Ep 1386 | Did Patrick Clancy Do It? Fact-Checking Lindsay Clancy’s Defenders

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Blaze Podcast Network

This episode of Relatable explores the viral TikTok narrative questioning Patrick Clancy's involvement in the murder of his children, examining how online culture and feminist

Key takeaways

• Online 'sleuthing' on platforms like TikTok can distort justice by promoting unverified narratives, especially when gendered assumptions about women's guilt are involved.
• The debate format used in the Jubilee Face Off limited real-time engagement, making it difficult to clarify claims and expose logical inconsistencies.

Main topics

• The TikTok-driven narrative around Lindsay Clancy's alleged involvement in her children's murder
• Cultural bias against holding women accountable for violent acts

Notable quotes

If you don't know, it's okay to just opt out of a conversation and say, I don't have the capacity to be following this right now.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a call for discernment, urging listeners to resist the temptation

Transcript preview

Speaker 5 (0:00) 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 Mader 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. Speaker 5 (0:50) Hey y'all, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far. If you have not listened to where I watched Monday's episode about Catherine Crick, the self-appointed apostle, her connection to a man named George Davy, the Tanzanian so-called prophet, and the allegations against him and what Catherine Crick may have known about George Davy's misconduct and really scary sexual Speaker 5 (1:18) 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 antidepressants, 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 Mader. She is a very popular, ex-evangelical influencer. I think she's got almost 3 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 and 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 and 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's ministry and teaching. So four total claims, and there are 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 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 balanced 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 tacks. 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 Sat1. Well, first let me say this is part of her claim, and then the second clip will be me clarifying what that actually means, Sat1. Speaker 1 (8:14) 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 contrarian. 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. What we are saying is we are 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 a... 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 miscarriages, and medical emergencies. And medical professionals should be allowed to make that call in conjunction with their patient and their patient's safety. First Speaker 5 (9:04) of all, Fetus is Latin for 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 or 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 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 Speaker 4 (9:42) kill that baby and then to throw that baby away like toxic waste. That's what we're talking about. Speaker 5 (9:47) 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 weeks that you have an argument for being pro-life. I could have addressed this idea that late-term abortions, second and third trimester 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 19 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 tacks. 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 points. 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 about our first 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 pre-qualified right now before you even start looking because in this market, the good houses sell in days. And if you are not pre-qualified, 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 fellowshiphomeloans.com slash Allie 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. Speaker 5 (12:57) 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 Speaker 1 (13:17) with our beliefs. 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 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. Speaker 5 (13:40) But we know that's not true. We know what the science says about something like gender. There really is XX and XY. 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. 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. Speaker 5 (14:50) 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. Speaker 1 (15:41) 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 enforce 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 Speaker 5 (16:05) 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. He'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 out. 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 you know 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 theocracy 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. Speaker 5 (17:26) 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 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, forging 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 tried to go through each claim