You may use the following method I came up with to persuade Christians here in the USA away from voting for Republican party candidates: You say: "Do you agree that Revered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, for which we have a national holiday for on his birthday, was the greatest or at least one of the greatest Christian pastors of the 20th century?" Christian person most likely answers you: "yes". Next you say: "Did you know the fact that Revered Dr. King was murdered in 1968 while he was supporting a labor union which was on strike for a fair wage so that poor people could earn a living wage? Reverend Dr. King was murdered while following what Jesus said in the Book of Matthew about helping the poor, in this case by supporting a labor union." Christian person most likely answers you something like: "I did not know he died like that." Next you say: "The contemporary Republican party platform includes dissolution of all labor unions which as I just explained goes against what Reverend Dr. King said in following Jesus's message of helping the poor. Therefore, as a follower of Jesus and admirer of Revered Dr. King you should never vote for anyone who is a member of the Republican party. Do you understand my point? If not I can explain it again and even show you documentation online to back up what I am saying is true."
The rock going through the window, hitting a gas cock and blowing up the church strikes me as nothing short of miraculous and from my understanding of how the Christian god operates, this was plainly a message from God to the pastor.
Kind of reminds me of the guy who built a temple to Zeus, and upon asking if his god was pleased, lightning struck the ground at his feet. He took that as a sign of appreciation. I took it as a sign that Zeus narrowly _missed._
@@leyrua Absolutely. I don't know what the message was, whether it was God signalling his disapproval of the location of the church or disapproval of the pastor or perhaps disapproval of the custodian who was killed in the basement. Truly mysterious.
I think you are right. But this goes further. If god is all knowing, all powerful and all present (Use maximally to avoid logical contradictions if you want, the problem then is god is limited.). Then at the instant god created the universe (if not sooner if that makes any sense if there was no time before(If that makes sense if there was nothing before.)), he (God identifies as male?) knew everything that was and is going to happen, which is all part of has plan (Hidden ways is a beautiful copout for children drowing in an ice lake.) and that there is actually no such thing as free will.
@@jiubboatman9352 given that I think that determinism is very likely given what science sees at any point above quantum, I wouldn't be surprised. Still, it's generally beneficial to the amount of dilligence in the world to not say that to people and let them find out on their own.
@@TeeComedian oh it’s definitely a business model. They’re SUPER successful. I think Sony actually bought them a couple years back. It’s ruthless, but fear and anger sells
This checks out. Our local paper once posted a story about clowns on their website and used a random photo in their archive that was tagged "clown" - that clown was a photo of John Wayne Gacy.
Yeah, the local newspaper my grandma used to get had a lot of grammatical mistakes among other issues. I particularly liked how one article had two different ages of death for a guy, great editing work there.
I worked in journalism for more than 20-years. The vast majority of journalists work very hard every day to avoid grammatical errors, but deadlines wait for no one and sometimes things get missed. Honestly though, thanks to modern computers, it's much harder to make errors then when I was writing for and editing newspapers. I still see plenty of mistakes myself and usually chalk it up to the fact that I live in a small town and most of the media outlets are largely staffed by people fresh out of college.
One thing I'd like to point out. I've read online of Christians saying how they are defensive about saying they are Christians, and how they are reluctant to say "Merry Christmas" because of all the hate that will come to them. But who is making them feel self-conscious about it? It is movies like this, and Bill O'Reilly telling them that they are hated. I've lived 58 years and have yet to hear someone get shouted down for saying Merry Christmas. The closest it ever got was when I wished the cashier a Merry Christmas a few days before the 25th and she replied, "I'm Jewish, but I'll take it."
Every now and again I like to go back and rewatch sam sedar debate bob knight on cnn about the 'war on christmas'. It occurred to me this past year that that debate took place in 2005, and a lot of the points bob knight makes are still used today. Its just crazy to think about how long the whole 'were being persecuted' thing has been going for.
Bingo. The people who fearmonger about the "War on Christmas" (among other things) are the very same people who actually promote it. It's all about control.
What the creators of the God's Not Dead movies do is like a builder trying to build a house from scratch with a hammer as their only tool. It's impossible to do, in our reality. So, the builder creates an entirely new reality (in their head) where they can build a house using only a hammer and no other tool. The GND movies have to manufacture a different Constitution, different Law and a different Society in order for their agenda to work.
Conservatives christians exist in a different world. As Aron Ra points out religion is about playing pretend and that's the world represented in this movie. They pretend they're victims while in reality they're the oppressors.
sometimes the sunday work is to avoid crunching. Couldn't stomach the whole video for the moment you're reacting to tho I'm afraid. -source = currently working on a project running into crunch, those who did do sundays aren't having to crunch now
The social justice warrior part seemed intended to paint them as the true people fighting for justice and that their causes are the actual good ones whereas the causes commonly associated with "social justice warriors" are bad. Sort of like "the people talking about systemic racism are the real racists" arguments where they try to redefine racism to mean something different that somehow backs their position.
Yes that's my experience of how fundamentalist Christians think: the SJWs are borrowing from Christianity to advance an anti-God agenda, as an expected consequence of people turning away from faith. That part of the dialogue made sense to me.
I imagine that is the intent. But selling the rebranding of the term "social justice warrior" to be read more literally, to a social group that went to great lengths to brand the term as a pejorative, is an odd approach. I would be all for convincing them that it shouldn't be a pejorative, but I'm guessing they wouldn't be very receptive. I suspect they would react much like if you said Jesus would have been a socialist, if the term existed then.
Racism is when the Klan isn’t allowed to do their thing even though this is an ostensibly free country. How can this country be truly free when you’re not free to discriminate against others? Looks like anti racists are the real racists!
@@stevewebber707 Jesus was freakin’ based: dude threw predatory loan-sharks out of the Temple, told people to live and let live, fed the poor, hung out with sex workers (him and Mary Magdalene were definitely banging), definitely had a thing with Peter (he called him his “rock”), said the rich will burn, etc.
Nah I think it's an attempt to pander to younger people who will be dragged by their conservative parents to watch... this. Big FELLOW KIDS vibes. @@stevewebber707 when my country, was "socialist," religion was publicly denounced and survived mostly underground as priests were legit persecuted (clergy lineage blacklisted you from everything), only after transitioning to market economy in the 1990s, churches started springing up like mushrooms after the rain. We're not a unique case, as in most countries where the regime describes itself as "socialist", religion is seen as a tool of "western imperialism" or something... except in Latin America where Catholicism is too strong to fight. Anyway, even a passing knowledge of Marx makes his disdain for religion obvious, so the extremely privileged western "champagne socialists" claiming Jesus is one of them couldn't be further from self-awareness. ...anyway, American politics are weird... They have right wing supporters of russian regime made almost entirely of communist party of Soviet Union members... I don't get it.
If anything, I would have thought that you would have reacted to God''s Not Dead 2, which actually takes place in a courtroom and is about a school suing a teacher answering a question involving Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. That being said, God's Not Dead is a film series people can skip. These kind of Christian films are (pun intended) preaching to a choir.
I think it does more than preaching to the choirs, it allows their targeted audience to feel a sense of martyrdom and victimhood without the suffering of ever being a martyr or victim. Suffering the 'feels' of fake injustice is a lot easier than actual good deeds and suffering.
@@biocapsule7311 It also lends creditability to anti-journalism crowd. We have to make movies to expose the oppression of Christianity, because the fake news radical left propaganda machine refuses to report on it.
@@stephenc3060 The moment you say *"fake news radical left propaganda machine",* what "left propaganda machine"? The US hasn't have any 'left' power for over 50 years, even before that, most of the left are grassroots. That's half a century. All the so-call MSM are corporate, either right or center. To even find a news outlet that can be consider slightly center-left. You have to go outside the country. If you think the US have a left propaganda machine... you are already quite 'well-conditioned'.
@@biocapsule7311 Wow. And all this time I was thinking MSNBC made Bernie Sanders look like Barry Goldwater. Thanks for opening my eyes (so there's no confusion this time, that was MORE ironic sarcasm).
I absolutely love watching them critically examine a "christians are so oppressed" propaganda movie and be genuinely baffled by some of the nonsense of the movie. It's great and I need more of it.
@@christianseibold3369 Is theology a philosophy doctorate? Ironic huh, you still have to go through academia to get closer to God. Weren't the Greeks heathens?
You do have to understand why some Christians and people from other religions feel this way, though. Constantly people are telling them that they're stupid and lesser for believing in God, and constantly they're being judged for their belief. That's why some religious people become defensive because they're constantly facing verbal attacks on who they are. It's the same exact thing for the LGBT movement...no one would say that belittling people in the LGBT camp is a good thing, so why is it acceptable to belittle religious people?
@@tevarinvagabond1192 Who exactly is belittling? And no theocracy and self identity are not the same. Science disproves the former and establishes the latter... So, both of your points seem to be out of touch with reality. Which sure, we do live in America, you and who ever wants to be, can be... As dumb as they want, that is just a fact and isn't pointing at anyone in particular. Welcome to freedumb.
@@tevarinvagabond1192 the issue is that the audience for these movies typically do the same exact thing for other religions, whether publicly or privately, judging them for being of a different faith. So for them to act like atheists are awful people for looking down on their faith, when they do the same thing to the atheists, is just plain hypocritical. Also, it isn't the same as LGBTQ+ stuff because at the end of the day, in spite of the criticism or bullying one might receive for their faith, publicly practicing a Christian faith is completely unrestricted in America... publicly expressing a non-cisgender or non-heterosexual identity isn't (though it's getting better). (Protestant) Christians have always been the dominant religious force in America since its very founding, and many laws were put in place to ensure that their faith and its practice couldn't be infringed upon by the law. And yet somehow they think they're being oppressed because some people say mean things about them, making them little better than the Twitter snowflakes they love to mock. At the end of the day, it isn't sympathetic at all because it isn't them crying out for help, it's them crying out for victimhood.
Jesus: when the soldiers of the oppressive government legally force you to carry their heavy gear for a mile, go two miles Pureflix: Jesus wants me to fight eminent domain
Also should note that Jesus whipped the shit out of people selling at the temple at its expense. I am not saying that we should do it to those filmmakers, but I think he certainly would...
My understanding of that is that people could be legally conscripted to perform those types of acts, and that by going beyond the required conscription, you were causing the law to be broken by them.
@@ChickinSammichCorrect. The Romans could lawfully conscript Jews to carry their gear for no more than one mile. Jesus was advocating for malicious compliance here - by going the extra mile, inattentive Romans who force them into free labor would be tricked into breaking the law by not stopping them at the first mile.
I'm sure there's a moral argument being made here, but all I can imagine is Jesus encouraging people to exercise harder. "You think you can go a mile? Go for two! Feel the burn!"
What I found funny was how quickly the basement filled with enough gas to explode like that in such a short period of time. It would actually take much longer than that, for that size explosion. That's also assuming the basement was airtight, which, no basement is that airtight. Just watch the original Mythbusters to see how long it takes a room to fill with gas to blow up like that.
