Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* KnowWhenToFoldEm: After losing the trial, one of Kane's assistants plans to start an appeal. Kane tells him not to, believing there's too much risk of losing the appeal and setting an unfavorable legal precedent.
Added DiffLines:
* MeaningfulEcho: Before the trial starts, Tom encounters Kane in the courthouse getting his shoes shined. Kane gives him a speech about how his victory is all but assured and condescendingly remarks, "Nice shoes" as he leaves. Once Tom actually wins the trial, Kane once again says, "Nice shoes" as he leaves the courtroom, in apparent acknowledgement of his defeat.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Most of this is already in Hollywood Law.
Deleted line(s) 16,19 (click to see context) :
* ArtisticLicenseLaw:
** The people in the film treat the First Amendment as if it was specially tailored to Christians and Christians only, and also as if it gives them the right to push their beliefs in every corner of the country. What it actually does is make it so one cannot be arrested or prosecuted for believing in any religion one chooses to, and those rights '''''stop''''' when you try to make those into laws, harm others, and indoctrinate or lead them in prayers at public schools.
** Grace is given a public defender...for a ''civil'' law case. Public defenders are provided for people in ''criminal'' cases who do not otherwise have an attorney.
** This film seems to be dedicated to showing that in the world we live in the US government has complete control of what Christianity can and cannot do, showing them oppressed by arresting people for even speaking Jesus' name or arresting preachers for not complying with the government's demands of showing their sermons before each service.[[note]]Which in the US, government cannot do.[[/note]] What they don't seem to realize is that the separation of church and state is a two-way street - government stays out of religion and vice versa, and it makes it look like the United States is the exact same as some Middle Eastern government. In real life though many people have claimed that the opposite is happening, with Christianity trying to dictate what the government can and cannot do.
** The people in the film treat the First Amendment as if it was specially tailored to Christians and Christians only, and also as if it gives them the right to push their beliefs in every corner of the country. What it actually does is make it so one cannot be arrested or prosecuted for believing in any religion one chooses to, and those rights '''''stop''''' when you try to make those into laws, harm others, and indoctrinate or lead them in prayers at public schools.
** Grace is given a public defender...for a ''civil'' law case. Public defenders are provided for people in ''criminal'' cases who do not otherwise have an attorney.
** This film seems to be dedicated to showing that in the world we live in the US government has complete control of what Christianity can and cannot do, showing them oppressed by arresting people for even speaking Jesus' name or arresting preachers for not complying with the government's demands of showing their sermons before each service.[[note]]Which in the US, government cannot do.[[/note]] What they don't seem to realize is that the separation of church and state is a two-way street - government stays out of religion and vice versa, and it makes it look like the United States is the exact same as some Middle Eastern government. In real life though many people have claimed that the opposite is happening, with Christianity trying to dictate what the government can and cannot do.
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
** Rather than having Grace be sued for mentioning Jesus, she could sue ''them'' if fired over it. The [=ACLU=] would be far more likely to help someone dismissed from their job on religious grounds than to side with the schoolboard. Additionally, in real life her union would not simply let her be fired, but file a grievance and dispute her dismissal by the school.
to:
** Rather than having Grace be sued for mentioning Jesus, she could sue ''them'' if fired over it. The [=ACLU=] would be far more likely to help someone dismissed from their job on religious grounds than to side with the schoolboard.school board. Additionally, in real life her union would not simply let her be fired, but file a grievance and dispute her dismissal by the school.
Added DiffLines:
** Grace is given a public defender...for a ''civil'' law case. Public defenders are provided for people in ''criminal'' cases who do not otherwise have an attorney.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ArtisticLicenseEducation:
** This film perpetuates the myth that kids are not allowed to pray in school. Kids '''are''' allowed to pray in school. It is illegal for a public school teacher to deny a student's religious rights in public school. What can't be done is a student demanding special treatment or interrupting the class for their beliefs, and a teacher cannot lead a prayer of any kind, or indoctrinate them.
** They also state that it is illegal in all schools to pray, when there are private schools students can attend based on one's belief system outside the government for this very purpose. It's also only illegal for public school teachers to lead prayer - students are free to pray as they wish, so long as it doesn't disrupt school activities.
