God’s Not Dead 2 — He’s still imaginary
Since I reviewed the first “God’s Not Dead” film, it seemed necessary to review the sequel… and man was it a Grand Central of disappointment.
In the first movie “God’s Not Dead” the whole film was centered around providing a case for the existence of God. In the first film, a Philosophy professor is under fire from one of his own students for denying the evidences of God in his own class. Spoiler alert, the student failed to prove anything. (In response to that first film, I also wrote an in-response script to the film)
In this sequel, the film is centered around providing a case for the historicity of Jesus. Basically a History teacher answers a student’s question regarding Jesus in the middle of class, this eventually leads to her going to court and later on in court her side makes the case that Jesus was in fact a historical character, thus answering a question about Jesus is no more different then answering a question about Martin Luther King or any other historical character. Well done Harold Cronk, make a first movie trying to prove God is real, followed by another to prove Jesus was real.
The following is the simplistic walk through of the film with added commentary… so, spoiler alert.
Film Walk through
A girl named Brooke loses a brother in an accident. She is raised in a “freethinking” family, her family parents show no sign of grief and want to get rid of all his possessions ASAP, but she is struggling with loss. So Brooke goes to her teacher Grace Wesley in a coffee shop and asks how she holds everything together, to which her teacher answers “Jesus.” Later on, in a history class, Grace is having a history lesson of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi about civil rights movements and non-violence. So Brooke asks her teacher, “isn’t that what Jesus talked about? In regards to love your neighbor.” Grace answers yes, and expands on that by quoting a single line of Scripture emphasizing the love thy neighbor part.
Funny how when religion is brought up in this scenario that nobody dares mention that Ghandi’s ideals for non-violent civil rights (which inspired Martin Luther King Jr.) came from Jainism, a Hindu religion.
Now, as I watched this scene, as a atheist and anti-theist, I did not find this piece “offensive,” nor did I think this mention was over the line. It was basically a “yes, Jesus said that.” If a student followed up with, “didn’t Muhammad say something similar?” to which Grace could have answered, “yes, he said things like ‘put in the hearts of those who follow kindness and mercy.'” To me, either of those scenarios does not seem out of line.
Back at home, Grace is helping her 80+ year old father. Grace is commenting on Brooke and how she is struggling and how her parents treat her. Her father says this, “this is what atheism is doing to this country, robbing people of hope.”
There is nothing — nothing — that religion has that cannot be found apart from religion (that is, without religion). And that is especially true with hope. Religion does not own hope, nor is it the source of hope.
Grace’s response to Brooke gets reported to the school board, and they ask her to apologize. She says no. Later on in the movie, she says she would rather stand with God and judged by the world, then stand with the world and be judged by God.
Honestly, this whole movie makes it seem like teachers cannot mention even the name “Jesus” in a classroom, and anyone who dares mention anything about Christianity will get the full force of the school board and the laws dropped on them. BULLSHIT.
I actually have a degree in History, and I recall what my History classes were like. There are certainly times when Jesus is mentioned, as was Mohammad (and not just in a History of the Middle East class) and Confucius. I recall my first ever History of Religion class, my professor taught it very well and professionally. He would not reveal to us which faith he belonged to until the very last day of the semester (turns out he was Catholic). To give you an idea of how well he kept his religion to himself, when we arrived into a lesson on Judaism, a student asked the professor why Jews do not accept Jesus. He responded, “well, the Torah prophesied that a King would return and liberate Israel, rebuild the Temple and rule over the land. What happened to Jesus? Never ruled a day in his life, nor did he rebuild the Temple. Rather he got caught by the Romans, was publicly shamed, and got nailed to cross like a common criminal. Yeah, some King he turned out to be eh?” He said that last line in a bit of a mocking way, to emphasize how the Jews perceive Jesus: a failure. This professor said that about his own savior, and he did not make the Jews look like idiots during that lesson. Rather he gave a balanced view from the Jewish perspective about Jesus. For that, he deserves respect.
So the “evil” ACLU steps in and chargers only Grace (not the school) with the agenda of fining her in every way, thus taking everything from her if she loses. Grace gets an fresh attorney named Tom who has never had a case before (go figure) to defend her. And get this: Tom is not a believer. When she asks why the ACLU is coming after her, Tom answers, “they want to make an example of you. To them, beliefs are like a disease whose time has come and gone.”
The ACLU does not think that.
