God's Not Dead 2

Firstly, I'm an atheist. I was raised a devout Episcopalian but I often refer to myself as a secular humanist & non-believer but raised with culturally Christian views. Having said that, I noticed right away at the scene in the history class that nothing Melissa Hart said actually violated any hard & fast 1stAMD separation issues. She was within her rights to share those historical facts. She responded to a question in a history class about historically specific correlations between traditions in non-violent protest and passive resistance. Maybe she could have omitted the lengthy scripture quote from the Gospel---but a sound argument could be made that even that was academically relevant too. So...IMHO it was quite relevant and legal. Remember...I'm not a "believer". No school board would take this complaint seriously. I actually think that the ACLU might have defended Melissa Hart!!! It's obvious that the movie makers are trying to unfairly demonize the "freedom from religion" crowd (a rapidly growing demographic BTW) as fanatically unreasonable and angry. In fact, I've found that the exact opposite is usually true. Just research the landmark Kitzmiller vs Dover School board case. As to the ongoing portrayal of atheists and liberal religious types throughout the film, it's an inartfully constructed "straw man" set up for the express purpose of getting easily knocked down. Poor Christians! They have a Biblical persecution complex and are happiest when they can imagine being burned at the stake by the ACLU and a shouting, un-Churched mob of pagan non-believers! Wait 'til you see how they depict the ACLU lawyers as basely motivated by notoriety, power politics and publicity. Not very good...and not persuasive. I think most people can see through this bit of evangelical agitprop whether religious or non-religious.

What drove me into this film? Well, that is hard to describe since in English there apparently doesn't exist an equivalent word for the German term "Schadenfreude". But allow me to elaborate: I am a sucker for bad movies. I love the Ed Wood and Al Adamson flicks, Italian cannibal flicks, German schnitzel-westerns, Ninja flicks from Hong Kong, Greek porn-comedies, etc. I openly admit and repent not. Yes, I do own a copy "Saving Christmas" and watch every Kirk Cameron flick (again: "Schadenfreude"). I only realized that there was a sequel to the original train-wreck when somebody pointed out that "Batman vs. Superman" is only doing so well at the box-office because there was no competition apart from a handful of bible-thumping-flicks. So I took a pilgrimage of-sort (the only cinema that showed it was about an hour's drive away) and to put it into the words of the target-audience, let me now testify to what I hath witnessed and speaketh unto thee: Long story short (remember: this story prattles on for more than two hours, though it actually feels a lot longer): Melissa Joan Hart (best – and ironically – remembered for her lead in the TV-show "Sabrina, the teenage witch"; Catchphrase "Woohoo!") plays a high school teacher, who is suddenly overcome with that ol' itch and begins to sermonize to her students about her believe – in history-class, no less. The logic consequence ensues and she's given the boot, just as a math-teacher would get canned, if he began to preach that one and one is the Holy Trinity. But, unwilling to understand that a school isn't a church, she goes to court and fights for her "god-given" right to preach to children in a class-room.

Now, imagine that scenario: your child comes home from school and, when asked what he/she had learned that day, he/she replies that the god Ganesha has an elephant head (History-class), the basics of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics (English-Literature-Class), the basics of Alchemy (Science) and Phrenology-101 (Biology). And that the P.E.-teacher was handing out communion wafers and splashed the students with holy water. I presume that most people would be like "WTF!?" and sue the school for all it's worth. So would any fire-and-brimstone-cussing evangelist. But we're not talking any old heathen religion (Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, you name it), we're talking about the "real deal" – which may sound cynical to some readers, but that is exactly the stance this "movie" and its ilk takes.

Sure, we could argue that religion should be taught in school. Plenty of time for the kids to learn about all those countless deities, gods and demi-gods, from Zeus to Odin to Jehovah, and to heck with history, geometry and basic science. I can guarantee you one thing: By the end of the semester, those kids won't even be able to read and write properly, but will be convinced that people once-upon-a-time rode on dinosaurs and slew dragons.

Back to the film: of course "God is not Dead 2" tries to establish itself as some Anti-"Inherit the Wind". All the Christians are portrayed as saints and martyrs, thrown into the lion-pits of a cruel, unjust (and ungodly) world, which wants nothing more than to take away their crutch for reality. "We are the victims and everybody else is the enemy", is the prevailing message, and it makes it very clear, why many Christian fundamentals are considered the American answer to the Taliban. If this sentiment would have been around in the 1940's, surely a Nazi war-criminal would have jumped up at the Nuremberg trials, demanding that the judge "stop oppressing me!" And if you ask me about acting, editing, production-values and everything else that goes with a real movie: well, it's a two-hour-plus sermon, featuring either zealots or washed-up has-beens, happy to see the front of a camera. And sure, there'll be plenty of claqueurs, who'll clap and cheer this flick, calling it the greatest thing since Noah's flood, etc. But don't let yourself be fooled. It's trash, no matter how you look at it. Again, if you have seen "Inherit the Wind", you might remember how that film ended; hence, here goes the mandatory one point out of ten.

It must greatly frustrate the religious right when they are routinely (and unfairly) portrayed in major films as fanatical, sanctimonious, comical, backwoods hicks. Well, "God's Not Dead 2" is clearly their revenge. In this movie, ACLU lawyers are all sneering, oily, evil Simon Legrees. School board characters are all smug, administrative wonks who readily conspire to persecute the sweet, perky teacher. The faces of anti-religion protesters are contorted into manic, rabid, drooling hatred. And mainstream media are all resolutely against God.

