interacting medications she was on. Lindsay now faces a lifetime of physical disability, psychological trauma, and the unbearable grief of waking up every day knowing she killed her children, all of which could have been prevented had defendants provided competent care. Okay. So that is what they are alleging. Her lawsuit also says that she experience auditory hallucinations in which a demanding powerful male voice orders her to kill her children. The finally says that she said, I lost all control. My body started acting without any control on my part. I was just following commands, all action. This voice demanded action. Now, I just want to

give you a trigger warning just to remind you of what she did. Okay. So this was, I think, about eight months postpartum. She went through some hard births. She was going through some hard time. We've got, you know, diary entries that has published saying that she's going through a hard time. She asked her husband to leave the house to run a couple errands. Now, she had also completed a hospital stay at the time. And I think maybe her husband thought she was doing better that she had improved. But on this day, she told her husband, hey, I want you to go pick up dinner and pick up this other thing that would keep him occupied for a while.

While he was gone, this is very disturbing for me to talk about. I'm sure it's disturbing to hear too. She brought her children down five, three, eight months into the basement and strangled each of them one by one with exercise bands. Now, I'm not trying to get us to dwell on this because I understand it so dark, but I do think it's important to really, to really get this. Like if we are going to say, well, it was just the psychosis or it was just the medication, think about the strength and the resolve and the persistence and the callousness that it takes to strangle your small children one by one. with exercise bans while the other ones are crying, while the other ones are asking, Mommy, what are you doing? While the other ones are probably trying to run away, I just can imagine that whoever went

first, either the five or the three-year-old is trying to run away. And she is, she successfully prevented them all from doing so, held them all down with brute strength and killed them all, held that exercise band as tightly as she could, until they stopped breathing and died. Okay? She did that to her baby. she did that to her toddler, she did that to her five-year-old. I just want us to remember that, that no matter what you think about what caused this,

those are the victims. And that's what happened to the victims. And those are the primary victims no matter what. Okay. But it seems like the feminists on TikTok and just women on TikTok in general, they're not having that. Okay? I have seen so few videos talking about the children and talking about what they must have

suffered in so many videos, especially on TikTok about how badly we should feel about Lindsay Clancy. I do feel bad for Lindsay Clancy, just having gone through separate. Let's separate that. Lindsay Clancy before she murdered her children. I can understand the circumstance that she was in, the struggle that she had, the medications, which I'm against, by the way, SSRIs, in the vast majority of cases, I just think that they can exacerbate symptoms rather than fix them.

And so I think she had a lot going on. It can be true that we say she was failed in a variety of ways. We can ask, why did her husband leave her alone in all of these things? But at the end of the day, she methodically killed her children. And I cannot say with any confidence and you cannot say with any confidence that it was psychosis that caused that or that it was the medication that caused that. We just don't know. And the truth is people who commit heinous crimes are all on probably the spectrum of psychosis.

They're probably insane in one way or another. And if we said, well, no one could possibly do this without being insane, then no one's going to prison for anything. Then we never have justice for any victims and we don't protect anyone else from being harmed again. Okay. If that's how our justice system is working, that we're negating justice because of someone's mental health diagnosis in every single case, then we have no justice system.

Okay? Also, by the way, like you can't close all the insane asylums, which is basically what we've what Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s and say that mentally ill people can't go to jail. And so all of us have to bear the brunt of that. I'm sorry, that just doesn't work. So, but that is not the narrative that is being taken by the feminists on TikTok.

The popular theory is that Patrick Clancy actually murdered them, okay? That it couldn't possibly be Lindsay, that it was Patrick Clancy. And what evidence do they have? Vibes. Here is Lisa Rina. She's saying that she and her therapist, Shock of all shocks

came up with this theory that it could not have possibly been Lindsay. That nine. Chit chat. All right, he did it. Patrick did it. Patrick's the one who did it.

Not Lindsay. Patrick did it. Because, you know, I also heard that women typically don't strangle. So awful to even say. But that isn't what a woman would do.

They don't strangle. I was actually in therapy today. And my therapist and I were talking about it. And she said, I said, well, what do they do? She said, well, they poison or, I said, oh, or drown them. Like, we literally had that conversation today. And she looks at me and she goes, he did it. I was like, wow, yeah.