Did these guys ever once research the ACLU, or did they pick these guys as “antagonists” because the ACLU is just well known? I honestly don’t know.
Anyone who takes a moment to research the ACLU can see that the ACLU actually defends religious people and religious groups. Kinda contradictory to the claim that the ACLU thinks religion is a disease that needs to wither away.
The ACLU lawyer named Peter Kane (played by Ray Wise) is a classic asshole, who openly admits he “hates” people like Grace.
This movie portrays the ACLU in every dark way imaginable. He always has an evil smile, the lighting on his face makes him seem dark, he even got me flipping him the finger while in theater.
The first time I heard of a Christian being pissed at the ACLU was creationist and fraudster, Kent Hovind. He called them the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union and the American Communist Lawyers Union. Why? Because in 1963, Kent says the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court to take Bibles out of schools…. which is bullshit, but that’s not surprising given that is pretty much the only thing that flies out of Kent Hovind’s mouth.
And so, this goes to court. Brooke’s “Freethinker” parents sue Grace, because the ACLU says they can win $$$ for their daughters college fund.
They argue whether Grace was crossing the line in class, whether she was deliberately preaching or was she just giving a honest answer to a question. In the opening statements, ACLU Peter Kane says that this is not about faith, but whether Grace stepped out of line. He asks the jury imagine if this was about Islam and Grace was reciting a verse from a surah of the Koran to students.
To his credit, the ACLU lawyer stays on target on what this issue is all about, but that is going be very short lived as this movie goes on. Did Grace go over the line? I don’t think so, I think it was a honest response but that is what the film makers wanted — make a teacher who gave a honest answer a victim, so we the audience can sympathize with her and her cause, and react with a presupposition that this happens all over the country and teachers are under fire for so much as speaking about religion. Sorry, not falling for that crap.
That being said, there are Christians today who think that teachers should be allowed to proselytize to students. For the life of me, I cannot understand how these people fail to grasp why that is a terrible idea, or how they are unable to realize how secularism actually helps them (even I realized that when I was a teenage Christian). At least the film makers have some sense, because they had the ACLU lawyer pointed out “how would you feel if a teacher was talking about Islam and recited verses from the Koran?” They get it, but I’m certain some of their Christian audience won’t or just refuse to get it.
When it is Tom’s turn for opening statements, Tom pointed out that the “separation of church and state” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. He then argues that regardless what the ACLU says, this court case IS about faith. He says, “but that is what’s on trial here. The most basic human right of all: the right to believe.”
So much horse shit in this.
First of all, No, this is not whether teachers or anyone has the “right to believe.” It’s a given that everyone has that right, and no one is arguing anyone should not. What the focus of this is making sure teachers teach and not preach.
Ever heard of Matthew LeClaire? He was a high school student from New Jersey who secretly recorded his History teacher 1) raving about creationism 2) how evolution and the Big Bang was not true 3) how all Christians go to Heaven and all non-Christians belonged in Hell and many other things. THAT is definitely crossing the line, way way past the line.
If you want to know what happened in that story, you’re in luck. They made a documentary out of it. (and I have the gut feeling that the film makers of God’s Not Dead 2 based their ENTIRE idea for the movie on this documentary)
Also, prior to the release of this movie, an Arkansas History teacher actually got busted and suspended for showing The Passion then pushing his religion in class. The movie itself is not the most damning part of this case, it’s the homework that the teacher made these students do right after viewing it. Click the link and read the questions of this homework (and I dare the Christians to try to weasel out an excuse that this does not cross a line. It’s so-right-in-your-face preaching and emotional manipulation).
First the ACLU examine Grace’s colleagues to discover whether Grace is too evangelic at school or not. It is found out that she offers her coworkers invitations to church and she has a donation box in her classroom to a faith-based charity.
Seems pretty mellow, but the film makers dare not share a real life story that happens every day in a class in the Bible Belt. Donation boxes are nothing, try a scenario where a teacher openly calls a Buddhist student “stupid” for not being a Christian.
One colleague that is examined is asked if she thought what Grace did was wrong. She answers yes. So Grace’s attorney pointed out that they teach at Martin Luther King Jr. High… but that title leaves out he Reverend part. He then asks, “what if Grace shared in a history class the letters Martin Luther King Jr wrote from Birmingham Prison, especially the parts where he declares his religion plays a major role in his desire to fight for civil rights?” Her colleague says that she would not share that in class, because it is “controversial.”