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: During Lee Strobel's testimony, he claims that the way our calendar counts from the approximate birth time of Jesus as proof of his existence. However, [[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2016/03/review-gods-not-dead-2-dir-harold-cronk-2016.html as a Patheos reviewer pointed out]], the ''anno domini'' (A.D.) way of counting years in the calendar wasn't invented until the 6th century by Dionysus Exiguus, a monk living in the Eastern Roman Empire, long after Christianity had been adopted as an official religion by the Roman and Byzantine empires. Historians believe Jesus was born between 4 BC (Herod's death) and 7 AD (Quirinius' census), based on the stories of his birth in the Gospels.[[note]]Strictly speaking the Gospels say it was during the latter and before the former, which raises obvious problems nailing a date down.[[/note]] This has been used as an argument against Jesus existing, since they can't agree on when he was born. Most historians do think he existed, but do not take any position about the divine nature Christians proclaim he had.
* ArtisticLicenseLaw:
** The people in the film treat the First Amendment as if it was specially tailored to Christians and Christians only, and also as if it gives them the right to push their beliefs in every corner of the country. What it actually does is make it so one cannot be arrested or prosecuted for believing in any religion one chooses to, and those rights '''''stop''''' when you try to make those into laws, harm others, and indoctrinate or lead them in prayers at public schools.
** Grace is given a public defender...for a ''civil'' law case. Public defenders are provided for people in ''criminal'' cases who do not otherwise have an attorney.
** This film seems to be dedicated to showing that in the world we live in the US government has complete control of what Christianity can and cannot do, showing them oppressed by arresting people for even speaking Jesus' name or arresting preachers for not complying with the government's demands of showing their sermons before each service.[[note]]Which in the US, government cannot do.[[/note]] What they don't seem to realize is that the separation of church and state is a two-way street - government stays out of religion and vice versa, and it makes it look like the United States is the exact same as some Middle Eastern government. In real life though many people have claimed that the opposite is happening, with Christianity trying to dictate what the government can and cannot do.
** This film perpetuates the myth that kids are not allowed to pray in school. Kids '''are''' allowed to pray in school. It is illegal for a public school teacher to deny a student's religious rights in public school. What can't be done is a student demanding special treatment or interrupting the class for their beliefs, and a teacher cannot lead a prayer of any kind, or indoctrinate them.
** They also state that it is illegal in all schools to pray, when there are private schools students can attend based on one's belief system outside the government for this very purpose. It's also only illegal for public school teachers to lead prayer - students are free to pray as they wish, so long as it doesn't disrupt school activities.
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: During Lee Strobel's testimony, he claims that the way our calendar counts from the approximate birth time of Jesus as proof of his existence. However, [[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2016/03/review-gods-not-dead-2-dir-harold-cronk-2016.html as a Patheos reviewer pointed out]], the ''anno domini'' (A.D.) way of counting years in the calendar wasn't invented until the 6th century by Dionysus Exiguus, a monk living in the Eastern Roman Empire, long after Christianity had been adopted as an official religion by the Roman and Byzantine empires. Historians believe Jesus was born between 4 BC (Herod's death) and 7 AD (Quirinius' census), based on the stories of his birth in the Gospels.[[note]]Strictly speaking the Gospels say it was during the latter and before the former, which raises obvious problems nailing a date down.[[/note]] This has been used as an argument against Jesus existing, since they can't agree on when he was born. Most historians do think he existed, but do not take any position about the divine nature Christians proclaim he had.
* ArtisticLicenseLaw:
** The people in the film treat the First Amendment as if it was specially tailored to Christians and Christians only, and also as if it gives them the right to push their beliefs in every corner of the country. What it actually does is make it so one cannot be arrested or prosecuted for believing in any religion one chooses to, and those rights '''''stop''''' when you try to make those into laws, harm others, and indoctrinate or lead them in prayers at public schools.
** Grace is given a public defender...for a ''civil'' law case. Public defenders are provided for people in ''criminal'' cases who do not otherwise have an attorney.
** This film seems to be dedicated to showing that in the world we live in the US government has complete control of what Christianity can and cannot do, showing them oppressed by arresting people for even speaking Jesus' name or arresting preachers for not complying with the government's demands of showing their sermons before each service.[[note]]Which in the US, government cannot do.[[/note]] What they don't seem to realize is that the separation of church and state is a two-way street - government stays out of religion and vice versa, and it makes it look like the United States is the exact same as some Middle Eastern government. In real life though many people have claimed that the opposite is happening, with Christianity trying to dictate what the government can and cannot do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 82 (click to see context) from:
* SlobsVsSnobs: Portraying anyone as God-hating, intolerable "athiests" as "slobs", while portraying all Christians as overly-religious, proselytizing "snobs" is a ''pretty'' big understatement.