And now, yeah, yeah. I mean, how can you say this publicly so casually? I mean, this has massive implications on this person's life. As far as we know, and we don't know everything, but as far as we know from all the facts that we have, and her own admission, by the way, that she killed her children, like he is just a guy who walked in to his wife being paralyzed after throwing herself out of the window

and finding the dead bodies of his strangled children in the basement. And now he has to go through these TikTok lawyers, who are accusing him of actually being the murder based on nothing except for vibes. I think that's wrong. I don't have any affinity towards this guy. I don't know him. I'm not saying that he is some virtuous dude. I literally have no clue.

I just think it's wrong to accuse people of things without evidence and just based on feelings. But as we know from the past year, that's a very lucrative business. It's a very popular business. To accuse people of murder or being included in a plot of murder based on, just what you know and what you feel. Here's another TikTok user that has become popular over the past few weeks peddling this theory, Saw 10. The more I watch this trial, the more I am convinced that Patrick did it.

I don't think that he thought Lindsay would be alive for this trial to even happen. I think it would be case closed, suicide, murder type situation, and he could go run off with his new family. What are y'all's thoughts? Okay, so what would be the reason for Lindsay saying that she did it and admitting that she did it? You don't think the defense team who wants her to be let off or at least get her out of prison for the rest of her life would come up with an alternate theory like that. Like these people think that they care more about Lindsay Clancy than her lawyers do. And I promise that you don't.

If that was a viable theory, her lawyers would be pursuing that. Her lawyers would be at least presenting that to the jury because that's what their job is to cast doubts on her culpability. But they have not taken that route. They have not said maybe it wasn't her. They have simply said, yeah, it was her, but this is why she was suffering and it's not really her fault. Okay. This is what they do. And it's not just in this case, but in all of these cases, they will exploit the gaps. They will look at a story and they will say, well, that's weird, that's weird, that's strange. It doesn't seem like I have an answer for that. And they will put all of those pieces together without actually tying them together.

They'll just kind of throw them at you, gish gallop. And they will say, look at all of these different things that are happening. Isn't that strange? I don't know. I'm not, I don't know. It's just weird. It's just odd. I'm just saying it's odd. And all they've done is plant suspicion. And so the next time you see a video and a next time you see a video and the next time you see a video, suddenly you think that you have all of this knowledge of this alternate theory that is really true. But when it comes down to it, you don't. If someone were to ask you, like, what is the evidence against Patrick Clancy? I guarantee you, you would start to clam up and not know what to say because you've been gish galloped.

You've been overwhelmed with seeming facts that are really just vibes. And that's not enough to slander a person. That's not enough to accuse a person. So there's also this, like let me give you an example of this. they're looking at, like, people have too much time on their hands. They're too much time on their hands. Okay? They just really do.

So some of these people are looking at video surveillance footage of Patrick's shoes, which look different in the surveillance footage from CVS just after 5.30 p.m., the day of his kid's death. And from 3V, the restaurant where he picked up takeout, the two places where she told him to go at about 5.54 p.m., the footage was not played to implicate Patrick in actual trial, but to establish a timeline event. But people are saying that, okay, wait, his shoes look different. And so he must be going home in between CVS and in between 3B.

And maybe that is like how he committed these crimes and when he committed the crimes. However, the different appearances of the shoes could potentially be explained by the fact that the footage was taken from two different angles. Okay. On two different surveillance systems, accounting for the different resolutions and angles, it is likely that Patrick did not change his shoes. And like, it just, that's not enough. It's just not enough. And even if he did, that alone doesn't prove any guilt. Like, we need, we need something.

Like, you need a hobby. Like, I would never wish hard times on this nation. But I look at some of the men and women and their behavior on social media. And I'm like, you need something that is bringing you into the battlefield. Okay, like you men need to go work at steel factories again. Women need to start sewing again. Like we need something that is occupying our time more than things like this, okay? Because this is leading people into a dark place.