Controversial MY ASS!!
Ever taken a history lesson on WWII and the Nazi’s? I certainly have, and I recall us reading the quotes of Hitler and Himmler, and guess what? They mentioned their faiths several times. And nobody blinked an eye. Saying that we cannot teach Martin Luther King Jr.’s religious views in a History class is complete bogus. There is a big difference is talking about a historical persons faith and promoting a particular faith. If I taught a history course and was about to do a lesson on Thomas Jefferson, I could do into detail about how he was a deist and rejected all the miracles in the Bible and rejected Christ’s divinity, but that does not mean I am pushing that deistic view unto the kids. I could do a history lesson of Sir Isaac Newton, tell the students about his discoveries in science, as well as note that he believed in alchemy, but that does not mean that I am pushing the bogus teaching of alchemy onto the students.
When that approach does not seem to work, Grace and her lawyer come up with a new angle: that she was just sharing the “fact” of what a “historical” person said, that she was answering a historical manner, not a religions manner. So they put Lee Strobel on the stand. Lee Strobel shares is credentials and that he has written many books on the subject of Jesus and Christianity (spoiler alert, they are all terrible).
When I saw Lee Strobel on the stand, I nearly fell out of my chair.
What are Lee Strobel’s proofs that Jesus was real? First he offers the calendar. He argues the fact that our calendar is in place that starts with the birth of Christ is evidence enough, and very hard to put in place if someone is not real.
OH REALLY?! By that logic, the fact that I saw this movie on a Thursday must mean that Thor is real. After all, wouldn’t it be hard for anyone to make a big impact on the calendar if they were not real?
Strobel’s next argument is sharing Habermas’s 12 facts that scholars and skeptics agree on. Strobel doesn’t mention these “facts”… thankfully I already have heard them. Habermas claims that all scholars across the board agree to the following “historical facts;”
1) Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
2) He was buried, most likely a private tomb.
3) Soon afterwards, his disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope.
4) Jesus’ tomb was found empty.
5) The disciples had experiences which they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
6) Due to these experiences, the disciples were thoroughly transformed. They were willing to die for their beliefs.
7) The proclamation that the resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.
8) The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and been buried shortly after.
9) The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
10) Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshiping.
11) James, the brother of Jesus was a skeptic before this time, was converted when he believed he also saw the resurrected Jesus.
12) Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) became a Christian believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
Lets get this straight: none of the above are “historical facts.” They may be facts within Christian theology, but there is zero historical evidence for any of them. For instance, we have no verification that Jesus was crucified, which is also very unlikely given the story of the trial that contradicts dozens of historical facts.
Jesus would not have been buried in a private tomb for the rich, nor would he be buried as described in the gospels. The central message of Christianity was not the resurrection, but atonement. The resurrection is completely pointless without atonement. We have not historically verified or discover any tomb. Actions made in response to beliefs do not make the beliefs true, for instance, mass UFO hysteria do not verify that UFO’s exist. We cannot even verify if the disciples were even martyred since all the testimonies of this happening comes from the Bible. We have no evidence for James and as for Paul, he is the first person to bring to the world the story of Jesus Christ excluding all the major details, teachings, words, and life of Jesus.
Strobel ends his piece it with sharing the testimony of a 18th century German historian, who says the historicity of Jesus is “undeniable.”
I don’t remember the German historians name, but as someone who actually has a degree in History (making me more credible then Stroble), I know that citing the convictions of one historian is piss-poor proof. We do not base history on the convictions of historians, we base them on the physical evidence. There are historians that deny the Holocaust and others who believe Atlantis is a real city. What we should not concern ourselves with is not the “conviction” of certain historians, we should be examining the evidence. And as I already examined earlier, the presented evidence for the “historicity of Jesus” doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Next they bring in J. Warner, author of “Cold Case for Christ,” on the stand. Warner argues that from a detective stand point, the four gospels are clear authentic cases for the historicity of Jesus. He says they have discrepancies, “but that is what we would expect from key eyewitness sources.” He gives an example from Matthew where Jesus is being hit by a Roman and told to answer a question. But in Luke, Jesus is being hit by a Roman and was blindfolded.