Then there is the question of how the gas smell went unnoticed. Yes, I know that the smell comes from something we add to the gas to make it easy to smell leaks. If that additive was missing, that's another messy legal issue.
Because of you, I can no longer watch Law & Order with my wife without yelling, "OBJECT!" whenever the court cases are going. Also, I'm constantly pointing out that the Bailiff would have tackled them. My wife laughs every time.
That "check out Wisecrack's channel for an analysis on the philosophical implications of the movie, to the extent that their are any" was the most subtle, lawyery roast of the movie anyone could ask for 💀💀💀
If I'm not mistaken, the bit at the beginning about the church turning over documents was a thinly veiled reference (and misunderstanding) of a real world case. I forget the details but basically about a decade ago Houston, TX passed a law protecting LGBT people, so of course a bunch of right-wing pastors opposed it, and the mayor tried to subpoena copies of their sermons to determine how much of the sermons were devoted to planning a movement to repeal. The city eventually dropped its case and the pastors did not turn over their documents.
I'll add that I'm only really aware of this because the youtuber "Renegade Cut" did a vid about this like a year or two ago and talked about it. So credit goes to him.
There is a difference between a subpoena and a mandate as they said. A subpoena is possible in a criminal investigation IF they believe that the pastor or church might be complicit in a crime, but a mandate to have church sermons "approved" is out of the question due to the first amendment. Notably, the sermon info or notes would likely be at most a courtesy since transcripts or witness information could provide most of its information. If anything, the church would WANT to provide transcripts to make sure anything they said was not misinterpreted or misremembered in a criminal case, which is why I think this is supposed to be a mandate. Which is a farce.
It was also not every right wing pastor. It was against five specific pastors, who were in fact organizing a rally in opposition to the law. Also, the subpoena encompassed past sermons, but that was in the context of wanting all records of communications from the pastors to congregants and board members over the matter of the Johnson Amendment dispute, and as you pointed out, the request was dropped. Later, the churches were found not to have violated the Johnson Amendment after all. They are still tax-exempt, and of course no pastors faced any threat of jail or prison.
Please do a video on the Coffeezilla interview with SBF and actually got him to admit fruad. It's right up your alley and really needs to be covered in more detail and explained.
@@lilymarinovic1644 I believe it's Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange that kinda hit an iceberg and exploded in a supernova of pure fail recently.
If you don't persecute them they get mad that you ignore them, if you associate with them then you're persecuting them. It's the classic "searching for things to stay mad about."
The death caused by the brick breaking a gas valve and then an exploding light bulb igniting the gas is similar to the Rube Goldberg deaths in the "Final Destination" films.
@@GamingEmpire520 all muslims ought to given that egypt, syria, pakistan, parts of india, iran. and most other middle eastern countries used to be christian or zoroastrian before they put them to the sword
Separation of church and state: exists Far right Christian fundamentalists: "what has this country come to?" Edit: I literally have never gotten near this many likes, especially on an obvious joke 😂 thanks all
@@sloppyjoes7 The ten commandments also say you have to worship God and only God. The first amendment says do whatever the hell you want just keep that crap out of government." So there's a direct contradiction.
@@EBDavis111 But I live in the US, not with God. I can see the laws of man working, good or bad, they do things. I have never once seen, with my eyes, this God everyone seems so fond of quoting, or his laws do anything. Nobody wants to learn actual philosophical communication, but want to decree 1500 year old mumbo jumbo like they could ever possibly fathom what people without electricity thought.
@@EBDavis111 To say it's a contradiction _presumes_ the truth of the Ten Commandments. If you're of another faith that doesn't hold that the 10C are anything but a part of a "Cool Story bro" moment from the Bronze or Iron Age, then you're essentially trying to find a contradiction between the Law Codices of the Sith and the Constitution, which is a bit silly.
@@EBDavis111 IMO Christianity and liberal government are more compatible than Christianity and theocracy (even Christian theocracy.) Reason being, Christ's followers must _choose_ to follow Him. If e.g. the government mandates that Christian teachings be followed, then it isn't by _choice_ that citizens abide by Christ's teachings. They are forced to do so. I'm not sure that God is as pleased with those who are forced to obey Him, compared to those who choose Him via their own free will. And so Christian theocracy (a lack of sep bt church and state) can make it impossible for us to be true Christians.
@@RawkLobstah88 …and because they could, we must stop these heathens by any means necessary before they murder babies and destroy all the churches and burn all the Bibles!
At a glance through the comments, I didn't see this explained, so sorry if you've already heard this. The bit at the beginning (referenced in the THRILLING conclusion to God's Not Dead 2) is a reference to a thing that happened in Houston. This is all from memory, so apologies if details are incorrect. The city was trying to pass the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), and believed that some local churches had violated the Johnson Amendment and told people to vote against it from the pulpit. The city DID request sermons (Not for some kind of weird Ministry of Truth audit like the movies imply) but the churches refused to offer them, and the order was eventually dropped because the city thought the stink being raised wasn't worth it. Edit: Correcting legislation name.
I honestly didn't know there were sequels created until I saw this video. I had the misfortune of seeing the first one with my parents because it was movie night and there was nothing else on. They loved it, I cringed all the way through. We ended up fighting over it later.
That sounds eerily similar to me! Ended up watching the first one with my parents at my mothers insistence. She was really upset about how much me and my sisters made fun of the nonsense.
Same. My brother was athiest (then 16) and my parents thought the movie whete the athiest teacher dies in the end (and it's supposed to be a good ending). It did not.
@@-kiexes-8706Because they don't think atheists actually exist as people who don't believe. They're convinced that literally everyone believes, an atheist is just someone who SAYS they don't believe. I've been told to me face that there are no atheists, only professed atheists.
Couldn’t every God’s Not Dead film just be a loop of part of one scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Y’know “help help I’m being repressed”. Over and over and over and over.
My favourite thing about movies like this is they are so tone deaf, like "these are human right" is like almost so fuckin close but these types of people are so caught up in their own shit they don't even think for two seconds about what they are writing!
"far left radical liberuls are out to violate your religious freedumbs!" Its the same victim narrative the evangelicals have ran with for the past 30 years
The irony of the location is that it's on-location at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Little Rock. If this were the case in the movie, they'd most likely have lawyers in the congregation and probably members who were on the board of the college. [Also, yet more evidence for why writers NEED to have subject readers review their work.]
By the way, the closed caption religious puns and misc jokes have me chuckling, so thanks for that ("chewing now officially a motif", for example, was great) 😄.
Hiring a lawyer with a separate specialty than what you need is equivalent to “hey I know you’re a cardiovascular surgeon but can you do my brain surgery?” It wouldn’t happen in real life.
I like the analogy, but I think it's a little stretched since lawyers often have several areas of practice. Law isn't nearly as complex as the human body.
In my divorce a few years ago, my now ex-wife hired a family friend who didn't specialize in divorces - I did hire an actual divorce attorney - and it didn't go well for her. He even screwed up the paperwork and the case got tossed out for non-compliance - my lawyer had to go and get the case reopened. And it wasn't a money thing - she comes from a fairly wealthy family, including that her father is a doctor. She just was lazy and didn't bother looking for an actual divorce attorney.
There's a podcast called God Awful Movies that reviews abysmal Christian cinema: K-Sorbs is a recurring theme, and the GND franchise is not spared. Including a reverse framing of Kitzmiller, which is hilarious. But I love the "historic landmark that has served our community for more than a century". My school was founded in 948, in an abbey, which was replaced in 1077 and the oldest of the school buildings dates back to 1365!
US 'historic landmarks' are always funny to me when there are buildings in Europe older than our entire nation that would be considered new to OTHER buildings in Europe
Well, this isn't something I expected to see today. Edit: While we're here: "God is dead" is neither an ontological nor epistemological argument about the existence of God; it's a statement about belief in God. That is to say, an expanded version of Nietzsche's claim would be "the capacity to believe in God has been so diminished in the modern era that an ordinary person would have no just cause to believe that he exists." It's something that these nutjobs never seen to understand.
As a fellow nerd, the simplest way to point out what Nietzsche was saying is to complete the quote: "God is dead, and we have killed him." It was a statement about modern society, not about God.
Correction; This is an actual issue which isn't addressed in the film (mainly because of dubious presentation and playing loose with legal terms). So, to use an IRL example I know of, my alma mater UWEC has a Church on site. The Church doesn't expressly own the land it's occupying, merely the building, and the building is allowed to exist on the land so long as it is used for religious studies, at least in part. What is meant by them saying "eminent domain" here is that the Church in the film doesn't likely own that land, but was constructed as part of the University prior to it becoming a public school (just like the church was with UWEC when UWEC was a private university). Very likely the land is under a land lease, which can be revoked by the University which is ostensibly an arm of the State being a State University. The legal "jargon" in this film is, to say the least, bullshittery.
Honestly, if this was the setting then the movie would actually be a lot more interesting and have at least a tiny bit of a leg to stand on. Shame that no one involved in the creation of these ungodly movies has any knowledge of how the law or Christianity works IRL.
Except they literally stated the church in the film DOES own the property, which is why they didn't talk about any of what you describe. Eminent domain could apply. I'd like to say they failed to mention that the public need doesn't automatically mean the state would prevail in this case. The state would likely have to show why this particular piece of land is necessary to accomplish the state's goal. If the school could build elsewhere, still in proximity to the existing campus, they might have to pursue displacing a business or private homes rather than a church that serves an established community. Of course, in the past three decades courts have repeatedly sided with the government in rather dubious circumstances in eminent domain cases. Some were outright attacks to displace people the government just didn't like. Others were cases that gave land to private developers in the name of the public good their developments would bring in the form of jobs and an increased tax base. Eminent domain has truly become a mine field since my grandfather was editing the basic text books in the field, Nichols On Eminent Domain. I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand how they have justified some of these arguments but it pains me to think what my grandfather would have said about the state of jurisprudence in eminent domain cases today.
@@fantasticsound2085 Well, yes, they do say the church "owns the property" however, we need to take that with a grain of salt considering that they got eminent domain wrong, or what the University can or cannot do. Also, let's not forget the film is exclusively one sided in perspective, and it is quite often the perspective of people to believe what they want. These characters believe the Church owns the land, if this were a true story (it most certainly isn't) that's not likely the case. Given the other contextual clues, like how quickly the University authorized the demolition of the church, the university likely actually owns the land and building. There are two competing and contradictory narratives here; from the get go we're told the Church in question is affiliated with the University. We see the University act as though it owns the property, and then on the other hand we have untrustworthy narrators and characters who make questionably absurd claims about laws like Eminent Domain, and the ownership of the building. From an objective observation we can reasonably assert that the Church doesn't own the building or the land, they exist under a land lease. If it didn't the University, as our learned Attorney questioned regarding how long it'd take for Eminent Domain cases to go through, wouldn't have such authority as to order the razing of the building post gas explosion. The only way the university, in this scenario, could have that authority, is if they already owned the building and land, and its use was under a land lease or contract.
@@XtomJamesExtra The fact the movie gets most of the legal issues and process wrong doesn't give your pure speciation based on a real, yet entirely different situation gives no credence to that speculation. That's a logical fallacy. The church in the movie owns the land and basically nothing the movie says about the legal issues is correct.
