- [Announcer] This video is sponsored by Shaker and Spoon.
(cheerful light music)
- What's up, guys?
Michael here with a special holiday treat.
Today, I'm gonna dive back into the MCU
of religious film franchises, "God's Not Dead."
In the second installment we see my childhood crush,
Clarissa, who explained it all.
- [Chorus] Just do it.
- [Michael] Playing a teacher
who gets persecuted by the state
for briefly quoting the Bible in an AP history class.
Like the first film, "God's Not Dead 2"
sets out to objectively prove the existence
of an all-knowing divine entity.
It's like Thanos, but more into plagues than snaps.
♪ Pride ♪
♪ Send the locusts on a wind ♪
♪ Such as the world has never seen ♪
♪ On every leaf, on every stalk ♪
♪ Until there's nothing left of green ♪
- But does it raise any valid theological
or philosophical points or does it exist solely
to make my childhood Sunday school classes
look super woke by comparison?
Well, let's find out in our first ever
philosopher reacts to a sequel, "God's Not Dead 2."
And spoilers ahead for a movie that dares to ask,
what if white Southern evangelical Christians
are actually the most oppressed group in America?
But before we get into it, I want to tell you
about this video sponsor, Shaker and Spoon.
Shaker and Spoon makes it easy to create
unusual and elevated cocktails from the comfort of home.
Shaker and Spoon is a monthly cocktail subscription box
that delivers carefully curated ingredients
straight to your door.
Every box includes three exclusive recipes.
Plus all of the fictions you need
to complete a total of 12 cocktails.
I tried the Fall for Mezcal box,
whose recipes include ingredients I'd never heard of before
and flavor combinations I definitely
couldn't have come up with on my own,
like a pineapple shrub and some citrus infused ginger beer
for the El Palenque cocktail.
All I had to do was provide my own bottle of Mezcal
and all of the recipes in this box were ready to go.
Choosing my favorite mezcal is way easier
than trying to track down cherry vanilla bitters on my own,
especially if I'd have to commit to buying
a huge or a big expensive bottle.
With Shaker and Spoon, all ingredients get used up
along with that trusty bottle of hooch,
which is both convenient and pretty darn tasty.
Like, seriously, look at this sage infused agave.
I'd never heard of this before, and it rules.
I tried it in the Brush of the Bush cocktail in this box
and it was savory sweet and pretty unforgettable.
And don't even get me started on how the third cocktail
in this box was infused with actual roses.
The instructions were so easy
that I didn't get intimidated by the recipes either.
Instead I could focus on the fun of mixology.
And, you know, the fun of drinking.
Just like you have multiple options
with every Shaker and Spoon box, you also have
a couple of ways to score $20 off your first box.
You could click the link below and use code "wisecrack."
Or go directly to ShakerAndSpoon.com/wisecrack.
Either way, you're in for a sweet deal
on a delicious experience.
That's ShakerAndSpoon.com/wisecrack
for $20 off your first box.
And now, back to the show.
- Okay, let's start in Sabrina's classroom
where she's teaching about Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
- And so peaceful non-violence
comes first in India, under Gandhi, and then later
here in the United States, under Dr. King and others,
as a means of achieving civil rights.
But what makes non-violence so radical
is its unwavering commitment to a non-violent approach,
not just initially, but in the face
of escalating persecution by the opposing force.
- Okay, so Clarissa is doing a decent job
of explaining it all, for the most part.
It's a bit weird to imply
that Gandhi invented peaceful non-violence.
After all, this perspective has its religious origins
in Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, which way predate him.
But, hey, she's an overworked and underpaid
public school teacher, so who are we to judge?
It's also worth noting that for King,
non-violence wasn't just an ethical stance,
but a type of political strategy.
Now he believed that nonviolent protest
for civil rights would ultimately be more effective
than violence in arousing solidarity.
When asked about civil rights protests in the South,
King said the movement was ideally
"arousing the dozing conscience of the white community
and hoping to ultimately achieve the beloved community
and the type of brotherhood that is necessary
for us to survive in a meaningful manner."
But things are about to get a little tense in the classroom.
- Isn't that sort of like what Jesus meant
when he said that we should love our enemies?
- Ah, you're gonna get her in so much trouble, kid.
Why did you ask that?