Watching this piece was the most painful. I only heard a few things about Warner before, but I never read his books. I guess after this, I should do a blog review of it (for the time being, I invite my readers to read a review here). Warner says that he used his detective skills and came to the conclusion that the gospels were all valid witness testimonies. I tried to stay focused to remember all the details in this scene, but one line after the other I was thinking how they were wrong on multiple levels. Like a classic problem known to scholars as the Synoptic Problem; that the gospels were not actual eye witnesses; we don’t have any of the original gospels; or how about all the gospels that did not make it into the Bible, especially the ones that tell different stories on what happened at the Resurrection.
And if I am already tearing this guy apart as I watch this one scene, I cannot imagine how bad his book is. I mean honestly, how do you rationalize these gospels as being “reliable testimonies” when they cannot even agree what era Jesus was born in or where he was born?
Sometime afterward, when Tom and Grace and discussing their next plan, Grace gives Tom a copy of Rice Brooks book, “Man, Myth, Messiah.”
Another silent sells man, where this movie promotes Brooks newest book that makes the case that Jesus was a real historical person. Bear in mind, Rice Brooks is also the guy that wrote the book “God’s Not Dead,” the very book that inspired these movies.
I have only glimpsed at pieces of Brook’s book on Jesus, and it looks exactly like the same stuff I’ve reviewed a hundred times. That being said, since we see this book several times in this movie, I guess I might as well read the whole thing and write a blog review of it myself.
The court then hears a testimony from Brooke, the student that started this whole thing. She admits that she was the one who asked the question, and did not see anything wrong with the answer she received. But then it is revealed that the teacher was the one responsible for making her take the first step towards Christ – she retells the story where she met Grace out of class, and they talked about her missing her dead brother, and how the teacher held her life together thanks to Jesus. At that point, Brooke took on religion. The jury is not liking Grace at all at this point.
I really see no point as to why this movie wanted to include this clip. My only guess is that it was a way for Brooke to say to her parents, “I’m here, I’m religious.”
Last scene of the trial, Tom calls Grace to the stand and he lashes at her like she wasn’t his client. He made her share how she came to her faith, and then dared the jury to find her guilty. She had the “audacity” to have a personal relationship with Jesus and share that with her students, so he dares the jury to find her guilty and then there will be a time when they find any teacher who mentions anything they believe in as ‘guilty.’ Tom also says someone will always be offended, so he asks us to “get over it.”
Get over what?! No one is putting her or anyone on trial for having the audacity to have a personal belief. George W. Bush was President of the United States, and liked to talk about his deep personal beliefs and relationship in Jesus very often…. yet nobody wanted to put him on trial for that (but for the war crimes, that’s a different story).
Professors all over this country have personal religious beliefs, and it is not hard for them to keep it to themselves and not turn into Pat Robertson in class. Take Ken Miller, a professing Catholic, scientist, and professor at Brown University. He was also one of the main key witnesses in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. And guess what, he teaches evolution to students, and does not proselytize his faith to them.
In the end, Grace is found “Not Guilty” and everyone celebrates. Grace was targeted to be an example, now suddenly she is an “inspiration” to Christians everywhere. The ACLU is pissed, they reflect on why they lost, and they are upset that their opponents “proved the existence of Jesus” (their very last words).
This movie proved jack shit.
Like I said, the film makers intent for this movie was “proving Jesus.” They make it appear that there is absolutely no scholar or historian who thinks otherwise, but that is just not true. Even the day before I went to see this film in theater, the respected Cambridge University Press published a article by Raphael Lataster, “It’s Official: We Can Now Doubt Jesus’ Historical Existence.” Yeah, Cambridge published that.
Whether known to people or not, the debate of whether Jesus really existed is still boiling, with historians and scholars all over the spectrum. Some say he is just a myth, some say if he was real then he was a complete nobody because nobody at the time mentions him. Many people may ask, “why does it seem that most historians accept there was a historical Jesus?” Well honestly because the old arguments that Jesus was mythical were horrible arguments, and were tossed aside. Now with the rise of actual solid scholarly arguments against the historicity of Jesus, most historians are like “this again? Didn’t we deal with this several decades ago?” Well, now that people are bringing this back to the spot light, historians, archeologists and scholars from a variety of universities are starting to doubt.
IN THE REAL WORLD
In the real world, this shit does not happen. Teachers are not suspended for merely mentioning Jesus, nor are they under fire or pressure for “having the audacity” of having a relationship with Christ. That’s insane. Over 80% of the American population are Christians, think of how many teachers right now are Christians… and yet they are still employed. I mentioned Prof. Ken Miller earlier, he has the “audacity” to believe in Jesus, yet he is still employed! Teachers are not being targeted for having beliefs, the only time they just might is when they cross the line (just like that Arkansas History teacher I also mentioned earlier).