@@fantasticsound2085 And as I said, there are clues to the contrary of the claims of the unreliable characters from the one-sided part of the story, which tell us it is not an Eminent Domain case, but a land lease case. Again; the mention that the church is affiliated with the university, the rapidity with which the university president authorizes demolition, without any eminent domain proceedings. The fact is, the only way a University President or Chancellor could sign a permit for demolition, is if they already own the property. And you can bet your backside that this fictional university's lawyers wouldn't okay demolition of a property that doesn't belong to the university. An objective observer, and as a screenwriter (I have my MA in screenwriting) I'm analyzing this film in a different sense; what is the purpose of the story, who is the audience, and the thing is the main character and those around him are unreliable. They're looking at the situation with the Church through a very narrow lens, and that is the lens the story is fed to the audience. Thus to take that perspective at face value, without asserting a priori knowledge about how college and university campuses, especially state campuses, work, would be folly in the examination of the film's contents.
have you never actually felt any sort of emotional connection to a building before? The film itself is silly, but actually mocking it for sentimental value is dumb and stupid
@@tosmok Lol not reacting and playing a sad score attempting to elicit an emotional response from the audience over a window are two different things. But you knew that before you typed your message out.
Your videos are all so good! Thank you for spending the time to make amazing content for a bunch of people you’ve never met before. On a different note, I think “To Kill a Mockingbird” would be a great court case for you to react to. The defense makes such a great argument, yet the jury is so biased as to convict the defendant wrongfully.
@@josepheridu3322 they're both abrahamic religions. and Islam has many sects just like Christianity. your point is pointless. it's like saying "wait for christianity" ok, which sect? oh right, you don't know.
The Evangelical victim complex is baffling. It's a great way to get the general public to scrutinize your outsized influence on government and society.
I mean it seems to be working pretty well for them, all things considered. No amount of public scrutiny seems to have actually _done_ anything to curb the undue religious influence in the US government.
I watched the first movie back when I was still Christian. Looking back on it now... every time that teacher spoke, like I'm prettyyyyyy sure that'd be a easy way to get fired since, yknow, it was a public uni. I didn't know they made two more of these things.
Yeah. I watched it when I was a Christian too and didn't put much thought into it. Now I look at it and I just wanna yell "go to your advisor or something!" As if a college would risk issues with a professor telling his students they have no choice but to denounce their own religious beliefs.
Haha, the Sorbo one was pure projection. He portrayed the professor with the authoritarianism that he wishes religious fundamentalists had over this country.
The funny thing about these movies is that they have to write a world where like random guys have enormous power to prosecute Christians for no reason but also they're always incredibly stupid.
its always very telling to me when schools are portrayed as the enemy in these things. (P.S. John Corbitt and his "virtuoso smartass lawyer" "performance" is the very definition of that "you thought you ate that" meme lololol)
I'd love to see a legal analysis of the second movie because I've always had this feeling that they reversed the roles of who is suing who. In the movie the school sues the teachers but it seems more logical that the school would fire the teacher and then the teacher would sue the school for wrongful termination. Obviously not a lawyer though so would be curious about LegalEagles take.
Mate, when I was an undergrad, there was Hellfire and Brimstone preachers with megaphones literally on campus every single day, with signs showing "aborted babies" (they were mangled 30+ week fully developed CGI fetuses, not the result of abortions), harassing women, and calling for our deaths. And campus security routinely told us they couldn't remove them from the campus.
Sure but they have to make the university the bad guy to justify going after the intellectuals. It's why they have the university signing the demolition order for some reason.
@@InfinityKrompt Pretty sure campus security can in fact remove them for making death threats, though I don't doubt they just didn't wanna do their damn job.
I've been hearing this shit since I was in middle school (public, btw), and we *literally had prayer groups meeting before and after school.* These people just don't think that's enough -- they want to be able to *make* people attend *their* religious services.
My favorite episode of God's Not Dead is when the Gang was throwing a big party at God's beach house, and had to prop up God's corpse in a hawaiian shirt and sunglasses so that people would think he's a cool dude and not a dead guy.
The University of North Carolina used to have an Episcopal church. It opened the year the Constitution was ratified, and they split it off shortly afterwards. But for a few years there was a public university with an official church.
I'm surprised that you didn't look at the cases at the end (on the end credits). They put legal cases at the end of every movie to show where they drew inspiration from. But some of these cases make absolutely no sense and are no way related to the content of the movie itself.
I once fact-checked quite a lot of their "scientific studies" about how abortion is bad, and on the rare occasion that they cited some science instead of just saying vague wrong things about it, the source would often refute what they were arguing. One said that abortion causes breast cancer, and linked to a Cancer Society or whatever statement that said they've checked this very carefully, and abortion definitely does not cause breast cancer. In the citations of "scientific review" that they used in a state Supreme Court, more than half directly refuted their claim that foetuses feel pain before 20 weeks. But when the judges don't care, I guess that's not an issue.
@@Sarcasticron They just tack on random sources to look legitimate because they know the kind of people who consume those movies unironically either won't read them, or won't understand them.
"If you wanna see Michael take on the philosophical aspects of this movie to the extent that there are any..." Come for the legal analysis stay for the casual burns 🔥 😂😂 never change Devin
You should do a reaction video to God's Not Dead 2. It follows a trial about a teacher who mentioned Jesus in history class at a public high school. I was in law school when I watched it and it was just awful.
If it's true that the rock broke off the gas valve after it had also broken the bulb and then one of the good guys who had spent his life (possibly) following Jesus is the one who hits the light switch and gets blown up....one has to ask: Um, God, did you mean to allow that to happen? Even when I was Mr Super Pentecostal Guy when I was younger, I always struggled with the "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" question. I don't care how many different answers you're told to that question...it's a tough one that has led many believers to challenge their beliefs and ultimately get free of that stuff.
At the very least in this situation it's such a ridiculously unlikely thing to happen that it's hard to see how you can believe in a god and not think it was said god's will for this to happen. Maybe God wanted it to happen to follow the universal movie rule of "the black guy dies first", and like in the rest of the movies this guy had been the token black guy.
If a room is filled with gas, a spark will set it off. The bulb doesn't have to be defective. When I was a teen, a friend of my parents was on vacation when there was a gas leak. The house blew up when the landline phone rang. Any spark will do it
This was such a great episode!! I miss you reacting to movies/media. I love all your videos, but it’s always fun to see you tear something apart and get pissy concerning simple mistakes. A+ good episode!
“The Pantheon of Homicide” sounds like the most extreme polytheistic religion and the fact you said it in a video about GND3 is absolutely hilarious to me. Lol
I would still love to see you react to the Australian film "The Castle" it is based completely around lawsuits regarding the right of the government to compulsarily acquire private property for government projects. I think, while it is not your area of expertise (Australian Law) you would be pleasantly surprised by the courtroom scenes and would absolutely love the comedy of the first solicitor to take on the case
An actual Australian classic - everything Daryl Kerrigan says is so much more quotable (and quoted by my dad) than anything Mr Crocodile Dundee ever said
There is two cities in Sweden well known for their universities (more than two, but I am focusing on these two). One is Lund in the south, and Uppsala north of Stockholm. Anyway, students of Lund University has a history of mocking Uppsala University students. Now comes the protagonist of this story. This guy, our hero, was from Uppsala originally, but made his PhD in Lund. During his time at Lund he was bullied really badly by his peers/coworkers. Our hero had a shit time at Lund, but eventually managed to get his degree in the end. He wasn't done with Lund though. Our hero happened to inherit a bunch of forest land. So he sold this forest and began to purchase the land surrounding the Lund University campus. He then started a fund, where the money he earned from rents went to buying up more land. Eventually he owned a circle of land surrounding Lund University. Pretty much stopping Lund from ever growing larger. After that was done he used the revenue from this fund to pay for a lavish party in Uppsala Castle every year This party is for free for at least any PhD graduate in Uppsala that year. So the fact that Lund University can't grow pays for the Uppsala PhD graduation parties. r/revenge if I ever heard one.
If I have learned nothing else from TV and film law dramas over the decades, I have learned one thing: Don’t learn law from TV and film dramas. (That applies to cop shows, too.)
Certainly don't learn science from blockbuster disaster movies. Don't learn dating advice or psychology from romance films. I think just generally don't 😆
I will always enjoy and appreciate carefully scripted videos from well-composed, professional LegalEagle… but getting to see loose, casual, conversational LegalEagle just riffing and having a great time was honestly a LOT of fun.
When I saw the video title I was very hesitant to click on it, but I think you did a great job on actually looking at the legal side of this movie and I appreciate your analysis of it.
So here's my working theory on this movie. Pastor Guy basically runs this crooked church and pockets the money from donations for himself and neglects the actual maintenance of the church. The University trying to get the church land is a problem for him because with the poor maintenance its value is actually really low and if they found this out (presumably they have professionals that assess that before making an offer) Pastor Guy would get far less money and possibly wouldn't have the money to just start a new church slightly further away from campus. So when miracle rock causes the explosion, it hits the fan because now the university knows how dangerous the building is and that's why the workers are told to tear it down post haste. Pastor Guy, not wanting to out himself as someone who stole from the church, proceeds to try and law everything in random, nonsensical, and illegal ways.
Some notes as I watch: - So, the local order for churches to turn over transcripts of their sermons is based on a real case that actually happened. A mayor in Texas was openly lesbian or something, a church was going to talk about it, she gave the order in response, and it was immediately shot down in court. Hardly something to get upset about. - On the above topic, why wouldn't the pastor just comply with this order? He'd be more or less forcing whoever reviews the sermons to read a sermon that they otherwise wouldn't expose themselves to, and I know religious conservatives love that sort of thing. - So, at 4:06, you can tell (once again) that the writers of these movies have never interacted meaningfully with anyone outside their bubble. Unless you're a philosopher, most people wouldn't ask that kind of question. It was crafted by the writers so that Pastor Gary Stu could give the Biblical answer. - So, I can answer your question, Devin, at 17:50. They're probably arguing that "modern SJWs" or whatever don't actually care about what they claim to care about or don't realize that the solution to injustice in society is for everyone to just Jesus really hard. A similar argument was used against the Civil Rights Movement, incidentally. As for the claim about Jesus treating women with dignity (which I can't find a verse contrary to in the Gospels), those not familiar with the Religious Right might not think much of that term, but many in that movement or affiliated with it will emphasize an abstract "dignity of womanhood" which often stands in opposition to women's equality.
To be fair, dramas (Film, radio, and television) have for around a century used the "this person is a [professional something] so of course they know all about everything" cliché. Usually, this is 'scientist', but 'lawyer', 'doctor', or even a vague term like 'professor' gets this treatment.
63% or the people in the US say religion is very important in their lives. Not a single person in congress claims to be an atheist. One one says they are a deist. But ya theist are persecuted in the US.
