Categories
Blog

Tiger Woods Crucified by the Press

Here’s my new cartoon on Tiger Woods.  We have a great new collection of cartoons about Tiger Woods’ troubles here.  Come look!

I know that I make people angry when I draw any kind of religious metaphor.  Be polite with comments.  The caricature of Woods at the right was drawn by Nate Beeler of the Washington Examiner; Nate is a brilliant caricature artist who deserves more attention.

By Daryl Cagle

Daryl Cagle is the founder and owner of Cagle Cartoons, Inc. He is one of the most widely published editorial cartoonists and is also the editor of The Cagle Post.

36 replies on “Tiger Woods Crucified by the Press”

According to scripture, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified albeit without sin. Mr. Woods has admitted to sin. The difference is profound and negates the point of your cartoon.

yeah, wrong metaphor. "Cheetah" Woods has feet of clay and is soaked in sin, partially admitted. Jesus died pure for the purpose of taking all our sins to the devil and throwing them in his face. probably didn't need a putter, either.

I don't understand why and how anyone could be surprised…..by either. Woods' behavior or that of the press. No big deal, move on, there will be someone else who tears themselves down tomorrow, and the press will gleefully assist. "Goodbye Norma Jean….".

Attention religious nuts: the metaphor works. Have you never heard the phrase "they're crucifying him out there!"

One of the sappiest and most groveling cartoon I've ever seen.

Tiger makes a bloody forturne through his "Tiger Woods" brand. Part of the brand is that he is a faithful husband and father.

The news now reveals that he considered his marriage a sham, and has certainly treated it that way. What does this say to all of the responsible men and women out there who managed to live a married life true to their vows — despite the temptations that arise along the way?

Tiger has been unmasked. Let him live with that.

His sponsors will continue to support him for as long as they perceive his value in lifting money from your pocketbook through consumer spending. They don't care about morality. But some of us do.

Your cartoon — depicting Tiger Woods as Jesus Christ — is disgusting. But that was your choice, and you can live with that. Look forward to see if you publish these words.

What Tiger and his wife do (or don’t do) in their bedroom is our business. All of us have a right to get involved.

That's what happens when you become a celeb.

The metaphor works. Not because Tiger Woods is without sin. But rather because his shame has been turned into a public spectacle with the media subbing in for the Pharisees.

Sure the media are usually scumbags…I know, I'm one and I see them at all the meetings. However, this time around, Tiger provided the lumber, nails and hammer for his crucifixion. Like one of my favorite M*A*S*H lines: "Frank, you invite abuse. It would be rude of us not to accept."

Why is it that anytime a cross is used in artwork, everyone always assumes that it is a comparison to Christ? The Romans crucified tens of thousands of people during their rule. Christ was just one of them. Most of those crucified had no claim to being sinless, but were left to die in public anyway. I think this is a great cartoon. The media is a bunch of vultures, waiting to pounce on anyone who exposes themselves to tear them to pieces. I really wish the media would stick to reporting significant news and stay out of peoples private lives. Luckily for JFK, the media back in the 1960s still had some manners or they would have crucified him as well. Now, the media is nothing but sensationalism. PT Barnum would have been embarassed by the tactics used by the media today to create sensational stories.

Tiger's PR posse has anointed him the chosen one. The cartoon works for me. Tiger's father, Earl also said Tiger would rise to a level far above his golf accomplishments. It would be interesting, were he alive today, to get his take on this. I'd also love to see an interview with Tiger's mother, Matilda.

With his family values brand and his actual life experiences, perhaps he should seek public office as a Republican…

The annoying thing about the cartoon is how unoriginal it is. Is this the best the cartoonist could come up with? Not very creative…how many others have used the same image?

To be historical, Jesus was killed by Italians for being a Jew doing Jewy things; sin or no sin was not a consideration; sedition against the Roman government was.

The metaphor is inapprpriate on several levels (none religious) — a depiction of the golfer caught with his pants down around his ankles would be more appropriate.

Attention Lexingtoon, and others of similar ilk: The reference to Tiger being hung in the form of Jesus is offensive to Christians who practice their faith and revere their Lord and Savior. If you laugh at this illustration, good for you, but kindly refrain from denegrating those of us who find it to be tastless and crass.

AHA!! This is "DC" comics.
Great spoof on it, Daryl.
As a man who lives in the real world and has a healthy sense of humor, I found it truly funny and excellently satirical.
The overly serious little minds won't get its subtlety.