In fact, the opposite happens more often — look at what happens to a atheist teacher in the Bible belt. He was still “in the closet” at the time, he didn’t say anything about atheism to his students or colleagues, nor did he talk down to religion or religious students, and yet he gets crushed simply for not believing. Then he gets banned from teaching in any of their schools in the district again. Seriously, it is the exact opposite of this fictitious movie plot.
Or how about the Christian schools who DO go after their faculty who have different beliefs or opinions? Or get this, religious schools firing teachers because they won’t disclose how often they go to church.
As for portraying court cases, this film is so disingenuous it does nothing but provide two-hours worth of disservice to real court cases that attempt to sort out the demarcation between personal faith and civic life in the United States.
The one and only thing that this film got right was that people survive cancer — the liberal journalist from the first movie that got cancer, so she turns to Jesus, and now she learns her cancer went into remission — but the whole time whenever they talked about her cancer, the first thing they did was thank God and gave prayer all the credit. basically they are neglecting to thank the doctors, or even suggest the cancer went into remission naturally. Nope, it’s all confirmational bias. If she died, its “cuz God wanted to take her” but if she lives its “cuz God has a plan for you.” As for prayer, they claim prayer saved her despite showing an inkling of evidence that prayer has any effective use. For those who actually tried to test this hypothesis — like the MANTRA study — always find that prayer is useless, and you can get the same exact results if you prayed to God or prayed to a milk jug.
HOW I FELT: This is a South Park Mel “torture me” Gibson movie (intense persecution complex).
Of the many problems with the first movie, one of the bad ones was too many subplots. Honestly, there were soooo many secondary characters who’s goals and motivations have nothing to do with the main plot whatsoever, which threw us the audience off. This movie did not learn from it’s last problems. They even brought back nearly half a dozen secondary characters from the first film, plus the Newsboys band, and they just go on their own little mini-dramatic anecdotes about being a Christian and highlight God’s love and so on.
But as I was watching this film, I could not shake off the feeling that this movie made me (as the audience) feel like I am Mel Gibson from South Park. It’s obvious that the target audience for this movie were Christians, and it constantly told them they were “at war” and “being persecuted.” As I was watching this, I tried to figure out who would like this stuff. And the only kind of person in my mind that fit that profile was Mel Gibson from South Park. Click the link for those of you who don’t get the reference, but basically Mel Gibson is being super Christian (and super crazy) where he expects people who don’t like his christian movie must want to torture him (basically, it’s a heavy persecution complex). “Oh yeah, you wanna torture me don’t you. You like it. Do it, torture me!” Honestly, watching this flick GND2, it’s packed with moments stoking the paranoia that persecution is rampant the only sensible way you could like this film is if you enjoy being the victim. Everywhere in this film, the Christians are painted as the victims, from Grace being sued, Brooke feeling neglected by her own parents, Martin being slapped then disowned by his father, the peaceful silent-sit-in Christians at the court being yelled at by an angry crowd, all the way to Rev. Dave getting arrested. I’m not joking around when I say that this film is promoting a big heavy persecution complex.
Oh yeah, the Rev. Dave from the previous movie (the guy who, instead of calling for help, prayed next to a dying man who got run over by a car) gets arrested. Why did he get arrested? Long story short: the US government filed a subpoena on a dozen church pastors (basically a series of unconstitutional injunctions that would never be allowed to happen in the real world — if Christians cannot be victims of these in the real world, then they must be in these fake films). When the pastors cannot figure out why this is happening, one pastor says they should not suspect anything bad and just cooperate. Rev. Dave objects and says “if we sit by and do nothing, the pressure we are feeling today will mean persecution tomorrow.” He also notes that they are part of, “The war of Ephesians 6 — Not against the flesh, but against the powers of this world.” It’s like this guy expects a war to creep up on him, and it’s going to be him and his flock against the world.
Oh, and get this, Rev. Dave also said, “Our resistance to changing the gospel, because it is not ours to change, has made us a lot of enemies. Whether we admit it or not, we are at war.” Stupid and ironic coming from a Christian. Because if this guy (and the film makers for that matter) knew anything about their own holy book or their faith, they would know that Christians have in fact changed the gospels before. Even popular Bibles printed today admit this (such as noting that the earlier copies of the gospels of Mark stop at 16:8, the rest was later added in).