This movie appears to get as many legal and investigative aspects of the real world right as the reruns of CSI and Criminal Minds my wife is always watching. I'm still chuckling at the CSI Miami episode where they went from murder all the way through trial and conviction in less than 6 months as stated by the main cast at the end of the episode.
With regard to governmental oversight of sermons, the movie was partially based on a case in 2007 where a number of Houston ministers who did get served with subpoenas for their sermons, as well as all other communications both private and public of them and their churches, due to suspicion of violating the Johnson Amendment. The churches subpoenaed had been involved in lobbying for the overturning of a city equal protection law, and had been named as plaintiffs in a suit over honoring a petition to overturn the law which failed to meet the threshold for review. The subpoenas were withdrawn in that case due to being bad optics and also unconstitutional.
I would like to bring your attention to a really good law movie called: The Castle. It is Australian Law but I think you will be comfortable with it too, and it is beautiful... more people need to know it exists. Top five movies in my life time, easily, and the team making didn't even intend for it to be this good. A good premise, a good group of actors, some love to the law, and you don't need much of a budget to make something grand.
The biggest thing about these movies and movies like it is they are their own worst critics. They don't have to put counter arguments to their message but they always do.
Looking at the lightbulb they picked, they definitely could sue, but they'd need a time machine to take Thomas Edison to court and while a time machine is every lawyer who sues people's dream the paradoxes would be too much.
Where I'm from there are rules around what kind of lighting public buildings (not those owned by the public, but those accessed by the public, like schools, shops, hotels etc) are allowed to use. If the lightning was deemed dangerous then it would be the church at fault, not the manufacturer
As a life-long Christian who is extremely fed up with the (patently untrue) persecution complex of the American church, as an overworked local TV news director, as someone who made a parody short film of the first God's Not Dead movie for a university project, and as a Legal Eagle, this was extremely cathartic in a surprising number of ways.
Yeah dude I'm a Catholic and these movies make me cringe. American Christians, evangelicals in particular, have absolutely no idea what persecution actually looks like.
Wisecrack's question, whether the brick throwing can be prosecuted as murder, has reminded me of something that I've wanted to ask for a long time. Why is a crime considered to be less serious, if the harm that was caused, was less than the intended harm (and vice versa)? Attempted murder is an example that I just don't grasp. If it has been established that a person has fully intended for their victim to die, why is the question of their success, a factor?
I think Manslaughter is a better alternative to understand it. I think the Google results for that explanation that I got were satisfactory but since I can't link to them I suggest looking at the pages on Wikipedia and their sources
I'd guess it's because we've decided to have the punishment fit the crime, and a crime that doesn't succeed is generally less harmful than a crime that does.
@@gabrote42 Manslaughter leads to the same question again. If the intent to kill wasn't there, why does the happenstance of what was the result of an act that wasn't intended to kill anyone, elevate the seriousness of the original crime that was committed? Take for instance DUI vs vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. What is the difference between the two, considering the actions committed by the driver, alone?
@@ChilledfishStick This is an explanation that I found, and I also found text against these precepts: * The justice system considers both intent and damage inflicted when when deciding punishment. * A failed attempt often more than luck, representing a less earnest and therefore less serious crime. * Attempted murder sometimes applies to situations where if the victim died, it would only have been manslaughter. * Making the punishments the same creates an incentive to "finish the job". I think that 4 is the most important one personally but I would need to find some SCOTUS cases to provide to you to be sure. Too bad YT forbids links
The was I’ve always seen it is that what actually happened sets the baseline for the charges. Then intent is factored in to increase or reduce severity. Someone died, so that’s the baseline, then intent is factored in to reduce it to manslaughter or raise it to first degree murder. What you’re proposing seems to be the opposite: intent as base and results as modifiers
I was curious when you were going to put in on these movies. It didn't used to be every day that you could find so much law to talk about in the exploitation flick pool, but with PureFlix it has certainly become a reality.
At the end of the second movie, the pastor is arrested for opposing to give copies of his sermons for review (which they intended to compare to the case in Houston when 5 pastors were being investigated for collecting signatures to oppose to an anti-discrimination mandate). The start of this movie basically admits the whole thing made no sense, and that plot point is totally forgotten.
A minor quibble: at least at the two universities I’ve attended, the university can absolutely expel you for conduct that occurs off campus assuming it meets certain requirements (including but not limited to committing any serious crime).
Sure, but I think they were talking about how some random dean of a school can’t just recommend someone be prosecuted. The being expelled thing is probably 100% what would happen
Even more legal and philosophical discussions over here in Wisecrack's video! ruclips.net/video/ryEr74V62hA/видео.html
You should react to the nik Cruz trial, the conduct of the attorneys really needs to be covered.
Please do a video on the Coffeezilla interview with SBF and actually got him to admit fruad.
You may use the following method I came up with to persuade Christians here in the USA away from voting for Republican party candidates: You say: "Do you agree that Revered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, for which we have a national holiday for on his birthday, was the greatest or at least one of the greatest Christian pastors of the 20th century?" Christian person most likely answers you: "yes". Next you say: "Did you know the fact that Revered Dr. King was murdered in 1968 while he was supporting a labor union which was on strike for a fair wage so that poor people could earn a living wage? Reverend Dr. King was murdered while following what Jesus said in the Book of Matthew about helping the poor, in this case by supporting a labor union." Christian person most likely answers you something like: "I did not know he died like that." Next you say: "The contemporary Republican party platform includes dissolution of all labor unions which as I just explained goes against what Reverend Dr. King said in following Jesus's message of helping the poor. Therefore, as a follower of Jesus and admirer of Revered Dr. King you should never vote for anyone who is a member of the Republican party. Do you understand my point? If not I can explain it again and even show you documentation online to back up what I am saying is true."
Id like a deep dive in the religious exceptions in the respect for marriage act.
The link to Wisecrack's video links to THIS video.
The rock going through the window, hitting a gas cock and blowing up the church strikes me as nothing short of miraculous and from my understanding of how the Christian god operates, this was plainly a message from God to the pastor.
Kind of reminds me of the guy who built a temple to Zeus, and upon asking if his god was pleased, lightning struck the ground at his feet. He took that as a sign of appreciation. I took it as a sign that Zeus narrowly _missed._
@@leyrua Absolutely. I don't know what the message was, whether it was God signalling his disapproval of the location of the church or disapproval of the pastor or perhaps disapproval of the custodian who was killed in the basement. Truly mysterious.
@@IanMcGarrett I think God just really liked that university and thought it deserved more land.
I think you are right. But this goes further. If god is all knowing, all powerful and all present (Use maximally to avoid logical contradictions if you want, the problem then is god is limited.). Then at the instant god created the universe (if not sooner if that makes any sense if there was no time before(If that makes sense if there was nothing before.)), he (God identifies as male?) knew everything that was and is going to happen, which is all part of has plan (Hidden ways is a beautiful copout for children drowing in an ice lake.) and that there is actually no such thing as free will.
@@jiubboatman9352 given that I think that determinism is very likely given what science sees at any point above quantum, I wouldn't be surprised. Still, it's generally beneficial to the amount of dilligence in the world to not say that to people and let them find out on their own.
I've worked for PureFlix and they are absolutely, 100% banking on the persecution complex. They know exactly what they're doing.
Do they buy into the complex themselves, or are they deliberately hamming it up?
@@hexkirn Asking the real questions
@@hexkirn I’d imagine it’s a bit of both. If you tell a lie long enough, and often enough, you begin to believe it yourself.
As someone who belongs to a Church based in the Middle East (Syria), I find such a business model(?) disheartening.
@@TeeComedian oh it’s definitely a business model. They’re SUPER successful. I think Sony actually bought them a couple years back. It’s ruthless, but fear and anger sells
A local newspaper without a grammar checking editor is the most realistic depiction of the movie.
This checks out. Our local paper once posted a story about clowns on their website and used a random photo in their archive that was tagged "clown" - that clown was a photo of John Wayne Gacy.
@@badbirdkc if it was around Halloween they knew what they were doing.
"Amphibious Pitcher Makes Debut" is still one of my favorite headlines.
Yeah, the local newspaper my grandma used to get had a lot of grammatical mistakes among other issues. I particularly liked how one article had two different ages of death for a guy, great editing work there.
I worked in journalism for more than 20-years. The vast majority of journalists work very hard every day to avoid grammatical errors, but deadlines wait for no one and sometimes things get missed. Honestly though, thanks to modern computers, it's much harder to make errors then when I was writing for and editing newspapers. I still see plenty of mistakes myself and usually chalk it up to the fact that I live in a small town and most of the media outlets are largely staffed by people fresh out of college.
One thing I'd like to point out. I've read online of Christians saying how they are defensive about saying they are Christians, and how they are reluctant to say "Merry Christmas" because of all the hate that will come to them. But who is making them feel self-conscious about it? It is movies like this, and Bill O'Reilly telling them that they are hated. I've lived 58 years and have yet to hear someone get shouted down for saying Merry Christmas.
The closest it ever got was when I wished the cashier a Merry Christmas a few days before the 25th and she replied, "I'm Jewish, but I'll take it."
They love to reinforce their persecution complex
Every now and again I like to go back and rewatch sam sedar debate bob knight on cnn about the 'war on christmas'. It occurred to me this past year that that debate took place in 2005, and a lot of the points bob knight makes are still used today. Its just crazy to think about how long the whole 'were being persecuted' thing has been going for.
Also Jewish. I’d say “Thanks, Merry Christmas to you, too!”
Bingo. The people who fearmonger about the "War on Christmas" (among other things) are the very same people who actually promote it. It's all about control.
@@arceyominyin It's been going on since it began with the whole crusfivtion of Jesus bit.
I love the fact that nobody involved in the production, directing or casting of this movie seems to notice that all their hard hats are on backwards.
It's because the tinfoil hats underneath has been on too tightly for too long...
As somebody that worked construction you see that alot actually. Drove me up the wall being a safety guy, but happens all the time
These movies were made by a bunch of creationists and fundamentalists. They're idiots
What the creators of the God's Not Dead movies do is like a builder trying to build a house from scratch with a hammer as their only tool. It's impossible to do, in our reality. So, the builder creates an entirely new reality (in their head) where they can build a house using only a hammer and no other tool. The GND movies have to manufacture a different Constitution, different Law and a different Society in order for their agenda to work.
Bang on there. And that’s what their audience does all the time, so it all makes sense for them.
They use good old build a straw man to push their views down the public
Fantasy land 21st century
Conservatives christians exist in a different world. As Aron Ra points out religion is about playing pretend and that's the world represented in this movie. They pretend they're victims while in reality they're the oppressors.
Their version of christian is pretty "story book" too
contractors working on a Sunday when there’s no obvious time crunch is the weirdest thing in this movie
i'm sure a lot of money was thrown at them
@@ddis29 it was a written story, only actors had money thrown at them.
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems if you’ve seen “Attacking the Darkness” (Zombie Orpheus Entertainment) you may get a sense of what the film set was like.
@mipmipmipmipmip well, with that poor level of maintenance, it evidently is.
sometimes the sunday work is to avoid crunching. Couldn't stomach the whole video for the moment you're reacting to tho I'm afraid.