to:
* SlobsVsSnobs: Portraying anyone as God-hating, intolerable "athiests" "atheists" as "slobs", while portraying all Christians as overly-religious, proselytizing "snobs" is a ''pretty'' big understatement.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Deleted line(s) 27 (click to see context) :
* CourtroomAntic: The climax counts as this trope.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* SlobsVsSnobs: Portraying anyone as God-hating, intolerable "athiests" as "slobs", while portraying all Christians as overly-religious, proselytizing "snobs" is a ''pretty'' big understatement.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* KarmaHoudini: As with the first film, they overlook someone getting a comeuppance for their actions. In this case, the teenager who texted about Grace talking about God in class. Not helping is that he disappears shortly after that initial scene, seemingly existing only to kickstart the plot and nothing more.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 39 (click to see context) from:
** You cannot be sued for simply mentioning Jesus in a public school, especially if it's just responding to a student's question whether he taught nonviolence (public schools have comparative religion classes, you know). The case would have been dismissed, or a summary judgment entered for the teacher. Even if she were fired (which ''she'' could sue for) they couldn't take away her teaching certificate. Assuming the case somehow went to court, Jesus' existence would be legally irrelevant.
to:
** You cannot be sued for simply mentioning Jesus in a public school, especially if it's just responding to a student's question whether he taught nonviolence (public schools have comparative religion classes, you know). The case would have been dismissed, or a summary judgment entered for the teacher. Even if she were fired (which ''she'' could sue for) they couldn't take away her teaching certificate.
** Assuming the case somehow went to court, Jesus' existence would be legallyirrelevant.irrelevant. Meaning that even if they were accepted as experts on the historicity of Jesus (see below), there would be no basis for calling J. Warner Wallace or Lee Strobel to testify.
** Assuming the case somehow went to court, Jesus' existence would be legally
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I don't think this counts. So far as I remember they didn't even know about this. It was off hours, which means it's probably not illegal or unethical either.
Deleted line(s) 75 (click to see context) :
* SelectiveEnforcement: Apparently, the authorities in this film make such a mountain-sized deal over Grace simply saying Jesus' name in a ''public school'', of all places (especially since she was doing it when answering a student's question), rather than the fact that Grace willfully converted one of her students into the Christian faith without her parents' permission/knowledge right after class (as doing so is not only illegal and unethical, but dismisses the real objectives of being a public school teacher).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* SelectiveEnforcement: Apparently, the authorities in this film make such a mountain-sized deal over Grace simply saying Jesus' name in a ''public school'', of all places (especially since she was doing it when answering a student's question), rather than the fact that Grace willfully converted one of her students into the Christian faith without her parents' permission/knowledge right after class (as doing so is not only illegal and unethical, but dismisses the real objectives of being a public school teacher).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Tom's biggest question for Principal Kinney is why "Rev." isn't included in the full name of "Dr. Martin Luther King High School." At no point does anyone object to the notion that the current principal is somehow responsible for ''the name of the frickin' school''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
* BeautyEqualsGoodness: It's noted that all the Christians are beautiful and happy people, while the atheists are not. The Christians are depicted as young due to most of them being college students (Grace's lawyer looks even younger than her) as while the atheists consist of the elderly Pete Kane, principal Kinney and the parents of Brooke and Martin, so they have a higher rate of being attractive by most people's lights simply due to youth.
to:
* BeautyEqualsGoodness: It's noted that all the Christians are beautiful and happy people, while the atheists are not. The Christians are depicted as young due to most of them being college high school students (Grace's lawyer looks even younger than her) as while the atheists consist of the elderly Pete Kane, principal Kinney and the parents of Brooke and Martin, so they have a higher rate of being attractive by most people's lights simply due to youth.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Not to mention the angry, ugly protesters outside the courthouse, yelling at the stoic, pretty Christian girls.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:
** Brooke, a minor, is called to the stand immediately after she bursts into the courtroom and loudly declares that Grace is innocent. In real life, her outburst would likely result in a mistrial.
to:
** Brooke, a minor, is called to the stand immediately after she bursts into the courtroom and loudly declares that Grace is innocent. In real life, her outburst would likely result in a mistrial. Even if it didn't, she almost certainly wouldn't be allowed to testify, since witnesses have to be declared before the start of trial. Surprise witnesses are not allowed except in very specific circumstances that don't apply here.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 12,13 (click to see context) :
* ArtisticLicenseLaw:
** Brooke, a minor, is called to the stand immediately after she bursts into the courtroom and loudly declares that Grace is innocent. In real life, her outburst would likely result in a mistrial.