Now imagine if this guy said this same line 200 years ago when slavery was the norm, and the abolition movement to end slavery was starting to blossom. The gospel to this day is still pro-slavery, even the verses attributed to Jesus are still slavery friendly. Jump ahead to the modern times, the Bible is still against things like science, homosexuality, women’s rights and gender equality. It’s even against democracy (just try to find ballot boxes anywhere in the Bible), which is why a lot of Christian fundamentalists are pushing their religion into the government and make it rule over the rest of us (all the while they tell us to fear Islam and Sharia Law).
Elsewhere, Rev. Dave in in the hospital watching a TV broadcast, we see Mike Huckabee talking to Gary Habermas and Rice Brooks. Within in, you can hear Habermas listing a couple of his “12 facts.” But then Dave, Rev. Jude, and Martin start talking over the TV show, but if you listen carefully to the chatter you can you can someone mention “the Progressive plan” and then Huckabee declaring that Christians are under pressure.
I already went over Habermas’s “12 facts,” but here we have proof of the hidden message in this film: they are against society progressing. In layman’s terms, they are against the movement that won women the right to vote, allowed homosexuals to marry, promoting higher education and science, and so on. Huckabee is a big religious conservative, and very likely so are the film makers.
Want more reasons why this movie made me feel like it was for Mel Gibson, if you listen to the lyrics of the Newsboys song near the end of the film, you will catch this;
If serving you’s against the law of man
If living out my faith in you is banned
Then I’ll stand right before the jury
If saying I believe is out of line
If I’m judged cause I’m gonna give my life
To show the world the love that fills me
Then I want to be guilty
Honestly, what more do you need? It’s staring us in the face: these Christians want to be persecuted. It’s like they need to be the victim.
But there is a catch to this: whenever they do not get entitled, they are being victimized.
Everywhere we look, flocks of Christians (like the Dominionists) want their religion to rule over the law. Many today want to discriminate based on race or sexuality orientation, and deny women their rights, and want their religion taught in schools. And whenever they don’t get that privilege (or lose that privilege), they cry victim. It’s a tactic to get people to side with the bullies over the actual victims. And whenever they cross over the “wall of separation of church and state,” every effort we make to push them back bit by bit to the other side of the wall, they cry victim every step of the way.
INSPIRING COURT CASES DURING CREDITS
And just like the first movie, this movie gives a list of real “court cases” issued by the Alliance Defense (a Christian lawyer group) that “inspired” this movie. You can read about them here.
And as you would expect….. NONE of them match what this movie is about. Practically half of them are about students or teachers pushing their pro-birth beliefs. Most of the rest around about people promoting their anti-gay marriage beliefs, or about protecting their “free speech” zones. These are pretty much the same “court cases” listed from the first movie, which I already reviewed each individually in another blog.
This is such a terrible film. Is it worse then the first one? I think they are on even par. Both are widely out of touch with reality, they both make the beautiful-looking go-happy people Christian and all the miserable assholes “atheists.” They both widely misrepresented the “opposer” — in the first film, they misrepresented the professor as a “atheist” when in reality the professor was a Misotheist (a person who believes in God but hates God), and in this film they widely misrepresented the ACLU, the very guys who have defended religious groups for years.
But if a film like these are measured on how “good” they are purely based on how convincing they are, then this film just might be worse then the first movie. In God’s Not Dead, we had much more time and energy focused on making the case that there is a God. In that film, the main protagonist was given three rounds to make his case that his God exists. Whereas all the time used in this movie to make the case that Jesus was a historical person was less then 10 minutes in a 2 hour movie. While the cases in both movies were complete shit, the fact that this film just didn’t care to put in as much effort as the first one, in my book, makes this film suck even harder. For such a lack of effort, the only driving motivation I can see for this movie was, “hey, we only spent 2 million dollars making the last movie, and we got back 60 million. Our viewers actually liked that crap, so let’s make another one.” And shockingly for this movie, God’s Not Dead 2, they spent 5 million dollar making this movie, with such minimal effort to make their case for Jesus. I bet these film makers are laughing their way to the bank.
To end this blog review, I must respond to last thing that annoyed me in this movie: Rev. Dave and Rev. Jude repeating that shitty line from the first move…
“God is good all the time, and all the time God is good.”
Oh eat me.