Review of God's Not Dead 2 (2016) by Leaveit — 31 May 2016

It actually is better than the first one. Unfortunately it's still horribly boring and false. Like the first one, it is purely a fictitious plot without precedent - don't let messages in the film itself deceive you otherwise - and serves as a straw man to demonize enemies of the Family Research Council.

These enemies, whose vendettas with Christianity can be neatly summed up as, "First World problems" compared to any actual religious persecution that occurs today, include the ACLU, who form the antagonists of this film. Yes, a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, those "evil" guys who desegregated American education and are currently fighting against targeted assassinations of American citizens without trial, are represented by Ray Wise, an actor who has portrayed Satan in recent history, as the prosecution.

Other enemies of the Family Research Council were tackled in the previous entry: atheists, the educational elite (those NERDS!!), Muslims, and Confucianists. They are all enemies for pretty much the same reasons, which include but are not limited to: racism, anti-intellectualism, respecting your parents more than your religious leaders, being susceptible to extending civil rights to traditionally unprivileged sexualities and genders, and ancient feuds that modern Christians don't really understand.

For example: Christian and Muslim rivalry began when the Papal theocracies of the middle ages tried and failed to expel Muslim people permanently from the so-called "Holy Land." In response to mild - even milder than the Middle East today - mistreatment, Christians became responsible for the first ever documented (i.e. recorded) case of human cannibalism during the Siege of Ma'arra in what is modern day Syria. As if the killing and digestion of women and children were not hypocritical enough, Christians continue this proud tradition of hypocrisy today by producing propaganda for the silver screen. This is because they are no longer formally backed by an entire continent of career warriors and are a bit more sheepish about their sociopathy now. For that matter, this is also true of pretty much any modern religion, though I'm sure the militant Islamic sects would pretend otherwise.

I prefer it much better this way. Clearly no one is being convinced by these films; it is purely fodder for Christians to confirm their biases in the way they are familiar with: unprecedented parable.

Feel free to actually look up the court cases listed in the credits. You will find that there is nothing approaching the antipathy toward Christians in any of them, no matter how much the Family Research Council pretends.

Since I was doing a service to the producers of the film by seeing it, I did not pay anything to watch it. You're welcome, Harold Cronk and David A.R. White. I would advise the reader of this review against a similar service, though. Spend those two hours exercising, fixing up the house, or working at the food bank. I'm sure you can come up with a hundred things to do that are more productive than this film.