- Yes, you have heard it said,
love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
But I tell you, love your enemies
and pray for those who persecute you,
that you will be children of your father in heaven.
Dr. King confirmed the link, describing his his inspiration.
- Look at this kid snitching on his cellphone. Snitching.
- Saying, "Christ furnished the spirit and motivation
while Gandhi furnished the method."
- Except that that didn't work.
Jesus got himself killed and everybody knows that.
(students snickering)
- Well, so did Dr. King.
- Okay, now this, believe it or not,
is where (bleep) pops off.
Now the notion of Jesus
being entirely non-violent is debatable.
After all, he does at one point say
he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.
So our grown-up teenage witch
might be missing some subtlety here.
But what's most important is that M.J. Hart
quoted the Bible in a public school.
(ominous music)
And in this fever dream vision of America,
that's apparently straight up criminal.
She's quickly suspended for the offense,
but refuses to apologize to the school board.
Now she's about to go on trial, which is very realistic,
so let's meet her courtroom adversary.
- The last thing we need is a bunch of religious fanatics
protesting outside of our house.
- We'll work to keep it out of the media for now.
But next year, when you're applying to all the colleges,
you'll be able to tell the story of how Brooke
was part of a landmark constitutional case
concerning the separation of church and state.
- Okay, so this is a side note, but it's very funny
that for the part of liberal lawyer, they cast an actor
who once played the literal devil on a show called "Reaper".
- I can be nice!
- To be a fly on that casting room wall.
Also, just in case the filmmakers are watching,
if you're casting a heretical and charming YouTube host
for "God's Not Dead 5: Web of Sin,"
feel free to let me know in the comments.
I'm very affordable. Okay, let's get back to Satan.
- We are gonna prove once and for all that God is dead.
- Wow. And now we're really cooking.
So just like in the first installment,
we had a sinister dude whose life mission
seems to be proving that God is dead.
Now from a philosophical perspective,
this is a pretty meaningless call to action.
It would be one thing to try and argue
that it's metaphysically improbable
that an omnipotent creator exists.
But it's another thing altogether to argue that God is dead.
It's not like anyone would say
the Loch Ness monster is dead.
We just say it doesn't exist,
but it's cool that a drunk Scotsman
started a funny myth to mess with people years ago
and everyone just went with it.
So where does this death of God obsession come from?
Probably from a willful misreading of Nietzsche.
These folks assume that when Nietzsche said, "God is dead,"
he was being an angry atheist edge lord.
Instead, as we've said numerous times on this channel,
he was criticizing European culture and philosophy
for its own intellectual hubris.
And his critiques of Christianity
were specifically about its tendency to make believers
care more about heaven than Earth.
Honestly, this whole film franchise
is doing Nietzsche kind of dirty.
But speaking of philosophy students
who believe that religion should inspire people
to transform the material conditions of their world,
let's get back to MLK.
- Ms. Kinney, are you familiar
with Dr. King's letter from the Birmingham jail?
- Yes, it's a seminal piece of civil rights history.
- In that letter, Dr. King makes
numerous faith-based references, does he not?
- Offhand, I don't recall.
- Allow me to refresh your memory.
- Okay, we don't need to listen to him refresh her memory.
So this is Tom, the lawyer, he's representing
Sabrina slash Clarissa slash Melissa Joan Hart.
And in connecting King's faith and his politics right here,
he's bringing up the concept of political theology,
which is the idea that many political systems
are secularized diversions of theological beliefs.
Now, if that's true, it would mean we can best
understand contemporary politics by critiquing
their underlying theological assumptions.
And he's correct to say that for MLK,
faith and politics were intertwined.
However, King's actual politics are pretty at odds
with the ones expressed in this film.
They aren't subtle about showing their own political cards.
I mean, Mike Huckabee is in this movie.
See, King's actual politics
are what conservative evangelicals
would probably call woke socialism.
As King wrote in a letter to his wife, Coretta Scott King,
"I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic
in my economic theory than capitalistic."
And it's very cool that he included that
in a romantic letter to his wife.
And King's belief in democratic socialism
and wealth redistribution was a direct outcome
of his own Christian faith.
As he said, "Call it democracy
or call it democratic socialism,
but there must be a better distribution of wealth
within this country for all God's children."