I can already hear Tiger singing at christmastime~~
"Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho. That's nine".lol

Cruizn: People always think of Christ when a Cricifixion is depicted because we are taught to do so. You do, I do, everyone does. When people see a hammer and sickle, do they think of building and mowing? Of course not! How about a Menora…anyone think of a bathroom sconce? ..Does that help? Having said that, since everyone knows that, why do you act all surprised when people of faith are offended by it?

Y'all know that Jesus wasn't the only person ever crucified, right? Literally, I mean. Jesus was crucuifed with two thieves, IIRC. It was a unfortunately common form of execution for much of the history of "civilization". Christians don't have a monopoly on crucifixion, just saying…

what a load!
i also remember reading somewhere about ". . . hung on a cross of gold . . .
i'm just sick of the whole thing. he's human, he ain't perfect. so?

Any fool who sets up a celebrity as a moral example is more than likely to be disappointed at some point.

And, anybody who believes the "media" has any purpose other than muckraking and scandal "reporting" for the benefit of those on the bottom half of the bell curve is leading an awfully sheltered life.

To those making the point that Jesus was not the only person ever crucified:

You make a good point. However, you neglect to notice the detail of the cartoon. The sign above Tiger's head says "King of Golf," which is reminiscent of the sign above Christ's head that said "King of the Jews."

Word has it that "Cheetah" has been picked up as spokesman for Cialis. Every one of his Cialis moments will be re-enacted as commercials. His erect "putter" will be highlighted………..

What is the difference between a Nike golf ball and a Cadillac Escalade? "Cheetah" Woods can DRIVE a golf ball 400 yards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something ate my first message…here I go again.

The problem with the cartoon is that it does not depict the 10 bimbos (5 to a side) cause it takes two to tango.

Tiger's actions are not admirable but that's his wife's problem.

I never thought I'd see the day when women who slept with a married man would rush out to get the credit (and money ) for their 'story'. They're literally crawling over each other to assure they won't miss their 15 minutes of fame, or is it infamy? cheers

The only problem with this cartoon as far as I'm concerned is that it doesn't depict the 10 bimbos (5 on a side) to complete the picture.

Tiger's actions are not admirable but that's his wife's problem.
The bimbos who can't keep their mouths shut deserve to be called what they are…but I'm sure I will not be allowed to use such language. Imagine fighting to make sure everybody knows you slept with a married man…

'Ron Laughs' writes;"The overly serious little minds won’t get its subtlety." Um, Ron…subtlety is nowhere to be seen in Daryl's 'Tiger 'Toon' Subtlety and satire are very different literary devices. Further satire might have entailed a cross of Pings with nine (at last count) apostlettes in scanty attire wailing around the excoriated 9+ bogie-man. Maybe if we wait a week or so, the number will rise to a truly analogous twelve. His wife as 'Elin Pilate' weilding a hammer might have been a nice historical touch. Nice try, Ron, but no cigar. Whoops! That was another Cheetah…the Cheetah in Chief at that!

Dear overzealous, bible-thumping, unhealthily-addicted-to-the-Jesus-fetish Christians:

Wrong. Prove to me that an image such as this is offensive to you. You cannot, because you do not speak for Christians at large. It would be offensive if he had Jesus hanging next to him, saying "well well, looks like I took the lead after all!"

Instead, Cagle has gone out of his way to make a cartoon which has light humor, but ultimately treads softly around the big, angry, thorny(ha HA) 200 pound gorilla in the room.

Let's not forget that we have the freedom of speech in this country. When did it become the case that you could not voice your own opinion, so long as it did not endanger anyone else? In this case nobody is hurt – if your feelings are, that doesn't count. Never has, my monotheist friend.

Put another way, I'm shocked and appalled than anyone would ever run a religiously-oriented cartoon about Jesus' birth, the Ressurection, or any other religious myth. They are patently offensive to me and all the other who practice our similar ideas and who reverse non-Christianity/Judaism/whatever. How DARE you try to shove this trite religious bilge down our throats. I demand a recount.

Dear Lexingtoon:

Could you please elaborate upon the first part of your comment? I'm sorry, but I found it somewhat contradictory. You say that Christians cannot prove that this cartoon is offensive to Christians as a whole, and then you give an example of what *would* be offensive to Christians as a whole. Might I ask how you presume to know the distinction between what would and would not be offensive to most Christians?

It is true that in the United States we have freedom of speech, and it is true that we have freedom of opinion as well. However, it is important that we apply these truths consistently. If we have freedom of opinion, we have freedom to be offended, and if we have freedom of speech, we have freedom to say so. Of course we do not have the freedom to force Cagle to remove this cartoon, but we do have the freedom to dislike it and tell him why.

