An Atheistic Examination of the Culture of Death
Branded - Wed, Jul 7, 2004
A few amusing thoughts from Skallas of Everything Isn't Under Control, regarding my last post on the Cartoon Afterlife:
[I]magine if a kid with down's syndrome died (Like TV's Corky). How appropriate would it be to draw him in the fictional afterlife as a normal adult, with some kind of intellectual job like a professor? I'm sure many would see this as wrong because it simply isn't portraying the person as we knew him. The same goes for giving Ray [Charles] his sight back in these little feel-good comics. Ray's blindness was a fact of life and surely influenced his musical expression. Some people just don't get it.Also, what's with the Reagan cartoon? Political cartoonists should be aware of the fact that Reagan's "Cadillac welfare queen in Chicago" speech hurt race relations quite a bit and are arguably the words of bigot.
Are the Marlon Brando cartoons in yet? He was an atheist. It would be interesting to see how the 'toonists deal with that little fact when drawing their hackneyed afterlife cartoons.
Come to think of it, I'm surprised that no cartoonist thought to relieve Ray of his most serious social disability and make him a normal, decent white person. In that connection, it'll be interesting to see how the God of the Comics resurrects Michael Jackson. If He can collect all the parts.
Brando, as Skallas says, was indeed an atheist. So much so, as Kimmy's Atheist Site points out, that he refused to take an oath before testifying at his son Christian's murder trial (please don't ask me why he named him "Christian"). However, I was highly insulted by Jean-Paul Fastidious' prediction last week that the cartoonists would be so stupid as to portray him in Heaven over some lame "offer he can't refuse" caption. Although they made that mistake last year with the godless Katharine Hepburn, I'm sure they've learned their lesson. Just because people are religious, it doesn't mean they're stupid:
Or maybe it does. And more to come, no doubt. But what, exactly, was God's "offer" here? Isn't the point that you end up in heaven if only you do refuse the offer? I think this would have made more sense if they had just left him fat and used the "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" line.
(Top) —Posted by: The Raving Atheist in Obituary Cartoons · Permalink · 11 Comments
·•◊•·
The Raving Atheist » Comments on: Branded
Obviously God offered him a kitty cat. Not even a cold-hearted atheist could resist that offer.
[Edit] July 7, 2004
Another "offer he can't refuse" one.
This one's a little more likely.
[Edit] July 7, 2004
Have you seen the film "In America"? In it, a precocious young girl keeps harrassing her father for not "believing". What an apt title for the movie.
[Edit] July 7, 2004
I’m surprised that no cartoonist thought to relieve Ray of his most serious social disability and make him a normal, decent white person.
Snide. Most blacks are happy being black. Few blind people are happy being blind.
[Edit] July 7, 2004
um ... is Brando stroking a dead cat? If so, is the cartoonist saying that yahwey, lord of the jews, killed his cat, thus making him "the offer"? Cuz that would be some funny shit!
[Edit] July 7, 2004
If you think this is bad, RA, just be glad you won't be around to see what they do to you. I doubt they'll print a blank page, with the caption, "In memory of the Raving Atheist." They'd have a hard time finding a catchy phrase that'd get you past heaven's gates, though.
[Edit] July 7, 2004
I would guess that Brando chose the name Christian because it was his most important character - Mr. Christian from Mutiny on the Bounty.
Of course I may be wrong.
[Edit] July 8, 2004
I hope I get a dead cat when I go to heaven! God realy does gives us great things!
[Edit] July 9, 2004
I hope I get a dead cat when I go to heaven! God realy does gives us great things!
[Edit] July 9, 2004
I'm wondering what the consequences of an atheist refusing to make an oath on the bible is in the USA? What happened to Brando in the court? What did the judge do? In general how does one approach this issue of "adjusting" the oath to tell the truth and leave God out of it?
[Edit] July 10, 2004
Outside of the courtroom of some wacko judge who will quickly find himself kicked off the bench, the consequences are nothing (except maybe in the eyes of a prejudiced jury). You have the choice of swearing to God (with or without Bible) or affirming to tell the truth under penalty of law. Usually judges just lump it all together under "Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? Yes or no?" to keep things moving and not let witnesses take up the court's time giving speeches.
Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with the courts being chummy with godless atheists. According to this random website from Google, the reason for this is because of religious objections to swearing, and the practice of allowing an affirmation, at least in Illinois, goes back to the 1870s.
If I remember correctly, and it's likely I don't, what happened to Brando in court was that the reporters reported that, gasp! Brando affirmed instead of swearing! And I think there was a video of him doing it that was shown repeatedly on Entertainment Tonight or somesuch. That was pretty much it. Also if I remember right, Brando gave some little Kurtzesque speech before the affirmation instead of just affirming like a normal person, which probably contributed to it being on the entertainment news.
[Edit] July 11, 2004
Comments Closed
In order to stop the proliferation of comment spam, the comments on this post have been automatically closed because the post is older than 30 days and the discussion has been inactive for more than 21 days.
Please feel free to your comments to me.
(Top)