Earlier this month (April 2016) I posted a comment on FB about the importance of Christians not only going out in massive groups to see God is not Dead 2 and to make sure that their tickets were correct so that the Christian film makers get credit for the sales, but I also encouraged those of us who had the writing skills and sound knowledge, to monitor the movie review blogs and press to see how the bias press reacted to the movie and attempted to discredit it. And I suggested that we post rebuttals and challenge them so that they do not give the public the impression that their bias perspective was the only on. I don’t know if anyone followed my suggestion but I want you to know that I did not ask you to do what I did not do myself. Here is my reply to one bias reviewer. I will let you know if he or she replies.
To : Silpa Kovvali
I read your review of the movie “GOD IS NOT DEAD 2” in the SALON news, titled: The bizarro “Inherit the Wind”: Understanding evangelical Christianity’s persecution complex through “God’s Not Dead 2” and I have a few questions for you.
I am curious as to why you would refer to the film as a “bizarre “inherit the Wind” and why you describe it as “Christianity’s persecution complex”?
In fact, your entire review seen to be more of an attempt to bash the movie rather than fairly review it. You make several comments that indicate to me that you are unconcerned about being accurate in your analysis and more interested in discouraging people from seeing the movie as it was clearly intended to be viewed.
“It’s impossible to stress how deeply unrealistic the film’s premise is, and important to stress that this case was not “based on a true story,” itself a loose specification.”
On what do you base this “important stress”? If you were not so biased about your use of sources you would have been better exposed to the recent history that is clearly in line with the premise of the film. There are in fact whole web sites dedicated to documenting the attacks that Christians endure from a number of sources, and many of the stories make the News even though usually slanted against the Christians involved, so please explain to me what was so “unrealistic” about the film. If that was written in earnest, then you are simply not well informed. The other alternative is that you intentionally are being dishonest.
“Nor was it a dramatized version of real events as “Inherit the Wind,” based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, was. This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who saw the film with a vaguely critical eye, but should be surprising to anyone who took its message to heart.”
But as I stated, even though the 1960 “Inherit the Wind” film was supposed to be based on the 1925 Scopes Trial, it was not faithful to the details of those events. In Fact is has been well documented that the film was an intentional misrepresentation of what actually took place. Just because the film maker duplicated “some” of the actual transcripts from the actual trial, does not make it a reliable historical rendition. You seem intelligent enough to grasp that fact. So why are you giving the impression that “Inherit the Wind” was such a great job of historical film making?
You references to the 1960 film “Inherit the Wind” without giving an honest critique of its misrepresentation of the actual Scopes Trial is typical of anti-Christian writers. It seems that you either are poorly informed about the “Inherit the Wind” film or you intentionally left out important details about it that would disqualify it as a reliable representation of the actual Scopes Trial.
It is clear to me that if you took the Scopes Trial Test you would fail it, so why are you using references that you have not yet carefully researched?
Just for the record, while it is true that in the 1960 film “Inherit the Wind”, the Henry Drummond (Clarence Darrow) character played by Spencer Tracy, seem to “pull apart the literal reading of the Bible”, the fact of the matter is that he only seemed to do so because Matthew Harrison Brady (William Jennings Bryan) was ignorant of his own Bible on some of the questions he was drilled on by his own admission and comments. That is why the movie is so well loved by such as you and atheist. Those questions have been answered by competent Christians, Theologians and Creation Scientists. You would know this if you bothered to be more responsible in your research.
“The movie suggests the persecution of Christians in our society is readily apparent in the real world, and not just as artistic license. (“Join the movement,” the closing credits implore). Then why on earth would its writers and producers have to invent such a case out of thin air, rather than portraying one of the multitudes of victimless crimes for which Christians throughout the country are presumably being prosecuted?”
Now that is a strange question coming from someone who seems to have a reasonable level of intelligence, so I have to assume that you are being crafty.