There are only black hats and white hats in this film. (Or should I say halos and horns.) No quarter is given to the many nuances or complexities of this issue. Which is a shame. It's a serious subject and deserves better. But the producer and director had no interest in any of that.

Clearly, this film is unapologetically one-sided. Conservative Christians feel embattled and marginalized in an increasingly secular world in which they are repeatedly losing watershed court cases. They haven't had much to cheer about recently and this film hits back at that "unfair", "Godless" world. Consequently, Evangelicals will absolutely love this film. All others will likely never see it unless they're dragged to the theatre and handcuffed to their seat.

As a Christian, I quite enjoyed the discussion of historical Jesus from the researchers/authors who played themselves in the film. What's more, GND2 is cinematically well crafted. But it take's more than just dreamily uttering the name of "Jesus" to make a good film. GND2 quickly deteriorates into a two hour sermon from the pulpit.

Oh, and BTW, it should come as no surprise that Pat Boone still can't act... and neither can Robin Givens.

Sequels are the Achilles heel of most movie lovers. Sure the viewer gets to experience the same feeling they had when they watched the first movie, but it almost always never lives up to the potential. God's Not Dead 2 never has that problem because you simply can't get any worse than its first film God's Not Dead. GND2 takes everything that was hated in it from the first film and puts it right back in a second time around. Atheists are viewed as rude, demanding, and willing to go to great links to take away Christians religious freedoms. Christians are seen as innocent, content, and victims of the violent belief that is Atheism. Odds are if you are going into this movie you either wanted to see this train wreck of a film for yourself or being forced to go with your parents/overly-religious friends. If the later is this case try very hard to fight the urge to scream at the movie and run out of the theater because, trust me, it will happen. Overall the plot is incoherent, the characters bland and lifeless, and the overall theme of the movie is a slap right in the face to anyone who doesn't believe in god. You've been warned 1/10

Before I start I'd just like to say that despite being a rabid anti-theist I have met Christians who are decent people. I've also met a lot of vile atheists . I should also point out that as a traveller abroad I am treated like a king in Indo-Aryan lands in general and Islamic Indo-Aryan lands in particular with the hospitality of both the Kashmiris and the Kurds something that will linger in my memory forever . What I'm trying to say is that if someone is a thoroughly good person this has nothing to do with a belief in a creator while someone who is a bad person and has no belief the two things are completely unconnected. That said if someone crashes an airliner into a crowded building on purpose a belief system involving an afterlife might very well be the prime motive. Regardless the vast majority of believers are not violent terrorists . I feel the need to point this out because GND 2 doesn't feel the need to be objective. Nor does feel the need to be factual in anyway

!!!! SUGGESTIVE SPOILERS !!!!

Teacher Grace Wesley answers a question in class about and because the American constitution separates church and state she finds herself in bother. Actually separation of church and state is one of the very few things the film gets right because America was the first country to do this and is based on the philosophy of Thomas Paine. What is unlikely if not entirely impossible is Grace finding herself in a court of law facing trial . Did witch trials not die out over two hundred years ago ? Yes apart from the McCarthy trials which were directed against suspected communists but the film makes clear it's not communists or any other type of atheist being prosecuted here

The chief villain is the prosecuting attorney who is called Kane which indicates he's of Irish descent but might this not be Europeanised from the name "Cain" ? I think you know what's being implied here and it's not helped by Kane's main motive apart from deicide is making money. I know the film needs a motive for bringing a protagonist to court but couldn't it have been more sensible without appearing racist in anyway?

This is what becomes somewhat unpalatable. The first film has an antagonist trying to effectively "Kill God". In the sequel the antagonist is trying to effectively "Kill Jesus". I don't have to point out that for the last two thousand years the cult of Christianity has pointed the finger very firmly at a certain race who they feel is responsible for this mythical act against a mythical figure. Millions were murdered because of it and many millions more persecuted because of it. Unlike Biblical myth this is established historical fact

What the main argument of the film rests on is "Was Jesus Christ a real person ?" Christian apologist Lee Strobel playing himself is called to the witness stand and states amongst others "Gerd Ludemann ... an atheist has written many historical accounts proving there was a Jesus" Yes Ludemann is an atheist but he became an atheist after realising so called Biblical facts involving Jesus meant he could no longer believe in the concept of Christianity. His harassment by the established Protestant churches in Germany probably didn't help in his faith either. The second witness is Jim Warner Wallace another real life Christian apologist plays himself and his testimony is taken as Gospel (Geddit ?)because he used to be an atheist but became a Christian because his experience of cold case homicide cases led him to believe there was a real life person called Jesus Let me get this straight ? If there was a person called Jesus Christ living in Bronze Age Palestine that means there is a God ? And if the claim is made by atheists that makes it even more overwhelming as a fact ? Strange how Professor Richard Dawkins often talks of Jesus Christ as though he was a real life person but he still remains the world's most prominent anti-theist . That's because even if he did exist Jesus Christ could be anything from a charlatan who had set up his own fan club that got out of hand to someone suffering from acute psychotic delusion. Being the Son of God is the least likely scenario . Oh and since we're supposed to take the word of atheists who used to believe in God quite strongly why not quote Josef Stalin who trained to be an Orthodox priest ?

As you can imagine this movie has a happy ending as Kane/Cain stumbles out of court with his understudies bitter recriminations echoing that "At least you proved the existence of Jesus". One can imagine the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes trial wishing this guy had prosecuted them