History Film / GodsNotDead2

* ArtisticLicenseLaw: To an extent to which we would simply refer you to the HollywoodLaw section below or the CriticalResearchFailure tab under YMMV rather than risk repeating ourselves ad nauseam.

** The teacher's name is '''Grace''' Wesley and another girl is named Joy. Subtle it is not.

* AmoralAttorney: Ray Wise, the ACLU lawyer suing Grace. He's also a pretty crappy one, too.

* MeaningfulName: The teacher's name is '''Grace''' Wesley and another girl is named Joy. Subtle it is not.

* PsychoticSmirk: Ray Wise's default expression throughout the movie.

* AmoralAttorney: Ray Kane, the ACLU lawyer suing Grace. He's also a pretty crappy one, too.

** The HollywoodAtheist AmoralAttorney is "Ray ''Kane''". Subtle as a boot to the head.

A third film, ''God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness'', has been announced and scheduled for release on March 30 2018.

A Third film, God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness, has been announced and scheduled for release on March 30 2018.

* NebulousEvilOrganisation: The atheists in this film seem to have upgraded from one JerkAss teacher to an entire group wishing to once and for all make people state "God is dead". The trailer repeatedly states how "THEY" wish to stop you from believing and how "THEY" are against you.

* PsychothicSmirk: Ray Wise's default expression throughout the movie.

* BlackAndWhiteMorality: The film portrays everyone who is a Christian as a good person and everyone who is not as anywhere from miserable to pure evil.

* PoesLaw: Allegedly this is meant to be serious, but it really comes off as mocking the themes it's supposed to promote. You really have to wonder if the (Catholic) writers did it on purpose, not helping matters is the film's [[MeaningfulReleaseDate release date of April 1st]].

* PoesLaw: Allegedly this is meant to be serious, but it really comes off as mocking the themes it's supposed to promote. You really have to wonder if the (Catholic) writers did it on purpose.

* InformedWrongness: Grace's citing Jesus (in direct response to and within context of a student's history question) is treated as a gross violation of the rules outlining Separation of Church and State. As Grace herself states, her response was well within the guidelines. No one else seems to think so. Also counts as an inversion ("Informed Righteousness", if you will), as the local Christians treat her initial act (not just her refusal to apologize or back down) as standing up for Christians everywhere.

*** No experts brought forth on the other side of the case.

** Cases like this are concerned with seeking to overturn unconstitutional policies and actions by government institutions. Since the school didn't support Grace and had fired her already for what allegedly was done, there is nothing to sue for.

* BrokenAesop: The first film made it a point that teachers should not use their position to indoctrinate students into their belief system and bully their students for not siding with their beliefs. This film has the characters complain about the fact the teachers aren't allowed to indoctrinate students in their belief system, [[MoralMyopia as long as that belief system is Christianity]].

* ProtagonistCenteredMorality: The film treats the Christians as oppressed and victims because the teachers are '''not''' allowed to lead prayers and indoctrinate the students into Christianity during school hours.

* VillainHasAPoint: Peter Kane, the ACLU attorney who's the villain of the film, makes some arguments that many would feel are valid, such as that people can't get religious exemptions to laws or rule of law itself would collapse.

* ShapedLikeItself: Grace states that the reason "Non-Violence is so radical is because it's non-violent".

*** A preacher would be stricken from the jury in a case like this, due to perceived bias in favor of the defendant.

** The film is unable to get an accurate portrayal of either atheists or the ACLU, making them out to be nothing more than evil god-hating monsters so Christians can look good and righteous by default. The real ACLU has defended many Christians in court, and atheists are a much more diverse group than this (some of them ''also'' defend religious people).

** In real life, this would more likely be a case of: 'This teacher employed by a secular, public school met with an underage child outside of class and religiously preached to said underage child without the parent(s)/guardian(s) knowledge and consent,' rather than: 'A teacher made a brief mention of a religious figure while answering a student's question in class.' And in real life, there are plenty of nice, rational Christians and non-Christians alike who would say, 'Yeah, parents should have a certain amount of control over what values and information their underage kid is exposed to, and employees of secular institutions who are entrusted to care for underage kids should be expected to respect this. This said, is there anyway we can settle this without putting everyone through a court case and a young woman potentially losing her job and suffering damage to her reputation?' If this had happened with genuinely concerned parents rather the caricatures the film presented and provided Grace was willing to admit she'd non-maliciously committed a breach of impropriety but stress she hadn't actually harmed the student in anyway or put her in a dangerous situation, the whole thing likely would have been resolved by one or two meetings between Grace, the parents, and possibly an agreed upon third party. At most, the kid would be switched to a different class and Grace might have a note made in her file. While it's possible she might refuse, at which point she may at worse be fired and sue, there is no legal grounds on which to base her case. That would also be far less sympathetic to most.

** In real life, this would more likely be a case of: 'This teacher employed by a secular, public school met with an underage child outside of class and religiously preached to said underage child without the parent(s)/guardian(s) knowledge and consent,' rather than: 'A teacher made a brief mention of a religious figure while answering a student's question in class.' And in real life, there are plenty of nice, rational Christians and non-Christians alike who would say, 'Yeah, parents should have a certain amount of control over what values and information their underage kid is exposed to, and employees of secular institutions who are entrusted to care for underage kids should be expected to respect this. This said, is there anyway we can settle this without putting everyone through a court case and a young woman potentially losing her job and suffering damage to her reputation?' If this had happened with genuinely concerned parents rather the caricatures the film presented and provided Grace was willing to admit she'd non-maliciously committed a breach of impropriety but stress she hadn't actually harmed the student in anyway or put her in a dangerous situation, the whole thing likely would have been resolved by one or two meetings between Grace, the parents, and possibly an agreed upon third party. At most, the kid would be switched to a different class and Grace might have a note made in her file.