** Brooke, a minor, is called to the stand immediately after she bursts into the courtroom and loudly declares that Grace is innocent. In real life, her outburst would likely result in a mistrial.
Changed line(s) 51 (click to see context) from:
** Almost nothing in the case on either side is germane to the actual issue. It's immediately sidetracked to an argument on whether Jesus is a historical figure and never gets back; in the end it's not entirely clear what the jury is supposed to be voting on.
to:
** Almost nothing in the case on either side is germane to the actual issue. It's immediately sidetracked to an argument on whether Jesus is a historical figure figure[[note]]Whether he's divine is up for debate, but most historians agree that he, in fact, existed.[[/note]] and never gets back; in the end it's not entirely clear what the jury is supposed to be voting on.on.
** Brooke, a minor, is called to the stand immediately after she bursts into the courtroom and loudly declares that Grace is innocent. In real life, her outburst would likely result in a mistrial.
** Brooke, a minor, is called to the stand immediately after she bursts into the courtroom and loudly declares that Grace is innocent. In real life, her outburst would likely result in a mistrial.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ArtisticLicenseLaw:
** Brooke, a minor, is called to the stand immediately after she bursts into the courtroom and loudly declares that Grace is innocent. In real life, her outburst would likely result in a mistrial.
** Brooke, a minor, is called to the stand immediately after she bursts into the courtroom and loudly declares that Grace is innocent. In real life, her outburst would likely result in a mistrial.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 71 (click to see context) from:
* SkewedPriorities: The film portrays the atheist parents as more upset that their son was reading the Bible than about the fact that he's dead.
to:
* SkewedPriorities: The film portrays the atheist parents ScienceIsWrong: Walter Wesley, Grace's grandfather, seems to hold this view. He dismisses triglyceride level and cholesterol tests as more upset that their son was reading the Bible than about the fact that he's dead.insignificant and wants to keep eating unhealthy foods such as bacon and popcorn (asking Grace to PassThePopcorn at one point) despite his ailing health, but he promotes religion and prayer all day long.
Added DiffLines:
* SkewedPriorities: The film portrays the atheist parents as more upset that their son was reading the Bible than about the fact that he's dead.
** Grace's grandfather Walter for stating that prayer should always be the first thing done in any situation.
** Grace's grandfather Walter for stating that prayer should always be the first thing done in any situation.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
* BeautyEqualsGoodness: It's noted that all the Christians are beautiful and happy people, while the atheists are not. The Christians are depicted as young due to most of them being college students (Grace's lawyer looks even younger than her) as while the atheists consists of the elderly Pete Kane, principal Kinney and the parents of Brooke and Martin are atheist.
to:
* BeautyEqualsGoodness: It's noted that all the Christians are beautiful and happy people, while the atheists are not. The Christians are depicted as young due to most of them being college students (Grace's lawyer looks even younger than her) as while the atheists consists consist of the elderly Pete Kane, principal Kinney and the parents of Brooke and Martin are atheist. Martin, so they have a higher rate of being attractive by most people's lights simply due to youth.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
* BeautyEqualsGoodness: It's noted that all the Christians are beautiful and happy people, while the atheists are not.
to:
* BeautyEqualsGoodness: It's noted that all the Christians are beautiful and happy people, while the atheists are not. The Christians are depicted as young due to most of them being college students (Grace's lawyer looks even younger than her) as while the atheists consists of the elderly Pete Kane, principal Kinney and the parents of Brooke and Martin are atheist.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 67,68 (click to see context) from:
* RippedFromTheHeadlines: The film seems to be trying to use the controversy where some teachers have led their students in prayer in public schools and were fired for it, as if to prove how all that is happening in this film is true. What this film misses is that unlike the teacher in this film she was not leading a prayer, she was just answering a question that a student brought up.
** Reverend Dave being requested to turn over his sermons was a situation in Texas where the government wanted to make sure that certain priests were not trying to get people to vote for what they wanted during church, as that would violate separation of Church and State. Also unlike the film the government realize this looked pretty bad on their end and got rid of the request days later rather than arrest the Reverend for not complying.
** Reverend Dave being requested to turn over his sermons was a situation in Texas where the government wanted to make sure that certain priests were not trying to get people to vote for what they wanted during church, as that would violate separation of Church and State. Also unlike the film the government realize this looked pretty bad on their end and got rid of the request days later rather than arrest the Reverend for not complying.
to:
* RippedFromTheHeadlines: RippedFromTheHeadlines:
** The film seems to be trying to use the controversy where some teachers have led their students in prayer in public schools and were fired for it, as if to prove how all that is happening in this film is true. What this film misses is that unlike the teacher in this film she was not leading a prayer, she was just answering a question that a student brought up.