You should know the benefits of creating your own story rather than have to track down all of the reliable details of an actual historical event. Getting the fact is quite time consuming and difficult because of all of the misinformation that is usually injected by those seeking to slant the story in their favor. Additionally there is the copyrights and permissions often required that are not worth the time and effort.
But for you to suggest that “persecution of Christians in our society is not readily apparent” you have to be one of the boldest-dishonest anti-Christians I have come across is some time. Anyone can easily document the kind of hostilities against Christians, and so I must insist on your explanation for making such a dishonest suggestion.
You answered your question by saying:
“Perhaps because employees demanding contraceptive coverage or gay couples service might be more sympathetic than fiendish ACLU lawyers? Or perhaps because no such case exists?”
Once again you show your true character by making such a comment.
Avoiding a challenge that might result in more sympathy for the group in conflict with the Christian is not the issue and you know this. In fact, it would be illogical for a Christian film maker seeking to expose injustices leveled against Christians, to use a storyline that would do little or nothing to get his point across. You know this, so again, I would ask why you are pretending to be so observant and acting as if you are uncovering some kind of crafty motive on the part of the film makers?
Additionally, the two examples that you present are indeed themselves “anti-Christian issues and the manner in which they are spun in the media against Christians is well known and you know this as well.
It is clear to me that you are a liberal bleeding heart-zealot for homosexuality and just about anything that is “anti-true Christianity”, and that you are on a mission to discredit true Christianity whenever and where ever you can in your news writing.
Anyone who would go so far out of the way to misinform their readers by saying “perhaps because no such case exists“ would have to be. Especially since documentation was provided by the film maker at the end of both films. The film maker stated: "At the end of 'God's Not Dead 1′ and even part two, we throw up about 50 different court cases that are dealing with similar issues right now,". But why would one such as you bother to read the credits of such a film?
I would also be interested in knowing why you feel that your alleged experience in school would be representative of what is actually going on in the lives of Christians around the world and even in our Nation? And if not, then why bother to include it, Was it to somehow hopefully persuade us that your alleged experience is the actual norm?
You point out your strange disposition towards religions and then state:
“God’s Not Dead 2″ offers no similar model for plurality”.
I would ask, why would it have to? Just because you are fluid or delight in your “model of Plurality” in your perspectives on religion does not mandate that Christian film makers must accommodate your confusion. It is unintelligent for you to act as if they should. But then again, I know that your words are simply a manipulation tactic.
“The very fact that religion is often used as a proxy for class, race, or nationality is what distinguishes it from people’s ideas and beliefs in other areas of life. It’s what makes religious prejudice uniquely problematic. But the movie isn’t a denunciation of that prejudice.”
You are correct, the move is not a denunciation of that prejudice, nor was it meant to be. I am curious to know why you feel you have the right to dictate to Christian film makers what they should be making films about.
And as concerning your comment about the manner in which religion is often used as a proxy for race, (which is an error, since there is only one race, the human race),
or nationality, resulting in religious prejudice that is problematic, you should know that the dysfunctional issues of society on religious matters does not change the truth of the film’s message, nor does that dysfunction have anything to do with true Christianity. So again, I am curious as to why you have muddied the waters with such rhetoric.
The move is clear and does not require some kind of deep and confusing philosophical examination. But then to approach it honestly would not serve your purpose, would it? It is more to your goals to misinform your audience by making statements like:
“We’re instead led to believe that people are either Christian or unabashedly hateful atheists who boast their ignorance of both history and the scripture they denounce.”
That is not only dishonest, but irrational, since the film does not address or make any claim to be a representation of the only kinds of people there are. Your comment is refuted even by the fact that in the film, Grace’s lawyer, Tom Endler (Jesse Metcalfe) was an admitted non Christian. When he offered to represent Grace, she asked him if he was a believer, and he replied “you mean a Christian, NO, but I think that is an advantage”.
Why you have determined not to be accurate in your review is clear to me, and I hope it is clear to others who read it.
While I do not expect that you will reply, if you do, I do not expect will do so in any detailed manner that actually address my arguments intelligently and fairly. Should you do so, that alone would convince me that there is hope for you.