One more thing. With all due respect, I think the people you are addressing would be more likely to at least listen to you if you did not call them by an extravagant string of insults. Then again, perhaps you are not actually trying to convince Christians of the validity of your argument. If this is the case and you are only commenting for the pleasure of hearing the sound of your own metaphorical voice, please feel free to disregard my words. We live in a free country, after all.

LEXINGTOON: WOW, what a motivational opening sentence, how moving, clear, emotionally stated and closely similar to having one's bill at a restaurant presented before the guests are seated. And as the wiccan/atheist audience rises to give you a standing ovation, you ask the question, " Prove to me that an image such as this is offensive to you." OK, simply stated, "The image is offensive to me." But I also need to include, "YOU are offensive to me, as is any sentient reader regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation by your boorish, trailer-park ad hominem diatribe which initiated your post." As I used to say in the ad/PR biz to offensive, loudmouthed loonies like yourself, "Hey, ma'am, you sure know how to win a guy over." And I doubt that you would be voted Queen of the wiccan Toastmaster's Club due to your inability to sway anyone with your opening remarks. 'Aim for the Jugular' is NOT the motto of any socially-recognized civic group, including 'Atheists Anonymous'…you might consider brushing up on your badly deteriorated oratorical skills; and perhaps in the process you will learn that most folks tend to shy away from crazed banshees who first 'go for the throat' and then step back under the more-than-generous (in your case) protective shield of our beloved Constitution and its Bill of Rights. I hope to never meet you. You are anathema to American civil conduct.

"It is true that in the United States we have freedom of speech, and it is true that we have freedom of opinion as well. However, it is important that we apply these truths consistently. If we have freedom of opinion, we have freedom to be offended, and if we have freedom of speech, we have freedom to say so. Of course we do not have the freedom to force Cagle to remove this cartoon, but we do have the freedom to dislike it and tell him why."
I'll try to remember that the next time some paper publishes a cartoon that Muslims find offensive.
Escritor de Tejas: @You are anathema to American civil conduct." Ah, you told a joke! Funny!

hmm.. I see that my attempts at satire have fallen short. My admittedly enthusiastic post was aimed at the following post which preceded it:

"Comment from Call Me Conservative, but…
Time December 8, 2009 at 9:28 am

Attention Lexingtoon, and others of similar ilk: The reference to Tiger being hung in the form of Jesus is offensive to Christians who practice their faith and revere their Lord and Savior. If you laugh at this illustration, good for you, but kindly refrain from denegrating those of us who find it to be tastless and crass."

Now, to be fair, my argument failed pretty hard – what I meant to say is that everyone has their own opinion, and to claim that someone thinks of X when they see Y is fallacious. I gave an example which is far, far past the line of decency with the "hey looks like I took the lead" to juxtapose what might be considered directly offensive versus indirectly so. Mr. Cagle's cartoon is at worst indirectly offensive, where my comment was directly so. One attacks the sort of nebulous idea of "being crucified by the media" and of the public's attention to superstars, where the other comes right out and attacks Christianity.

As for the opening line, well that was just to get under the guy's skin by crudely parodying his method of addressing me and my apparent ilk.

My main disagreement with CMCB is his infinitive-based stance of "nobody thinks of crucifixion as non-Jesus!" It is a terrible argument based in nothing but biased opinion, and one which is almost certainly untrue. See? Almost certainly.

And while I am glad that several of you took the time and patient effort to point out to me that I had been a vulgar, boorish snob in my attacks on Call Me Conservative, I must also point out that that was the idea. I have very little time for people who believe their lives to be so self-important that they cannot think outside of the box. I'm not going to go all infinitive on you(as I mistakenly did in my prior post) but I have difficulty dealing seriously with a lot of people who still believe in fairy tales like the Great Flood of Gilga.. Noah, or Zombie God on the Third Day, or Elijah sicking God-driven bears on children for calling him bald.

Plus I don't see anyone touching this bit of my post: "Put another way, I’m shocked and appalled than anyone would ever run a religiously-oriented cartoon about Jesus’ birth, the Ressurection, or any other religious myth. They are patently offensive to me and all the other who practice our similar ideas and who reverse non-Christianity/Judaism/whatever. How DARE you try to shove this trite religious bilge down our throats. I demand a recount."

I think that gets right down to the core of the fault in CMCB's argument.

Comments are closed.