** Reverend Dave being requested to turn over his sermons was a situation in Texas where the government wanted to make sure that certainpriests ministers were not trying to get people to vote for what they wanted during church, voting against an equal rights ordinance protecting transgender people, as that would violate separation of Church and State. Also unlike the film the government realize realized this looked pretty bad on their end and got rid of the request days later rather than arrest the Reverend for not complying.
** The film seems to be trying to use the controversy where some teachers have led their students in prayer in public schools and were fired for it, as if to prove how all that is happening in this film is true. What this film misses is that unlike the teacher in this film she was not leading a prayer, she was just answering a question that a student brought up.
** Reverend Dave being requested to turn over his sermons was a situation in Texas where the government wanted to make sure that certain
Changed line(s) 71 (click to see context) from:
* SequelEscalation: In the first film it focuses on an Evil Atheist Professor forcing his students to deny Christianity solely to stroke his own massive ego. In this film atheists are a large NebulousEvilOrganisation dedicated to making everyone in the US deny Christianity or the government will drag them out onto the streets.
to:
* SequelEscalation: In the first film it focuses on an Evil Atheist Professor forcing his students to deny Christianity solely to stroke his own massive ego. In this film atheists are a large NebulousEvilOrganisation dedicated to making everyone in the US deny Christianity or the government will drag them out onto the streets.be persecuted for refusing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Reverend Dave being requested to turn over his sermons was a situation in Texas where the government wanted to make sure that certain priests were not trying to get people to vote for what they wanted during church, as that would violate separation of Church and State. Also unlike the film the government realize this looked pretty bad on their end and got rid of the request days later rather than arrest the Reverend for not complying.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
* NutritionalNightmare: Grace's octogenarian grandfather wants eggs and bacon for breakfast, complaining that [[BlatantLies bacon isn't dangerous to an octogenarian's health]].
to:
* NutritionalNightmare: Grace's octogenarian 82-year old grandfather wants eggs who suffers from high cholesterol and is visibly overweight demands bacon and eggs for breakfast, complaining that he doesn't like the oatmeal Grace feeds him and that [[BlatantLies bacon isn't dangerous detrimental to an octogenarian's health]]. his health]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* NutritionalNightmare: Grace's octogenarian grandfather wants eggs and bacon for breakfast, complaining that [[BlatantLies bacon isn't dangerous to an octogenarian's health]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
* BuffySpeak: Grace's lawyer can't think of a synonym for the juvenile word "yucky", such as unpalatable, nauseated or uncomfortable.
to:
* BuffySpeak: Grace's lawyer lawyer, who not even Grace thinks is too perspicacious, can't think of a synonym for the juvenile word "yucky", such as unpalatable, nauseated or uncomfortable.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* BuffySpeak: Grace's lawyer can't think of a synonym for the juvenile word "yucky", such as unpalatable, nauseated or uncomfortable.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* MythologyGag: [[Creator/RayWise Ray Wise's]] role as the passionately Anti-Christian Pete Kane is especially amusing to fans of ''Series/{{Reaper}}'', Ray Wise having played the AffablyEvil {{Satan}} in every episode of that show.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
The [[Creator/PureFlixEntertainment Pure Flix]] sequel to ''Film/GodsNotDead'', released [[{{Irony}} April 1]], 2016.
to:
The [[Creator/PureFlixEntertainment Pure Flix]] sequel to ''Film/GodsNotDead'', released [[{{Irony}} on April 1]], 1, 2016.
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
A third film, Film/GodsNotDeadALightInDarkness was released on March 30, 2018.
to:
A third film, Film/GodsNotDeadALightInDarkness ''Film/GodsNotDeadALightInDarkness'' was released on March 30, 2018.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
A third film, ''God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness'' was released on March 30, 2018.
to:
A third film, ''God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness'' Film/GodsNotDeadALightInDarkness was released on March 30, 2018.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* IHaveNoSon: Martin's father (Mr. Yip) after Martin openly converts to Christianity, and then asks his father to convert as well. Given that the Chinese are predominantly atheist, Martin's request for his dad to do that earns him a slap in the face and disownment.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
This does not belong on the main page.
Deleted line(s) 59 (click to see context) :
* PropagandaPiece: What, this movie? No, of course not. This film contains [[BlatantLies no political agenda whatsoever.]]