So don't tell Sabrina, but Jesus made MLK a socialist.
Speaking of Sabrina, mid trial,
she has her lawyer over for Chinese food
in what feels a little too much like a date.
- Listen, this isn't about faith. This is about history.
Okay, maybe I'm wrong here, I'm not the law expert, but--
- Like a lawyer, what a law expert's called.
They're called lawyers. - I'm not sure I follow.
He talked about Jesus's teachings
just like they were any other verifiable fact.
- Well, what if they're just that?
I mean, just because certain facts happen to be recorded
in the Bible doesn't mean they stopped being facts.
We can separate the history-based elements of Jesus's life
from the faith-based element.
- Okay, this is a weird move.
And it further highlights a distinction
between religious faith and historical knowledge
in a way that completely undermines the former.
Now it's important to note
that for most of Christian history, faith wasn't dependent
upon historical proof of the existence of Jesus.
Faith involved in act of will and belief,
not just an agreement with historical principles.
Philosopher Immanuel Kant said that that he
"found it necessary to deny knowledge
in order to make room for faith."
Now, by this, he didn't mean
that faith was irrational or for gullible people,
but that faith and knowledge are categorically distinct.
Trying to comprehend faith via knowledge
would be like tasting a pinot noir with your toes.
But the lawyer goes all in on proving Jesus.
He puts some witnesses on the stand,
non-actors playing themselves, and has them testify
about why Jesus absolutely existed and that, he argues,
confirms the validity of the Christian faith.
- Can you help me prove the existence of Jesus Christ?
- Absolutely, actually this court already affirmed it
when we were called into session and the date was given.
Our calendar has been split
between B.C. and A.D. based on the birth of Jesus,
which is quite a feat if he never existed.
Beyond that--
- I feel like that's not a good argument, with the calendar.
- Lists 39 ancient sources for Jesus.
As the agnostic historian Bart Ehrman says,
"Jesus did exist, whether we like it or not."
I put it this way: denying the existence of Jesus
doesn't make him go away. - Witnesses don't turn
to the jury like that.
You can't do that. - It merely proves
that no amount of evidence will convince you.
- It's not a thing.
Okay, while I am by no means a theologian,
I'm actually decently well read
in the history of Christian theology
and I can pretty confidently say that for many
of the great minds of the Judeo-Christian tradition,
belief was never about evidence, it was about faith.
Augustine was one of the first
big deal Christian theologians.
And he thought that faith had to precede reason.
Basically, by believing in God via pure faith,
you're better able to gain knowledge of truth
because God sort of shines a light to help you.
As he said, in his "Confessions,"
which Usher later named an album after--
♪ Yeah ♪
- "The mind needs to be enlightened by light
from outside itself, so that it can participate in truth,
because it is not itself the nature of truth.
You will light my lamp, Lord."
So in trying to use reason to justify faith,
my childhood crush seems to have things a little backwards.
Then there's medieval theologian, Thomas Aquinas,
whose family kidnapped him for a year
and whose brothers hired sex workers
to try to sway him from joining the Dominican order.
Just some fun facts.
Anyway, he thought that faith was a sort of middle point
between knowledge and opinion.
For Aquinas, when thinking theologically,
you start from a place of faith,
then proceed to try to understand that faith through reason.
Theology, then, for him, is faith seeking understanding.
Faith thus leads us on a journey to knowledge
by planting a seed in our minds.
And for Aquinas, faith isn't determined by reason.
Rather, it requires a commitment founded in belief.
And 20th century theologian Paul Tillich said
that faith is "The state of being ultimately concerned."
Which means that faith is more of an existential commitment
than a matter of rational knowledge.
As far as I know, none of these theologians were like,
"If we dig up Jesus' bones, then we can prove
he was real and all of the skateboarder kids
will start going to church."
But let's get back to the courtroom,
where the next witness is a cop.
Which makes sense because Roman cops killed Jesus.
- And as a devout Christian, you feel you succeeded?
- No, Mr. Kane. I think you misunderstand me.
When I began this study, I was a devout atheist.
I began examining the gospels
as a devout skeptic. - Who's a devout atheist?
- Not as a believer.
I'm simply a Christian because it's evidentially true.
- Okay, so this makes me think of my guy,
Soren Kierkegaard, who referred to faith as an
"objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation process
of the most passionate inwardness."