TikTok users are also taking the DNA analyst testimony out of context by claiming that the exercise bans used to kill the children did not include Lindsay's DNA at all and only had Patrick. So here's what they're saying, Sout 11. Okay, we'll have to try this again because I just got a community violation. So I'm getting cut up on my Clancy news. and I just heard that they did not find any of her DNA on the exercise bands that were used to smirder the children. But Patrick's, the husband, his DNA was on the band.

So you're telling me a woman in psychosis had the wherewithal to clean off all the DNA, but just hers. Not the children and not his. That's what you're telling me. Okay. That's not even true. Okay. It was expected that his DNA would also be on the exercise bans. He was the one who removed them from his children's neck after he found them dead.

They had also been probably been used before. Former Massachusetts state police forensic scientist, Katerina Stashen, I think is how you pronounce her last name, testified that DNA from all five family members was actually found on the set of exercise band, but not on every swab of every portion of the band. And so Lindsay's DNA was detected on at least some of the samples. There's a forensic scientist Amy Centoro explained in a TikTok video that the fact that the DNA results were a complex mixture from related people with very similar DNA profiles makes the data difficult to interpret. She also added that Patrick's amplified state where he could have been rushed and sweating as he removed the bans could have caused him to leave more skin cells behind.

So again, all of this is not necessarily an indication that he, is guilty. Now, if someone has real evidence, then I think that that should be brought forth. But again, all of these are vibes. Okay. Another reason why conspiracy theorists think Patrick Clancy is actually guilty in this case is Lindsay's body temperature, which was 82 degrees. When she arrived at the hospital, they argue that her body didn't have enough time to drop to that level. Like, my goodness, y'all. In the 20 to 30 minutes, it took for Patrick to return from running a few short errands. And so TikTokers are asking, like, why was she so cold? But it's probably obvious that Lindsay Clancy, she cut her wrists and she cut her neck before

jumping out of a second story window according to the prosecution. These facts are not disputed by Lindsay and her defense. And that, when you do that, you can get hypothermia. Like your body temperature can go down. Dr. James Chow, he's a plastic and reconstructive surgeon with more than 25 years of experience. he told Parade.com that Clancy's hypothermia was medically possible, not only because of heat loss, that she would have incurred lying injured on the frozen ground on a January night in Massachusetts, hello, but also because of blood loss, shock and a spinal cord injury that impairs the body's ability

to shiver and constrict blood vessels to maintain its core temperature. I mean, that makes a lot of sense. Again, it's just so strange how they're pulling out these random factoids and they're connecting them to nothing except for their own feelings. You will be overwhelmed by the videos that are defending Lindsay Clancy and going against Patrick Clancy and all of these people who think that they have this very interesting view on things. And they have now raised almost $900,000 on GoFundMe as of Tuesday morning with the goal of reaching $2 million to support Lindsay to support her family. The page says that the funds are for her parents. but if you look at the image associated with the page in the comments,

you can see that this page is also meant to support Lindsay. Like obviously they are portraying Lindsay as the victim here. And she is being protected by all of these women. She is, if you don't know this, paralyzed from the waist down, from her apparent attempt to kill herself by throwing herself out of the window. And then you've got all of these women who are standing around supposed to be protecting her and raising $2 million on her behalf. Okay, so it's this AI generated image that is trying to depict that.

Commenter is on the page say things like, we stand with her, we believe her, we will continue to stand by her as the truth comes to light, and please use my donation to better investigate Patrick's role in this tragedy. Wow. Okay, so there is actually a cultural reason that has been going on for at least 20 plus years,

probably more than that, that I think is making theories like this so popular. And it is this idea that a woman is so complicated and so complex and so buried by the patriarchy that anything she does can be understood from the perspective of her being a victim of oppression. Even if she does do an evil thing, even if she does take part in violence, and wickedness. There was probably a good reason for it. That's the idea that we hear. We'll get into that in just a second. Let me pause tell you about our next sponsor. And that is good ranchers. Okay, kids are

heading back to school in your home and you want to make sure that you've got dinner ready for that night. And you want to make sure that it's nutritious, that it's something that your kids actually want to eat. That's why you need to get all of your American meat from good ranchers. American chicken, American beef, American steak, American chicken nuggets, hot dogs, all of that, all from an American farm or a ranch. We love good ranchers. We eat almost every night in our home, the ground beef, the chicken, the seafood. It is also high quality. It just saves you time and money, too. It comes right to your front door on dry ice every month. You never have to go to the grocery store and worry about getting the right cut of steak. And you know exactly where it's