-source = currently working on a project running into crunch, those who did do sundays aren't having to crunch now
The social justice warrior part seemed intended to paint them as the true people fighting for justice and that their causes are the actual good ones whereas the causes commonly associated with "social justice warriors" are bad. Sort of like "the people talking about systemic racism are the real racists" arguments where they try to redefine racism to mean something different that somehow backs their position.
Yes that's my experience of how fundamentalist Christians think: the SJWs are borrowing from Christianity to advance an anti-God agenda, as an expected consequence of people turning away from faith. That part of the dialogue made sense to me.
I imagine that is the intent.
But selling the rebranding of the term "social justice warrior" to be read more literally, to a social group that went to great lengths to brand the term as a pejorative, is an odd approach.
I would be all for convincing them that it shouldn't be a pejorative, but I'm guessing they wouldn't be very receptive.
I suspect they would react much like if you said Jesus would have been a socialist, if the term existed then.
Racism is when the Klan isn’t allowed to do their thing even though this is an ostensibly free country. How can this country be truly free when you’re not free to discriminate against others?
Looks like anti racists are the real racists!
@@stevewebber707
Jesus was freakin’ based: dude threw predatory loan-sharks out of the Temple, told people to live and let live, fed the poor, hung out with sex workers (him and Mary Magdalene were definitely banging), definitely had a thing with Peter (he called him his “rock”), said the rich will burn, etc.
Nah I think it's an attempt to pander to younger people who will be dragged by their conservative parents to watch... this. Big FELLOW KIDS vibes. @@stevewebber707 when my country, was "socialist," religion was publicly denounced and survived mostly underground as priests were legit persecuted (clergy lineage blacklisted you from everything), only after transitioning to market economy in the 1990s, churches started springing up like mushrooms after the rain.
We're not a unique case, as in most countries where the regime describes itself as "socialist", religion is seen as a tool of "western imperialism" or something... except in Latin America where Catholicism is too strong to fight.
Anyway, even a passing knowledge of Marx makes his disdain for religion obvious, so the extremely privileged western "champagne socialists" claiming Jesus is one of them couldn't be further from self-awareness.
...anyway, American politics are weird... They have right wing supporters of russian regime made almost entirely of communist party of Soviet Union members... I don't get it.
If anything, I would have thought that you would have reacted to God''s Not Dead 2, which actually takes place in a courtroom and is about a school suing a teacher answering a question involving Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. That being said, God's Not Dead is a film series people can skip. These kind of Christian films are (pun intended) preaching to a choir.
I think it does more than preaching to the choirs, it allows their targeted audience to feel a sense of martyrdom and victimhood without the suffering of ever being a martyr or victim. Suffering the 'feels' of fake injustice is a lot easier than actual good deeds and suffering.
and like there should have been no issue with how she answered the question. she answered as Jesus as a historical figure...not a religious one.
@@biocapsule7311 It also lends creditability to anti-journalism crowd. We have to make movies to expose the oppression of Christianity, because the fake news radical left propaganda machine refuses to report on it.
@@stephenc3060 The moment you say *"fake news radical left propaganda machine",* what "left propaganda machine"? The US hasn't have any 'left' power for over 50 years, even before that, most of the left are grassroots. That's half a century. All the so-call MSM are corporate, either right or center. To even find a news outlet that can be consider slightly center-left. You have to go outside the country. If you think the US have a left propaganda machine... you are already quite 'well-conditioned'.
@@biocapsule7311 Wow. And all this time I was thinking MSNBC made Bernie Sanders look like Barry Goldwater. Thanks for opening my eyes (so there's no confusion this time, that was MORE ironic sarcasm).
Ironically you guys will be the template for the villains of "God's not dead 4"
Watching them somehow mangle the legal field even more would be entertaining
Wouldn't it be unironic?
Having a movie about a college with the guy who played the jock bully in Revenge of the Nerds as the dean of a college is some new level of irony.
Oof haha
Ted McGinley also became the dean in Revenge of the Nerds 3, so there is some precedent there.
@@JoshGilmorefoo perhaps its the same school... I want to see their greek week now.
I'm gonna assume this series is canon to the Revenge of the Nerds one.
Jeremy Piven played the incredibly rebellious multi-year senior in PCU, and went on to play the very uptight college dean in Old School.
I absolutely love watching them critically examine a "christians are so oppressed" propaganda movie and be genuinely baffled by some of the nonsense of the movie. It's great and I need more of it.
@@christianseibold3369 I can only imagine
@@christianseibold3369 Is theology a philosophy doctorate? Ironic huh, you still have to go through academia to get closer to God. Weren't the Greeks heathens?
You do have to understand why some Christians and people from other religions feel this way, though. Constantly people are telling them that they're stupid and lesser for believing in God, and constantly they're being judged for their belief. That's why some religious people become defensive because they're constantly facing verbal attacks on who they are. It's the same exact thing for the LGBT movement...no one would say that belittling people in the LGBT camp is a good thing, so why is it acceptable to belittle religious people?
@@tevarinvagabond1192 Who exactly is belittling? And no theocracy and self identity are not the same. Science disproves the former and establishes the latter... So, both of your points seem to be out of touch with reality. Which sure, we do live in America, you and who ever wants to be, can be... As dumb as they want, that is just a fact and isn't pointing at anyone in particular. Welcome to freedumb.
@@tevarinvagabond1192 the issue is that the audience for these movies typically do the same exact thing for other religions, whether publicly or privately, judging them for being of a different faith. So for them to act like atheists are awful people for looking down on their faith, when they do the same thing to the atheists, is just plain hypocritical.
Also, it isn't the same as LGBTQ+ stuff because at the end of the day, in spite of the criticism or bullying one might receive for their faith, publicly practicing a Christian faith is completely unrestricted in America... publicly expressing a non-cisgender or non-heterosexual identity isn't (though it's getting better).
(Protestant) Christians have always been the dominant religious force in America since its very founding, and many laws were put in place to ensure that their faith and its practice couldn't be infringed upon by the law. And yet somehow they think they're being oppressed because some people say mean things about them, making them little better than the Twitter snowflakes they love to mock. At the end of the day, it isn't sympathetic at all because it isn't them crying out for help, it's them crying out for victimhood.
Jesus: when the soldiers of the oppressive government legally force you to carry their heavy gear for a mile, go two miles
Pureflix: Jesus wants me to fight eminent domain
Also should note that Jesus whipped the shit out of people selling at the temple at its expense. I am not saying that we should do it to those filmmakers, but I think he certainly would...
I thought those rules were basically goading soldiers to break the law to get them in trouble.
My understanding of that is that people could be legally conscripted to perform those types of acts, and that by going beyond the required conscription, you were causing the law to be broken by them.
@@ChickinSammichCorrect. The Romans could lawfully conscript Jews to carry their gear for no more than one mile. Jesus was advocating for malicious compliance here - by going the extra mile, inattentive Romans who force them into free labor would be tricked into breaking the law by not stopping them at the first mile.
I'm sure there's a moral argument being made here, but all I can imagine is Jesus encouraging people to exercise harder.
"You think you can go a mile? Go for two! Feel the burn!"
Considering my entire family and extended family watches these movies with zero critical thought, it is refreshing to see a thoughtful analysis here.
I hope you have friends you can be more open about your thoughts with man, either way I feel for you and can relate somewhat.
What I found funny was how quickly the basement filled with enough gas to explode like that in such a short period of time. It would actually take much longer than that, for that size explosion. That's also assuming the basement was airtight, which, no basement is that airtight. Just watch the original Mythbusters to see how long it takes a room to fill with gas to blow up like that.
Then there is the question of how the gas smell went unnoticed.
Yes, I know that the smell comes from something we add to the gas to make it easy to smell leaks. If that additive was missing, that's another messy legal issue.
@@bilateralrope8643 Add the gas company to the list of entities being sued for wrongful death.
doesnt understand physics, cites mythbusters.
welcome to idiotville
God works in mysterious ways as they say
Also the gas tends to sit on the floor, as a rule, not just float up at random
Because of you, I can no longer watch Law & Order with my wife without yelling, "OBJECT!" whenever the court cases are going. Also, I'm constantly pointing out that the Bailiff would have tackled them. My wife laughs every time.
Absolutely ruined my somewhat enjoyment of the show.
Isn’t it “objection”?
@@dibsdibs3495 You can also say "I object"
@@dibsdibs3495 me yelling "OBJECT!" is 90% of the time me yelling at the ADA that he should be objecting to what the defense attorney is saying/doing.
@@kangarutan1915 oh you’re telling him to do it
That "check out Wisecrack's channel for an analysis on the philosophical implications of the movie, to the extent that their are any" was the most subtle, lawyery roast of the movie anyone could ask for 💀💀💀
there*
The second movie's depiction of the legal system makes the Bee Movie's look sensible.
this man said there's a whole SEQUAL!
Imagine being so conservative that you think the Scopes Monkey Trial is current events.
@@numbersix9468 there are now 4 of these movies.
…now I’m wondering if Legal Eagle’s reacted to the Bee Movie, and if not, how much do I gotta donate to his Patreon to suggest topics to be voted on?
@@Caterfree10 i think i remember him reviewing it already, so you may be in luck
"The Pantheon of homicide" is a truly amazing sentence and I need to know more about this
A brilliant name for a speed metal band.
@@JhericFury Beat me to it 🤣
“I would never accuse the filmmaker of doing this thing in the film that they are very clearly doing.”
Slippin Jimmy Joined the Chat
Guilty.
If I'm not mistaken, the bit at the beginning about the church turning over documents was a thinly veiled reference (and misunderstanding) of a real world case. I forget the details but basically about a decade ago Houston, TX passed a law protecting LGBT people, so of course a bunch of right-wing pastors opposed it, and the mayor tried to subpoena copies of their sermons to determine how much of the sermons were devoted to planning a movement to repeal. The city eventually dropped its case and the pastors did not turn over their documents.
I'll add that I'm only really aware of this because the youtuber "Renegade Cut" did a vid about this like a year or two ago and talked about it. So credit goes to him.
There is a difference between a subpoena and a mandate as they said. A subpoena is possible in a criminal investigation IF they believe that the pastor or church might be complicit in a crime, but a mandate to have church sermons "approved" is out of the question due to the first amendment.
Notably, the sermon info or notes would likely be at most a courtesy since transcripts or witness information could provide most of its information.
If anything, the church would WANT to provide transcripts to make sure anything they said was not misinterpreted or misremembered in a criminal case, which is why I think this is supposed to be a mandate. Which is a farce.
@@StealthMarmot_ but that doesn't fit the narrative of Christian being persecuted in USA
It was also not every right wing pastor. It was against five specific pastors, who were in fact organizing a rally in opposition to the law. Also, the subpoena encompassed past sermons, but that was in the context of wanting all records of communications from the pastors to congregants and board members over the matter of the Johnson Amendment dispute, and as you pointed out, the request was dropped. Later, the churches were found not to have violated the Johnson Amendment after all. They are still tax-exempt, and of course no pastors faced any threat of jail or prison.