I'll explain.
Now I've talked before about his off quoted line,
"Truth is subjectivity," which for Kierkegaard meant
that something is only true for you if you appropriate
that truth into your life in an active and passionate way.
I.E., religion isn't true because an ex LAPD officer
wrote a book that says it is.
It's true when it changes your life and the way you live.
Another oft discussed Kierkegaardian notion
is the leap of faith.
For him, this means that we can't
rationally justify the choice to believe.
We must take a leap of faith
that transcends objective reason.
Faith isn't agreeing with a proposition.
It's passionately leaping into something uncertain.
This applies equally well to non-religious situations.
For example, in entering a relationship
or committing to marriage, there is no way
to rationally prove that someone is the one
or that the marriage will last.
So any love relationship requires a similar leap of faith.
Interestingly enough, Kierkegaard was inspired by people
in his day who were doing the same thing as these witnesses,
relying on logic and objectivity rather than faith
to justify their belief in God.
And he found this incredibly ironic,
making him the Alanis Morissette of 19th century Copenhagen.
♪ And isn't it ironic ♪
- Okay, so spoiler alert, but M.J. Hart's character
doesn't get the death penalty.
She's found not guilty of whatever it was
she was charged with, but not before her lawyer, Tom,
absolutely freaks the (bleep) out.
- I think it's time that we stop pretending
that we can trust a person like this
to serve in a public capacity.
In the name of tolerance and diversity,
I say we destroy her.
And if they don't pay, then we seize their property.
And if they resist, well, let's not kid ourselves.
Enforcement is always at the end of a gun.
(Micheal laughing)
- Okay, friends, enemies, trolls,
I assure you that no matter what your religion
or lack thereof, no American government agent
is gonna show up to your house and make you look
down the barrel of a gun because of your religious beliefs.
Now, this is actually part of a real thing
called the evangelical persecution complex.
It's been written about by both nonbelievers
and believers alike to describe the danger caused
by American evangelicals who believe
that their faith is being actively persecuted
Writing in the Atlantic, Alan Noble professor
at Oklahoma Baptist University, says,
"Too much is at stake for evangelicals
to waste our resources and credibility on frivolous
and occasionally self-provoke injustices.
Imagined offenses drummed up by sensationalists
and fear mongers should be exposed and denied.
At times, even legitimate offenses
should be overlooked when they are petty."
And the type of persecution complex that we see
in the "God's Not Dead" movies is a very real thing.
According to a 2017 poll carried out
by the Public Religion Research Institute,
white evangelicals believe that they face
more discrimination than Muslims.
Which, okay.
Now there are religious groups under threat of oppression
and violence in America, but they surely aren't
white Protestant Christians in the South.
This part of the film feels especially icky
in the light of all of the anti Muslim
and antisemitic violence and harassment
that's all too common in America these days.
Okay, so we survived another "God's Not Dead" film.
Only two more to go, assuming they ever stop.
At the end of the day, this movie's attempt
to prove religion via historical evidence ends up
undermining everything that is theologically significant
about faith in the first place.
For a movie that's presumably about the importance of faith,
it does a really bad job of understanding it.
And to be clear, I am not coming at this
from some angry new atheist perspective.
I was raised Catholic and have a lot of respect
for many of the wonderful and weird religions of the world.
If it makes people loving and kind ,who am I to judge?
But when evaluated from the perspective
of theology and philosophy,
none of this movie's gotcha moments make any sense.
Which is horrible for me in particular as Clarissa
and Sabrina were incredibly important influences
during my formative years.
Okay, that's all for this one.
Tune in next holiday season for
"God's Not Dead 3: A Light in the Darkness."
And let us know what you think in the comments.
A huge thank you to all of our amazing patrons
and don't forget to check out our podcast.
Hit that subscribe button like you're secretly
texting the principal to tattle on your history teacher
and don't forget to ring that bell.
And as always, thanks for watching. Later.
(upbeat electronic music)
(woman laughing)
- [Woman] Yeah, at least I got a genuine reaction.
But I was like, it's just gonna make him mad. (laughs)
- Oh, that's good, yeah, we got it.
I mean, you got to do that.
That's fun. So you got the clip.
It's all about content for everyone here.
Not about people's feelings.