Roger Ebert Would Have Given His Obit Cartoons Two Thumbs Down

Even though many cartoonists were quick to draw the non-religious Roger Ebert in heaven after his death, Matt Bors took the far more sensible route and mocked the whole idea of it:

I’m not sure that Roger Ebert, an outspoken secular humanist who didn’t believe in an afterlife, would have appreciated being depicted in heaven with Gene Siskel, no less. They were co-workers who disliked each other, not soul mates.

Finally, some honesty. Bors’ drawing is unique, unlike the other cartoons. I only wish it were longer!

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://preliatorcausa.blogspot.com/ Joé McKen

    My only problem with this is the claim that Siskel & Ebert disliked each other. As much as they often disagreed and bickered about certain movies, it was always in good fun and Ebert has long written on his blog that they were actually friends. They were basically vitriolic best buds.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=684968309 Charles M Taylor

      That was the impression that I got as well.

    • http://www.facebook.com/janerleblanc Jane R. LeBlanc

      Exactly! Ebert has said in his Esquire article by Chris Jones that there was a deep, deep love between them. He gets teary thinking about Siskel.

    • Stev84

      Even if they disliked each other, I think that’s part of the joke. Them being stuck together in heaven forever.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    “Let’s watch movies forever, Ebert.”

    For…ev…er…? After watching every movie ever made, including Plan 9 From Outer Space and Son of Godzilla for only 110,592 times, both of them would be begging the Almighty for oblivion, the final and total annihilation of consciousness.

    • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

      It’s merely a cartoon, but I’m not sure it means that. It could mean that they can watch and review movies forever, at the same rate as they did on Earth. No, I guess it could continue only until something prevents humans from making more movies, like armageddon.

      So, this has me thinking. Maybe movies are made in heaven too. Would they all be sterile and sin-free? All rated-G? Maybe not, because the Bible contains all sorts of evil, and it must be there. Wait, can the Bible, with all of its stories murder and rape and war, be in heaven? Whoa, forgive the tangential brain dump.

  • LesterBallard

    Facts, reality, they mean nothing to “believers”.

  • vic

    I think the duo liked one another, and definitely respected one another. They were a great team and their shtick worked because they were both honest.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gregm766 Gregory Marshall

    I don’t know if they disliked each other of just didn’t like the same type of movies. Siskel always came off as very elitist in his reviewing of movies. Roger always seemed more in tune with the average movie goer. I remember him once telling Siskel that not every movie had a deeper meaning and some could just be fun. (The movie in question was “Weird Science”)

  • John Gills

    As a reverent agnostic, I appreciate and accept the sincere condolences believers offer, which reflect their own beliefs. We must respect differing points of view, even if we personally don’t agree with them.

    • Ibis3

      It’s up to the offerer to extend condolences that reflect the recipient’s beliefs (or are at least neutral). To do otherwise is rude and potentially insulting. Would you think it was okay to go up to a Christian parent who just lost their child and say “I’m sorry you’ll never see your child again.”? Would it be okay for a Catholic to say “It must break your heart that your son is now condemned to hell for eternity because he wasn’t baptised.”? Why is it any less heartless to say “Your child is in a better place now.” or any of the other “sincere condolences” typically trotted out by believers? It’s the person who’s grieving that needs accommodations, not the bystander.

      p.s. saying you’re a reverent agnostic makes you sound like an imbecile who doesn’t know what words mean, *not* like a profound person. What are you supposed to be revering–your ignorance?

    • http://twitter.com/JasonOfTerra PhiloKGB

      No, we ought to respect a person’s right to *have personal views*. We owe no respect to views themselves.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X