@@StealthMarmot_ It wasn't about approving them. Nothing to do with the first amendment at all.
Please do a video on the Coffeezilla interview with SBF and actually got him to admit fruad. It's right up your alley and really needs to be covered in more detail and explained.
1000% this is important and time-sensitive!
Agreed! It's a fascinating video and I wonder how significant it is in a legal sense
SBF?
@@lilymarinovic1644 I believe it's Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange that kinda hit an iceberg and exploded in a supernova of pure fail recently.
@@lilymarinovic1644, Sam Bankman Fried. The founder of FTX.
If you don't persecute them they get mad that you ignore them, if you associate with them then you're persecuting them.
It's the classic "searching for things to stay mad about."
The death caused by the brick breaking a gas valve and then an exploding light bulb igniting the gas is similar to the Rube Goldberg deaths in the "Final Destination" films.
Life and Death, will find a way. ~ Jeff Goldblum
It's just... more ridiculous lol.
"God called me to fight... has historically not worked out well." 😂😂
it did for the muslims
"Some of which almost didn't fail."
@@tosmok I'm sure any number of terrorist groups would agree with you
@@GamingEmpire520 all muslims ought to given that egypt, syria, pakistan, parts of india, iran. and most other middle eastern countries used to be christian or zoroastrian before they put them to the sword
@@tosmok No part of India was Christian until after Islamic Invaders.
Separation of church and state: exists
Far right Christian fundamentalists: "what has this country come to?"
Edit: I literally have never gotten near this many likes, especially on an obvious joke 😂 thanks all
It doesn't exist. Shoot, the ten commandments includes "Thou shalt not murder" and yet murder is illegal. Shocking!
@@sloppyjoes7 The ten commandments also say you have to worship God and only God. The first amendment says do whatever the hell you want just keep that crap out of government." So there's a direct contradiction.
@@EBDavis111 But I live in the US, not with God. I can see the laws of man working, good or bad, they do things. I have never once seen, with my eyes, this God everyone seems so fond of quoting, or his laws do anything. Nobody wants to learn actual philosophical communication, but want to decree 1500 year old mumbo jumbo like they could ever possibly fathom what people without electricity thought.
@@EBDavis111 To say it's a contradiction _presumes_ the truth of the Ten Commandments. If you're of another faith that doesn't hold that the 10C are anything but a part of a "Cool Story bro" moment from the Bronze or Iron Age, then you're essentially trying to find a contradiction between the Law Codices of the Sith and the Constitution, which is a bit silly.
@@EBDavis111 IMO Christianity and liberal government are more compatible than Christianity and theocracy (even Christian theocracy.)
Reason being, Christ's followers must _choose_ to follow Him. If e.g. the government mandates that Christian teachings be followed, then it isn't by _choice_ that citizens abide by Christ's teachings. They are forced to do so.
I'm not sure that God is as pleased with those who are forced to obey Him, compared to those who choose Him via their own free will.
And so Christian theocracy (a lack of sep bt church and state) can make it impossible for us to be true Christians.
Actual lawyer: This doesn't happen, nor has at ever happened
Persecution complex Christians: BuT aMeRiCa Is HeAdInG dOwN tHiS pAtH
Sane people: These are things that do not happen.
Persecution-complex Christians: BuT tHeY cOuLd!
@@RawkLobstah88 …and because they could, we must stop these heathens by any means necessary before they murder babies and destroy all the churches and burn all the Bibles!
Meanwhile, actual America: 40% of population denies reality in favor or conspiracy theories peddled by someone speaking on Kremlin money.
Seeing LegalEagle with a grey suit against a background made with every color known to the human eye it's truly remarkable.
I know,he’s like a black and white ‘40s movie character photoshopped into a modern streaming
It was a top tier choice. Also avoided severe headaches for us by not adding in more color, and actually toning it down a bit.
He can rock the suits.
At a glance through the comments, I didn't see this explained, so sorry if you've already heard this.
The bit at the beginning (referenced in the THRILLING conclusion to God's Not Dead 2) is a reference to a thing that happened in Houston.
This is all from memory, so apologies if details are incorrect. The city was trying to pass the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), and believed that some local churches had violated the Johnson Amendment and told people to vote against it from the pulpit. The city DID request sermons (Not for some kind of weird Ministry of Truth audit like the movies imply) but the churches refused to offer them, and the order was eventually dropped because the city thought the stink being raised wasn't worth it.
Edit: Correcting legislation name.
Thank you! I knee the case sounded vaguely familiar, but I couldn't remember the details of it
So the churches broke the law and now act like victims for doing it and dating to face consequences for their actions? I’m shocked , I tell you
@@lawrencescales9864 Yea, pretty much. Only they never actually faced any consequences.
I honestly didn't know there were sequels created until I saw this video. I had the misfortune of seeing the first one with my parents because it was movie night and there was nothing else on. They loved it, I cringed all the way through. We ended up fighting over it later.
That sounds eerily similar to me! Ended up watching the first one with my parents at my mothers insistence. She was really upset about how much me and my sisters made fun of the nonsense.
Same. My brother was athiest (then 16) and my parents thought the movie whete the athiest teacher dies in the end (and it's supposed to be a good ending). It did not.
@Angel Moon and at the end, you find out he wasn't even an atheist.
@@-kiexes-8706Because they don't think atheists actually exist as people who don't believe. They're convinced that literally everyone believes, an atheist is just someone who SAYS they don't believe.
I've been told to me face that there are no atheists, only professed atheists.
I'm sorry to everyone who relates to this for having dipshit parents.
Couldn’t every God’s Not Dead film just be a loop of part of one scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Y’know “help help I’m being repressed”. Over and over and over and over.
“ now look here, he’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”
no, because he's a communist.
I mean tbf in that movie they are actually being oppressed so that's giving them too much credit.
@@jedisentinel1499 wrong MP movie, but I'll allow it on the legal grounds that it's awesome - signed, biggus dickus
@@hedgehog3180 "come see the violence inherent in the system!"
Two of my favorite creators talking about one of my favorite films to pick apart. What a team.
Amazing - thanks so much! Huge fan of your work!!!
BASED and POGGERS J KENJI LOpez ALT????
Kenji has made my life better, because good food just does that.
My favourite thing about movies like this is they are so tone deaf, like "these are human right" is like almost so fuckin close but these types of people are so caught up in their own shit they don't even think for two seconds about what they are writing!
Wrong. They know exactly what they are writing. It's the exact same right wing propaganda machine fox, daily wire, etc are apart of.
"far left radical liberuls are out to violate your religious freedumbs!"
Its the same victim narrative the evangelicals have ran with for the past 30 years
The irony of the location is that it's on-location at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Little Rock. If this were the case in the movie, they'd most likely have lawyers in the congregation and probably members who were on the board of the college.
[Also, yet more evidence for why writers NEED to have subject readers review their work.]
By the way, the closed caption religious puns and misc jokes have me chuckling, so thanks for that ("chewing now officially a motif", for example, was great) 😄.
Hiring a lawyer with a separate specialty than what you need is equivalent to “hey I know you’re a cardiovascular surgeon but can you do my brain surgery?” It wouldn’t happen in real life.
I like the analogy, but I think it's a little stretched since lawyers often have several areas of practice. Law isn't nearly as complex as the human body.
It did actually thats how President Mckinley died
They took a gynecologist out of the crowd and had him do surgery to remove a bullet
In my divorce a few years ago, my now ex-wife hired a family friend who didn't specialize in divorces - I did hire an actual divorce attorney - and it didn't go well for her. He even screwed up the paperwork and the case got tossed out for non-compliance - my lawyer had to go and get the case reopened.
And it wasn't a money thing - she comes from a fairly wealthy family, including that her father is a doctor. She just was lazy and didn't bother looking for an actual divorce attorney.
@@Riverbear2010 where, uh... where exactly did that bullet hit President Mckinley?
You really need to watch God’s Not Dead 2. The second movie’s depiction of the legal system had me tearing my hair out.
That's probably why he skipped that movie.
He's gotta protect that hairline, after all.
The third movie is BY FAR a better movie than the first two. you can tell they brought in some consultants to make it seem like a real movie.
You can't slay the dragon until you build the dragon out if straw first
I remember when they showed this at my Christian school as if it was in any way, shape or form a 'gotcha' to atheism or anything like that
I know a lot of atheists who went to Christian schools.
@@quixomega evidently the truth they picked up was not the truth that the church expected.
IMO Christian high school is an oxymoron because the kids there are devious
@@Leg1503 Yeah, most of them acted like spoiled brats...
As a Canadian atheist I am SO glad you covered these pressing questions!
MAID
@@josepheridu3322 WAITER
@@kamilahmaudsley964 SERVER
There's a podcast called God Awful Movies that reviews abysmal Christian cinema: K-Sorbs is a recurring theme, and the GND franchise is not spared. Including a reverse framing of Kitzmiller, which is hilarious.
But I love the "historic landmark that has served our community for more than a century". My school was founded in 948, in an abbey, which was replaced in 1077 and the oldest of the school buildings dates back to 1365!
US 'historic landmarks' are always funny to me when there are buildings in Europe older than our entire nation that would be considered new to OTHER buildings in Europe
"Old buildings" in North America are the equivalent of "long drives" for Europeans.
@@hhiippiittyy up to a point: I’ve driven a thousand miles in a day, but yes, Europe is more densely populated.
Well, this isn't something I expected to see today.
Edit: While we're here: "God is dead" is neither an ontological nor epistemological argument about the existence of God; it's a statement about belief in God. That is to say, an expanded version of Nietzsche's claim would be "the capacity to believe in God has been so diminished in the modern era that an ordinary person would have no just cause to believe that he exists." It's something that these nutjobs never seen to understand.
Look at this friggin nerd over here.
@@LegalEagle Clap for this nerd. 👏👏👏👏👏
@@LegalEagle💀
@@LegalEagle Senpai Eagle noticed me!
As a fellow nerd, the simplest way to point out what Nietzsche was saying is to complete the quote: "God is dead, and we have killed him." It was a statement about modern society, not about God.
Correction; This is an actual issue which isn't addressed in the film (mainly because of dubious presentation and playing loose with legal terms). So, to use an IRL example I know of, my alma mater UWEC has a Church on site. The Church doesn't expressly own the land it's occupying, merely the building, and the building is allowed to exist on the land so long as it is used for religious studies, at least in part. What is meant by them saying "eminent domain" here is that the Church in the film doesn't likely own that land, but was constructed as part of the University prior to it becoming a public school (just like the church was with UWEC when UWEC was a private university). Very likely the land is under a land lease, which can be revoked by the University which is ostensibly an arm of the State being a State University.
The legal "jargon" in this film is, to say the least, bullshittery.
Honestly, if this was the setting then the movie would actually be a lot more interesting and have at least a tiny bit of a leg to stand on. Shame that no one involved in the creation of these ungodly movies has any knowledge of how the law or Christianity works IRL.
Except they literally stated the church in the film DOES own the property, which is why they didn't talk about any of what you describe.