coming from. This is an awesome family-owned, Christ-centered company that you want to support. go to good ranchers.com slash Alley. get $50 off anything on their site. That's good ranchers.com slash Alley for $50 off. So here's what I said on X a few days ago. To understand some of the unconditional defense of Lindsay Clancy, because by the way, some of it is unconditional. They saw a TikTok video of a woman rocking her baby

and she was saying, me too, Lindsay, me too. Yikes! Yikes! Okay? To understand some of the unconditional defense of Lindsay Clancy and the baseless accusation, of her husband circulating on feminist TikTok, you have to clue in to the content

that women are consuming on a daily basis. The backdrop of their brains is made up of true crime podcasts, fiction books, TV shows, movies that paint every woman, even murderous ones, as complex heroines, who did a horrible thing as her only chance at freedom and empowerment. She's portrayed as, at best, brave and unhindered. And at worst, layered and misunderstood. This dynamic has completely warped the lib female consciousness and conscience.

They cannot imagine a world in which a woman, especially a struggling one, just did an evil thing and should be held accountable for it. For the past 20 or so years, pop culture has contributed to this idea that women are always victims in one way or another, no matter how evil their actions might be. Like I think of a few things. I think of a few songs, movies, TV shows, and books. books in popular culture. There is the song by Taylor Swift in 2020 called Nobody, No Crime. It's a dark song and Taylor sings about a friend named Esty whose husband has a mistress and after

Esty disappears and the husband marries the mistress, the singer talks about how she kills the husband. So the lyrics say, good thing my daddy made me get a boating license when I was 15 and I've cleaned enough houses to know how to cover up a scene. Good thing Esty's sister going to swear she was with me. Good thing his mistress took out a big life and she was. policy. No body, no crime. No, nobody, no crime. I wasn't letting up until the day that he died. Okay. Anyone remember the song from the 90s Earl had to die? Now, unfortunately, I know all of the lyrics from this song because there were a lot of country songs that I probably sang on my way to kindergarten that I had no idea what they meant, but I could repeat verbatim the lyrics from you. Like,

whose bed have your boots been under? I got in trouble for singing that at kindergarten. Had no idea what that meant. And this is also one of those songs. And it wasn't until later in life that I'm like, oh, they're talking about murdering someone. The Dixie Ticks Earl had to die. Now, I don't have to read you all of the lyrics, but basically it's a song about this guy named Earl who was a horrible guy. Okay, it was a husband who was abusing Mary, or not Marianne, was abusing the other woman, Wanda. And so Mary, Marianne, her friend and Wanda, they got together to kill Earl, to poison him. Earl had to die.

Okay, you probably remember that. Now, that's not to say that Earl shouldn't have been severely punished and shouldn't have gone to jail for the rest of his life and wasn't an awful person or that we don't want Wanda to have protection from Earl. But this is another one of those ideas that if a woman commits a horrible crime, it was probably because she was being abused or oppressed in some way. All of these kind of shape our conscience and our consciousness. Remember the TV series, which I watched at the time, probably didn't think that much of it. Starting in 2017, the series Big Little Lies, it ran for two seasons.

To be honest, it wasn't very good. It was one of those like very first shows that was so much of like the slop of nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens. One thing almost happens at the end. then you have to watch the next episode. It was a star-setted cast with Laura Dern, Reese Witherspoon, Nicole Kidman. It's a murder mystery, and it's set in a wealthy coastal town. And we know from the start that Perry Wright,

this character is dead, but we don't know how he died. It's gradually revealed that Perry was abusive to his wife Celeste and had also previously raped another character. And so in the climax of the movie, Bonnie, another character pushes him down a flight of stairs during a confrontation. The group of women then cover up the truth and claim

that he simply fell. Okay. So again, horrible person, horrible crimes committed. We don't like him. We think he's terrible. That's all true. But this plays into the idea that if a woman commits a terrible crime, it must be for a good reason because that's the only reason a woman would ever do something that awful. If we look at books and, you know, my team, they included this one and I was like, I didn't think about this as being an example. And it's where the cradding. It's the 2018 novel by Delia Owens. I really enjoyed this book. Some of you out there I've talked to you, you didn't like where the crowd had seen because you thought it was too depressing. I love depressing books. Okay. That's one thing about me. I want to sob and cry at the end of the book.

