Deus Não Está Morto 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.

first i want to mention i'm an orthodox and that i could not bear to see the movie more than 30 minutes.

the good guys in this move have a very puritanical presence. they seem so very calm and also seem a bit retarded. dialogues are very limited, predictable. they want to sound deep but end up laughable.

i believe this movie does a great disservice to Christians. the dialogues sound like members of a sect are talking. it makes faith look very shallow and almost weird. it makes the believers look very dumb and narrow minded.

lee me distill it a bit further. if i would not be a Christian i would think that Christians are a dubious sect, a little slow in the head and would look at it with doubt.

What's really dead are the brain cells of the writer and director of this tripe. I can hardly believe I sat through this garbage till the end, but wanted to see just how far they would go in misrepresenting the views of atheists, non-christians, and any other group they chose to cast in a false light.

Just watched the movie, I agree with the sentiment that it was just as bad as the first one, which I also thought sucked but seriously, all these one star ratings because it offends you? Because obviously there's no other reason to rate this movie a 1 star. The acting was mediocre, the plot was predictable the complete lack of something resembling action was disappointing, however there was NOTHING in this movie that would justify it gaining such hate from you guys.

Sure it was a giant sermon wrapped up in a court room drama. Sure its agenda was extremely obvious and sure the actors weren't all A++ flawless but stop overreacting.

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