Eminent domain could apply. I'd like to say they failed to mention that the public need doesn't automatically mean the state would prevail in this case. The state would likely have to show why this particular piece of land is necessary to accomplish the state's goal. If the school could build elsewhere, still in proximity to the existing campus, they might have to pursue displacing a business or private homes rather than a church that serves an established community.
Of course, in the past three decades courts have repeatedly sided with the government in rather dubious circumstances in eminent domain cases. Some were outright attacks to displace people the government just didn't like. Others were cases that gave land to private developers in the name of the public good their developments would bring in the form of jobs and an increased tax base. Eminent domain has truly become a mine field since my grandfather was editing the basic text books in the field, Nichols On Eminent Domain. I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand how they have justified some of these arguments but it pains me to think what my grandfather would have said about the state of jurisprudence in eminent domain cases today.
@@fantasticsound2085 Well, yes, they do say the church "owns the property" however, we need to take that with a grain of salt considering that they got eminent domain wrong, or what the University can or cannot do. Also, let's not forget the film is exclusively one sided in perspective, and it is quite often the perspective of people to believe what they want. These characters believe the Church owns the land, if this were a true story (it most certainly isn't) that's not likely the case. Given the other contextual clues, like how quickly the University authorized the demolition of the church, the university likely actually owns the land and building.
There are two competing and contradictory narratives here; from the get go we're told the Church in question is affiliated with the University. We see the University act as though it owns the property, and then on the other hand we have untrustworthy narrators and characters who make questionably absurd claims about laws like Eminent Domain, and the ownership of the building.
From an objective observation we can reasonably assert that the Church doesn't own the building or the land, they exist under a land lease. If it didn't the University, as our learned Attorney questioned regarding how long it'd take for Eminent Domain cases to go through, wouldn't have such authority as to order the razing of the building post gas explosion. The only way the university, in this scenario, could have that authority, is if they already owned the building and land, and its use was under a land lease or contract.
@@XtomJamesExtra The fact the movie gets most of the legal issues and process wrong doesn't give your pure speciation based on a real, yet entirely different situation gives no credence to that speculation. That's a logical fallacy.
The church in the movie owns the land and basically nothing the movie says about the legal issues is correct.
@@fantasticsound2085 And as I said, there are clues to the contrary of the claims of the unreliable characters from the one-sided part of the story, which tell us it is not an Eminent Domain case, but a land lease case. Again; the mention that the church is affiliated with the university, the rapidity with which the university president authorizes demolition, without any eminent domain proceedings.
The fact is, the only way a University President or Chancellor could sign a permit for demolition, is if they already own the property. And you can bet your backside that this fictional university's lawyers wouldn't okay demolition of a property that doesn't belong to the university.
An objective observer, and as a screenwriter (I have my MA in screenwriting) I'm analyzing this film in a different sense; what is the purpose of the story, who is the audience, and the thing is the main character and those around him are unreliable. They're looking at the situation with the Church through a very narrow lens, and that is the lens the story is fed to the audience. Thus to take that perspective at face value, without asserting a priori knowledge about how college and university campuses, especially state campuses, work, would be folly in the examination of the film's contents.
The sad music when the window gets broken is so funny cause its like "feel sad that a single window was broken. Cry for this building"
"Cry for this building"
Right! They should have saved the sad violins for the Jude getting blown up!
have you never actually felt any sort of emotional connection to a building before? The film itself is silly, but actually mocking it for sentimental value is dumb and stupid
cool lets go break one of your windows and see you not react
@@tosmok Lol not reacting and playing a sad score attempting to elicit an emotional response from the audience over a window are two different things. But you knew that before you typed your message out.
Your videos are all so good! Thank you for spending the time to make amazing content for a bunch of people you’ve never met before.
On a different note, I think “To Kill a Mockingbird” would be a great court case for you to react to. The defense makes such a great argument, yet the jury is so biased as to convict the defendant wrongfully.
"I specifically intend to kill you." - Legal Eagle, 2022.
We got him.
Schools: *Teach science*
Churches: "This is persecution"
Wait for Islam
@@josepheridu3322 your whataboutism is irrelevant.
@@josepheridu3322 they're both abrahamic religions. and Islam has many sects just like Christianity. your point is pointless. it's like saying "wait for christianity" ok, which sect? oh right, you don't know.
The Evangelical victim complex is baffling. It's a great way to get the general public to scrutinize your outsized influence on government and society.
I mean it seems to be working pretty well for them, all things considered. No amount of public scrutiny seems to have actually _done_ anything to curb the undue religious influence in the US government.
They are confusing not being allowed to victimize people with being a victim.
And, unfortunately, _only_ the general public...
I watched the first movie back when I was still Christian. Looking back on it now... every time that teacher spoke, like I'm prettyyyyyy sure that'd be a easy way to get fired since, yknow, it was a public uni. I didn't know they made two more of these things.
More than two. "God's not dead 4" came out in 21 and the fifth one is announced for 23. The trailer is absolutely awful.
@@emikikuno Fast and Furious for evangelicals
Yeah. I watched it when I was a Christian too and didn't put much thought into it. Now I look at it and I just wanna yell "go to your advisor or something!" As if a college would risk issues with a professor telling his students they have no choice but to denounce their own religious beliefs.
Haha, the Sorbo one was pure projection. He portrayed the professor with the authoritarianism that he wishes religious fundamentalists had over this country.
The funny thing about these movies is that they have to write a world where like random guys have enormous power to prosecute Christians for no reason but also they're always incredibly stupid.
its always very telling to me when schools are portrayed as the enemy in these things.
(P.S. John Corbitt and his "virtuoso smartass lawyer" "performance" is the very definition of that "you thought you ate that" meme lololol)
I'd love to see a legal analysis of the second movie because I've always had this feeling that they reversed the roles of who is suing who.
In the movie the school sues the teachers but it seems more logical that the school would fire the teacher and then the teacher would sue the school for wrongful termination.
Obviously not a lawyer though so would be curious about LegalEagles take.
Not to mention the thing Pastor Dave was charged for actually happened in that movie.
But then again it's a movie and it's fictional.
@@execution832 yes all the movies and shows covered in this series by Legal Eagle are fiction.
Uh check again, the parents sued the teacher, not the school.
@@DeTu-wl7vq what are you even talking about?
They were asking for a copy of his sermon but the odd thing is in a church you can go into any sermon and sit down and record it
When I was an undergraduate we had multiple religious groups literally right across the street from campus. It's such a non-issue.
Mate, when I was an undergrad, there was Hellfire and Brimstone preachers with megaphones literally on campus every single day, with signs showing "aborted babies" (they were mangled 30+ week fully developed CGI fetuses, not the result of abortions), harassing women, and calling for our deaths. And campus security routinely told us they couldn't remove them from the campus.
Sure but they have to make the university the bad guy to justify going after the intellectuals. It's why they have the university signing the demolition order for some reason.
@@InfinityKrompt Pretty sure campus security can in fact remove them for making death threats, though I don't doubt they just didn't wanna do their damn job.
@@Rad-Dude63andathird or they were sympathising with the forced birth terrorists when off the clock...
I've been hearing this shit since I was in middle school (public, btw), and we *literally had prayer groups meeting before and after school.*
These people just don't think that's enough -- they want to be able to *make* people attend *their* religious services.
My favorite episode of God's Not Dead is when the Gang was throwing a big party at God's beach house, and had to prop up God's corpse in a hawaiian shirt and sunglasses so that people would think he's a cool dude and not a dead guy.
Did they call him "Bernie"?
Would watch.
God's not Dead 4; Weekend at God's.
The University of North Carolina used to have an Episcopal church. It opened the year the Constitution was ratified, and they split it off shortly afterwards. But for a few years there was a public university with an official church.
I don’t think the 1st amendment would have applied to a state school until the 14th was passed.
As someone with a Masters of Religious Studies, love this! (Speaking of, I would love a LegalEagle primer on the student loans debt relief lawsuits.)
I'm surprised that you didn't look at the cases at the end (on the end credits). They put legal cases at the end of every movie to show where they drew inspiration from. But some of these cases make absolutely no sense and are no way related to the content of the movie itself.
I once fact-checked quite a lot of their "scientific studies" about how abortion is bad, and on the rare occasion that they cited some science instead of just saying vague wrong things about it, the source would often refute what they were arguing. One said that abortion causes breast cancer, and linked to a Cancer Society or whatever statement that said they've checked this very carefully, and abortion definitely does not cause breast cancer. In the citations of "scientific review" that they used in a state Supreme Court, more than half directly refuted their claim that foetuses feel pain before 20 weeks. But when the judges don't care, I guess that's not an issue.
@@Sarcasticron They just tack on random sources to look legitimate because they know the kind of people who consume those movies unironically either won't read them, or won't understand them.
They're probably just banking on their target audience not being the kind to fact check stuff. Or think critically in any way.
I now only hire lawyers that have an official title of "Social Justice Attorney"
"If you wanna see Michael take on the philosophical aspects of this movie to the extent that there are any..."
Come for the legal analysis stay for the casual burns 🔥 😂😂 never change Devin
You should do a reaction video to God's Not Dead 2. It follows a trial about a teacher who mentioned Jesus in history class at a public high school. I was in law school when I watched it and it was just awful.
Thank you for doing your part and having the grace to sit through 1hr45min of that movie to bring us this content!
They watched it so we don't have to. 🎖 🫡
Wow. 105 minutes. I would have gouged my eyes out right after the opening scene.
From the clips shown it sounds like the scriptwriter was given all of the buzzwords to use and then basically madlibed a script around that
If it's true that the rock broke off the gas valve after it had also broken the bulb and then one of the good guys who had spent his life (possibly) following Jesus is the one who hits the light switch and gets blown up....one has to ask: Um, God, did you mean to allow that to happen?
Even when I was Mr Super Pentecostal Guy when I was younger, I always struggled with the "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" question. I don't care how many different answers you're told to that question...it's a tough one that has led many believers to challenge their beliefs and ultimately get free of that stuff.
Check out “Gnostic”
At the very least in this situation it's such a ridiculously unlikely thing to happen that it's hard to see how you can believe in a god and not think it was said god's will for this to happen. Maybe God wanted it to happen to follow the universal movie rule of "the black guy dies first", and like in the rest of the movies this guy had been the token black guy.
“I would never accuse the filmmaker of creating the narrative that Christians are under attack in this country.”
That’s OK, I will.
I thoroughly enjoyed this collaboration, and I hope to see Wisecrack and Legal Eagle in another video together soon 😁
If a room is filled with gas, a spark will set it off. The bulb doesn't have to be defective.
When I was a teen, a friend of my parents was on vacation when there was a gas leak. The house blew up when the landline phone rang. Any spark will do it
This was such a great episode!! I miss you reacting to movies/media. I love all your videos, but it’s always fun to see you tear something apart and get pissy concerning simple mistakes.
A+ good episode!
“The Pantheon of Homicide” sounds like the most extreme polytheistic religion and the fact you said it in a video about GND3 is absolutely hilarious to me. Lol
Also sounds like the name for a christean death metal band.
@@singletona082 That would be epic.
Sounds like most of the Greek Pantheon.