And I did sobbing and cry at the end of the book. But this is also one of those examples. She's suspected in the death of a local man by her neighbors because she's seen as strange. She's tried, found not guilty, but at the end of the book, it's revealed that she did actually kill him when he tried to rape her. Now, I don't think it's wrong for her to have killed someone who was trying to rape her. That is self-defense if that is what is happening.

But again, contributes to the idea that the only reason a woman would do anything is if something is happening to her. The Housemade series by Frieda McFadden have not read the series. It's a collection of psychological thrillers about a young woman hired as a live-in housemaid by wealthy households with dark secrets. In this first book, she kills the husband

who tried to rape her, again, contributing to this idea that women only do things when they are pushed to the edge or it can't actually fully be her fault. And then we have a, you know, the category of films and cultural examples of women not being able to be portrayed unconditionally as villains, but really as complicated and nuanced. and even justified in their terrible actions. I think about Elsa from Frozen. She's the complex protagonist. She shuts out her own sister throughout her childhood.

And then when she grows older, she freezes her kingdom because of her anger. She sings, let it go. And she says, no right, no wrong, no rules for me. I'm free. Now we do see that she suffers the consequences of her isolation and of her selfishness. And ultimately, she has to be selfless

in order for her to overcome some of those things. and the consequences of her action. So I'm not saying Frozen is all a bad lesson, but this is an example. There was actually no real villain in Frozen. It wasn't really Elsa. It was this complicated female figure whose past trauma kind of justified her selfishness

in how rude and mean she was to her sister Anna. Also, there's another Disney movie. They're trying to do this. There's all kinds of Disney movies that are trying to really, tell the story from the villain's perspective. And one of them is a new movie that's going to come out called Step Sisters. And it's going to be a live action spinoff of Cinderella and it's an early development. And it features the protagonist two wicked stepsisters. Now, this rendering of the story

is going to be from their perspective. And what is it going to portray? That they're really just misunderstood. That it, they weren't actually just rude. They weren't actually just mean. They weren't actually just mean. They weren't actually just covetousness or covetous and jealous that really they had their own issues and we should be more understanding. Disney does this over and over again, telling the story from the villain's perspective. It's supposed to blur the lines of virtue and vice. It's supposed to blur the lines of good and evil. I think it perpetuates this idea because so far I've only really seen it from the female perspective, the female villain's perspective, that a woman only acts in a way that is wrong when there is some circumstance that is causing

her to act that way. It's also just what progressives get wrong all the time about human nature. When they see nature versus nurture, they think everything is nurture. They don't believe in a sin nature. They don't believe that there is an objective right and wrong. so that worldview really comes out in all of the art that they create, but it also affects our minds and how we see real life situations. There are all kinds of true crime podcasts.

There's crime junkie. There's morbid. There's lady killers. And this one specifically goes through women who have killed, but it then unpacks how society and abuse and circumstances really pushed them to kill. There's also a female criminals podcast that cover similar cases with more of a focus on psychology and motive.

Five of the top 10 podcasts on Apple Podcasts are true crime. And so this just goes to show this is a very popular category. This is also convinced a bunch of women that they know more than they do. Okay. And that they are more sophisticated and smarter than they actually are when it comes to sleuthing. Now, I'm not saying that all women who follow true crime are actually done. or that they don't know anything or that they're never asking good questions, but I think that these kinds of podcasts fill us with the kind of confidence that we shouldn't

have. And there are some people that I do just want to ask, like, okay, let me give you an example. Like, I'm bad at math, okay? Like, I'm not good at math. And if there were a podcast out there that was saying that 2 plus 2 equals 5, and they were giving what seemed like a very convincing argument for that. And it sounded good to me. And it made sense to me and they totally convince me that two plus two equals five. But my friend who was always really good at math is like, hey, I don't think so. Like that's not right. And here's why what he's saying is wrong. It would be really dumb of me to think about my brain and look back on my life and insist that I'm right. I think some people who think that they know better than the defense team and think that they

