These Atheists Saw God’s Not Dead 2 So You Don’t Have To

[pokerfan]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/04/02/these-atheists-saw-gods-not-dead-2-so-you-dont-have-to/

Anyway, Chris Line, a law student who works with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has perhaps the best rebuttals to the plot points in the film. For example, would a group like FFRF actually sue this teacher?

A group like FFRF or the ACLU likely wouldn’t even lodge a complaint with a school over this sort of trivial mention of Jesus, let alone file a lawsuit. There are plenty of cases of actual school proselytization to keep them busy.

What about the parents who file the lawsuit? In the film, they’re told they’ll make a lot of money and their daughter (the student in Grace’s classroom) will likely be accepted into Stanford as a result of the case.

Contrary to what the movie suggests most Establishment Clause cases seek nominal damages or no damages at all and only seek an injunction preventing the school district from taking a similar action in the future. The reality of Establishment Clause cases is that lawsuits are really about keeping church and state separate and not about receiving fame, notoriety, or huge sums of money.

It goes on like that for a while. It’s almost like the writers of the movie never bothered to check out the facts… shocking, I know.

[edhopper]

1. Well

the fact that there is no god, for one.

[rurallib]

2. they no doubt turned to the "good book" to check their facts

and decided they, too, could make up facts as needed

[beam me up scottie]

3. Is it MST3K worthy?

I tend to think the audience would be even more fun to watch...

[awoke_in_2003]

5. I would doubt...

it is even as cringe worthy as Dark Star.

[trotsky]

4. The desperation so many Christians have to make themselves into persecuted victims is nauseating.

And it's not isolated to one end of the political spectrum - it even happens on DU.