Sounds like a Lovecraftian cult.
Also very interesting considering their gawd actually unalived an insane amount of people.
Pureflix have turned nailing themselves to the cross into so much meme fodder.
LOL, I worked SFX for that movie. My boss and I were both asking a lot of the same questions you guys were, but a paychecks a paycheck, lol.
Small world
I would still love to see you react to the Australian film "The Castle" it is based completely around lawsuits regarding the right of the government to compulsarily acquire private property for government projects. I think, while it is not your area of expertise (Australian Law) you would be pleasantly surprised by the courtroom scenes and would absolutely love the comedy of the first solicitor to take on the case
Definitely!!!! Please!!!!
An actual Australian classic - everything Daryl Kerrigan says is so much more quotable (and quoted by my dad) than anything Mr Crocodile Dundee ever said
Oh, yes please. That would go straight to the pool room.
Absolutely!!
There is two cities in Sweden well known for their universities (more than two, but I am focusing on these two).
One is Lund in the south, and Uppsala north of Stockholm.
Anyway, students of Lund University has a history of mocking Uppsala University students.
Now comes the protagonist of this story.
This guy, our hero, was from Uppsala originally, but made his PhD in Lund.
During his time at Lund he was bullied really badly by his peers/coworkers.
Our hero had a shit time at Lund, but eventually managed to get his degree in the end.
He wasn't done with Lund though.
Our hero happened to inherit a bunch of forest land.
So he sold this forest and began to purchase the land surrounding the Lund University campus.
He then started a fund, where the money he earned from rents went to buying up more land.
Eventually he owned a circle of land surrounding Lund University.
Pretty much stopping Lund from ever growing larger.
After that was done he used the revenue from this fund to pay for a lavish party in Uppsala Castle every year
This party is for free for at least any PhD graduate in Uppsala that year.
So the fact that Lund University can't grow pays for the Uppsala PhD graduation parties.
r/revenge if I ever heard one.
That also sounds like the perfect international news headline.
"Sweden's two major Universities have beef with each other" 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄
@@rickenman9844
It is not between the universities.
It is between one university and one doctorate originally from Uppsala.
If I have learned nothing else from TV and film law dramas over the decades, I have learned one thing: Don’t learn law from TV and film dramas. (That applies to cop shows, too.)
Certainly don't learn science from blockbuster disaster movies. Don't learn dating advice or psychology from romance films. I think just generally don't 😆
I was today years old when I found out there were three of these films. Sweet Jesus (pun absolutely intended)
They refuse to stop even though the movies are garbage
@@artsyscrub3226 because they make money
Four actually
Edit: and a fifth one is in production for a 2023 release
You sweet, naive, child.
@@katla_phc Oh, the movie critics are going to be busy in 2023.
I will always enjoy and appreciate carefully scripted videos from well-composed, professional LegalEagle… but getting to see loose, casual, conversational LegalEagle just riffing and having a great time was honestly a LOT of fun.
The fire plot point is so contrived that you would have to assume that God is against the protagonist of the film too
"We're giving it a passing grade just so we never have to watch it again"
That's more than fair.
When I saw the video title I was very hesitant to click on it, but I think you did a great job on actually looking at the legal side of this movie and I appreciate your analysis of it.
Persecution complex propaganda gets lawyered.
Accurate.
So here's my working theory on this movie. Pastor Guy basically runs this crooked church and pockets the money from donations for himself and neglects the actual maintenance of the church. The University trying to get the church land is a problem for him because with the poor maintenance its value is actually really low and if they found this out (presumably they have professionals that assess that before making an offer) Pastor Guy would get far less money and possibly wouldn't have the money to just start a new church slightly further away from campus. So when miracle rock causes the explosion, it hits the fan because now the university knows how dangerous the building is and that's why the workers are told to tear it down post haste. Pastor Guy, not wanting to out himself as someone who stole from the church, proceeds to try and law everything in random, nonsensical, and illegal ways.
Some notes as I watch:
- So, the local order for churches to turn over transcripts of their sermons is based on a real case that actually happened. A mayor in Texas was openly lesbian or something, a church was going to talk about it, she gave the order in response, and it was immediately shot down in court. Hardly something to get upset about.
- On the above topic, why wouldn't the pastor just comply with this order? He'd be more or less forcing whoever reviews the sermons to read a sermon that they otherwise wouldn't expose themselves to, and I know religious conservatives love that sort of thing.
- So, at 4:06, you can tell (once again) that the writers of these movies have never interacted meaningfully with anyone outside their bubble. Unless you're a philosopher, most people wouldn't ask that kind of question. It was crafted by the writers so that Pastor Gary Stu could give the Biblical answer.
- So, I can answer your question, Devin, at 17:50. They're probably arguing that "modern SJWs" or whatever don't actually care about what they claim to care about or don't realize that the solution to injustice in society is for everyone to just Jesus really hard. A similar argument was used against the Civil Rights Movement, incidentally. As for the claim about Jesus treating women with dignity (which I can't find a verse contrary to in the Gospels), those not familiar with the Religious Right might not think much of that term, but many in that movement or affiliated with it will emphasize an abstract "dignity of womanhood" which often stands in opposition to women's equality.
To be fair, dramas (Film, radio, and television) have for around a century used the "this person is a [professional something] so of course they know all about everything" cliché. Usually, this is 'scientist', but 'lawyer', 'doctor', or even a vague term like 'professor' gets this treatment.
63% or the people in the US say religion is very important in their lives. Not a single person in congress claims to be an atheist. One one says they are a deist. But ya theist are persecuted in the US.
This movie appears to get as many legal and investigative aspects of the real world right as the reruns of CSI and Criminal Minds my wife is always watching. I'm still chuckling at the CSI Miami episode where they went from murder all the way through trial and conviction in less than 6 months as stated by the main cast at the end of the episode.
Thanks for introducing me to Wisecrack. No idea how that channel slipped under my radar but it's now my newest binge!
With regard to governmental oversight of sermons, the movie was partially based on a case in 2007 where a number of Houston ministers who did get served with subpoenas for their sermons, as well as all other communications both private and public of them and their churches, due to suspicion of violating the Johnson Amendment. The churches subpoenaed had been involved in lobbying for the overturning of a city equal protection law, and had been named as plaintiffs in a suit over honoring a petition to overturn the law which failed to meet the threshold for review. The subpoenas were withdrawn in that case due to being bad optics and also unconstitutional.
I would like to bring your attention to a really good law movie called: The Castle.
It is Australian Law but I think you will be comfortable with it too, and it is beautiful... more people need to know it exists. Top five movies in my life time, easily, and the team making didn't even intend for it to be this good. A good premise, a good group of actors, some love to the law, and you don't need much of a budget to make something grand.
The Castle is a fantastic movie. I saw it years ago but I still ask my friends "How's your serenity?"
There is an airport near here with a house on the edge near the runways and I think of that movie every time I drive past.
Yes please do react! 🤞
I just want to see Legal Eagle's reaction to the "it's the vibe" argument. 😆😆
The biggest thing about these movies and movies like it is they are their own worst critics. They don't have to put counter arguments to their message but they always do.
Looking at the lightbulb they picked, they definitely could sue, but they'd need a time machine to take Thomas Edison to court and while a time machine is every lawyer who sues people's dream the paradoxes would be too much.
Where I'm from there are rules around what kind of lighting public buildings (not those owned by the public, but those accessed by the public, like schools, shops, hotels etc) are allowed to use. If the lightning was deemed dangerous then it would be the church at fault, not the manufacturer
As a life-long Christian who is extremely fed up with the (patently untrue) persecution complex of the American church, as an overworked local TV news director, as someone who made a parody short film of the first God's Not Dead movie for a university project, and as a Legal Eagle, this was extremely cathartic in a surprising number of ways.
Yeah dude I'm a Catholic and these movies make me cringe. American Christians, evangelicals in particular, have absolutely no idea what persecution actually looks like.
Kinda surprised you haven’t reacted to one of the most classic court room scenes. The trial in To Kill a Mockingbird
Wisecrack's question, whether the brick throwing can be prosecuted as murder, has reminded me of something that I've wanted to ask for a long time.
Why is a crime considered to be less serious, if the harm that was caused, was less than the intended harm (and vice versa)? Attempted murder is an example that I just don't grasp. If it has been established that a person has fully intended for their victim to die, why is the question of their success, a factor?
I think Manslaughter is a better alternative to understand it. I think the Google results for that explanation that I got were satisfactory but since I can't link to them I suggest looking at the pages on Wikipedia and their sources
I'd guess it's because we've decided to have the punishment fit the crime, and a crime that doesn't succeed is generally less harmful than a crime that does.
@@gabrote42 Manslaughter leads to the same question again. If the intent to kill wasn't there, why does the happenstance of what was the result of an act that wasn't intended to kill anyone, elevate the seriousness of the original crime that was committed?
Take for instance DUI vs vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. What is the difference between the two, considering the actions committed by the driver, alone?
@@ChilledfishStick This is an explanation that I found, and I also found text against these precepts:
* The justice system considers both intent and damage inflicted when when deciding punishment.
* A failed attempt often more than luck, representing a less earnest and therefore less serious crime.
* Attempted murder sometimes applies to situations where if the victim died, it would only have been manslaughter.
* Making the punishments the same creates an incentive to "finish the job".
I think that 4 is the most important one personally but I would need to find some SCOTUS cases to provide to you to be sure. Too bad YT forbids links
The was I’ve always seen it is that what actually happened sets the baseline for the charges. Then intent is factored in to increase or reduce severity. Someone died, so that’s the baseline, then intent is factored in to reduce it to manslaughter or raise it to first degree murder. What you’re proposing seems to be the opposite: intent as base and results as modifiers
I was curious when you were going to put in on these movies. It didn't used to be every day that you could find so much law to talk about in the exploitation flick pool, but with PureFlix it has certainly become a reality.
Two of my favorite channels doing a collab! So damn sweet!
At the end of the second movie, the pastor is arrested for opposing to give copies of his sermons for review (which they intended to compare to the case in Houston when 5 pastors were being investigated for collecting signatures to oppose to an anti-discrimination mandate). The start of this movie basically admits the whole thing made no sense, and that plot point is totally forgotten.
this movie seems like a two hour long version of the meme where dude paints monsters on the wall and falls to the ground in horror of monsters
Leagle Eagle and Wisecrack together in one video?! This is awesome
With this video in mind, perhaps a law movie review of Billy Connolly's "Man Who Sued God".
Underrated classic
Yes. Please Mr. Eagle. Do this.
A minor quibble: at least at the two universities I’ve attended, the university can absolutely expel you for conduct that occurs off campus assuming it meets certain requirements (including but not limited to committing any serious crime).
Sure, but I think they were talking about how some random dean of a school can’t just recommend someone be prosecuted. The being expelled thing is probably 100% what would happen
@@jamesmoniz5263 I mean they can “recommend” in the same was as any influential citizen/media can I suppose
They’re right that he has 0 say
Sue the manufacturer of the rock the guy threw. Not only did He make the weapon, it happened in His house.