know better than all of these people who are actual experts should think back in their life and be like, have I traditionally been someone who people say is smart? Like have I been someone who figures things out easily and is like really, really adept at these kinds of investigations? And if the answer is no, then you're probably just wrong here. Like you're probably just going off vibes. Like I think we need to have a better self-assessment of like what our skills actually are and leave some things, not everything,

but some things up to the experts because you could be ruining someone's life by your vibes and by publicizing your vibes, right? And this is all kind of the secular mindset of right versus wrong and male versus female too. All right. Last sponsor for the day is Shopify. If you've been sitting on a business idea, but keep telling yourself someday, that is understandable. A lot of people have been exactly where you are, but Shopify exists to make it so much easier. Once you launch Shopify is a game changer. Their checkout is so smooth, especially with shop pay. Customers finish purchases in one tap and their info is saved for next time.

That means more sales and way less abandoned carts. And because Shopify handles the heavy lifting, you actually have time to grow your business and enjoy the sunny days with the people that you love. With Shopify, nothing stands between your idea and a real business. So go make one. If you're ready to stop putting off your business and start hearing that, then you're ready for Shopify.

start your free trial at shopify.com slash alley shopify.com slash alley remember that scripture reminds us not to call conspiracy everything that the world calls conspiracy. Isaiah 520 reminds us, woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Proverbs 111, a false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight. God cares a lot about justice. He cares a lot about truth. And that's why in the Old Testament, as he is giving his law to ancient Israel, he says that you shall speak the truth about your neighbor and that justice is impartial, that it's truthful, that it's direct, that is proportional, that it is not based on hearsay and that you can be charged by the presence of two or three eyewitnesses. Like the Old Testament law giving gives us a precedent for giving rights to both the accused and the accuser. And in the court of social media, you don't have those rights as the accused. You have no rights.

You don't even have the right to a defense because you don't have an attorney that's pleading for you and arguing on your case. You are totally at the whims of the mob. And that's wrong. And Christians shouldn't contribute to that. You shouldn't contribute to that if someone is presenting something to you without evidence. It's not to say that people can't actually bring, like we did this on Monday, bring real evidence and real testimony forward and shine light and blow the whistle on evil things that are happening, but you've got to have a good case for it, right? Proverbs 2423. These also are sayings of the wise, partiality in judging is not good. Okay. So showing partiality to one side or the other, one gender or the other based on what feels right to you, not good. Leviticus 1915, you shall do no injustice in court. You should not be partial to the poor nor deferred to the great.

people forget about that. But in righteousness or in truth, you shall judge your neighbor. James 2.1, my brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. Be careful what you consume. Be careful what you repost.

Be careful what you perpetuate. Check our mind. And we need to make sure that we are being renewed in the spirit of our mind. We need to make sure that the assumptions that we have, the conclusions that we come to are affected by the truth, the reality that is really there,

that is observable, but also the truth that we read in scripture and that if we don't know, it's okay to just opt out of a conversation and say, I don't have, this is okay. I don't have the capacity to be following the Lindsay Clancy story right now. I don't have the capacity to dig into and research what is actually true and what actually happened. So I'm not going to watch all the TikTok conspiracies about that. That would be the responsible thing to do. Okay, the responsible thing to do isn't to say, well, I don't have time to do it.

so I am going to delegate my critical thinking to TikTokers. That's probably the worst thing you can do. And by the way, you shouldn't delegate your critical thinking to me either. I hope to actually equip you to critically think and help you ask the right questions, but you shouldn't let me do your thinking for you. You should be thinking because God gave you a brain. And if you find yourself in a position of like, okay, I think that I'm allowing other people to think and speak for me, then maybe it's time to just opt out of the commentator space

all together. I'm saying that as a podcaster. Only listen to the podcast that are actually helping you get more deeply into God's word and ask the right questions and to seek the truth better. Not the ones that are attempting you to shut your brain off. All right. I know that was a lot. That's all we got time for today.

We will be back here on Friday.