Monday, May 09, 2011

Statement from Haredi Newspaper Regarding Hillary Clinton's Photoshop Job

The Haredi Jewish newspaper Der Zeitung (sometimes spelled Der Tzitung) has issued a statement about its alteration of the official White House photograph that included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason, the director for counter-terrorism.

I'm glad that Der Zeitung has issued a statement, but I'm STILL cancelling my subscription (I will keep the lovely tote bag though).

The White House released a picture showing the President following “live” the events in the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, last week Sunday. Also present in the Situation Room were various high-ranking government and military officials. Our photo editor realized the significance of this historic moment, and published the picture, but in his haste he did not read the “fine print” that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes. We should not have published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and apologies to the White House and to the State Department.

The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel. The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ‘00, and when she was re-elected in ‘06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.

We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.

All Government employees are sworn into office, promising adherence to the Constitution, and our Constitution attests to our greatness as a nation that is a light beacon to the entire world. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press! In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.

We are proud Americans of the Jewish faith, and there is no conflict in that, and we will with the help of the Almighty continue as law-abiding citizens, in this great country of our’s, until the ultimate redemption.

This story (Hillary Clinton's HarediGate?) has been the hot topic of the day. I have to agree with Shmarya Rosenberg of FailedMessiah who wrote, "there is no Jewish law mandating the removal of normally clothed women from pictures like this." Refusing to publish photos of women in a newspaper is but one more example of extremist Jews being so scared of modernity that they erect high fences around Jewish laws to keep their adherents from from "harm." Is it really better to misrepresent the truth and deceive people than to see a photo of a modestly clothed Secretary of State?


Anonymous said...

I am sorry to say but you are the one who is actually deceiving people. To claim that your gripe with the cropped photo is because it is deceiving, is just not the truth. You may even believe it, but you are only fooling yourself. It is actually bigotry and homophobia in its simplest form. You cannot accept that others may have different religious views than yourself, views that you consider extreme and that may make you uncomfortable. Your ignorant comment that the reason it was cropped had to do with it being sexually explicit was slandarous and inciteful. The insinuations that the alterations were sexist related is quite ironic considering that you don't afford those with more exreme "fanatical" beliefs the same pluralism you expect from them.

Anonymous said...

... do you not know what homophobia means, Anonymous?

- Hannah