Religious paper cuts Clinton from iconic photo

AdMan · 9th May 2011, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Faith has outweighed fact at Der Tzitung, a Hasidic newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York.

The ultra-Orthodox Jewish publication ran a doctored copy of the iconic “Situation Room Photo” last Friday – you know, the one taken of President Barack Obama and his national security team during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound.

Scrubbed from the picture: the two women in the room.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...-iconic-photo/

JFrankA · 9th May 2011, 11:09 AM

...sexually suggestive? Holy teenage hormones!

I mean, I don't mean to judge, and I'm all for religious freedom and freedom of speech and all that, but the women could be seen in sexually suggestive poses?

I don't see anything sexual in their poses - and I'm one of the most dirtiest-minded people on this forum!

shandyjan · 9th May 2011, 05:14 PM

This is when things clash. Freedom of religion>sexism.

Elizabeth I · 9th May 2011, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

...sexually suggestive? Holy teenage hormones!

I mean, I don't mean to judge, and I'm all for religious freedom and freedom of speech and all that, but the women could be seen in sexually suggestive poses?

I don't see anything sexual in their poses - and I'm one of the most dirtiest-minded people on this forum!

I can't imagine anyone seeing anything sexually suggestive in Hillary Clinton, no matter what pose she was in.

MatildaGage · 9th May 2011, 05:43 PM

That is so pathetic.

Obviously I need to change my sig to something that criticizes Judaism. ;p

truethat · 9th May 2011, 05:45 PM

The Holocaust deniers are gonna have a field day with this tidbit. Typical stupid religion is at it again.

joobz · 9th May 2011, 05:53 PM

They are free to print what ever nonsense they wish.
However, I am equally free to call the publishers laughably fearful boys who probably still have mommy issues.

Joey McGee · 9th May 2011, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by AdMan

Rejoice, this kind of thing leads to reform in the long run.

Originally Posted by joobz

They are free to print what ever nonsense they wish.

Technically not with the disclaimer the WH attached to it but really the backlash will be all the punishment they deserve.

Travis · 9th May 2011, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

...sexually suggestive? Holy teenage hormones!

I mean, I don't mean to judge, and I'm all for religious freedom and freedom of speech and all that, but the women could be seen in sexually suggestive poses?

I don't see anything sexual in their poses - and I'm one of the most dirtiest-minded people on this forum!

They are being suggestive just by being women and being there!

Hallo Alfie · 9th May 2011, 08:43 PM

I think the White House put the women in, not the Jewish paper taking them out.

AdMan · 9th May 2011, 08:59 PM

I see that after the OP, the article has been updated as the paper has apologized for the gaffe (though they didn't say they should have printed the picture as-is, just said they shouldn't have broken "official White House photo rules" and didn't mean to offend):

Quote:

"Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging women, which is certainly never our intention," it continued. "We apologize if this was seen as offensive."

Does anyone know what the deal is with the supposed "laws of modesty"? Does orthodox Judaism really prohibit showing depictions of women?

Puppycow · 9th May 2011, 09:04 PM

Somebody thought that Hillary Clinton is sexy?

JohnG · 9th May 2011, 09:32 PM

Boy Gevalt!

AdMan · 9th May 2011, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Somebody thought that Hillary Clinton is sexy?

I can imagine someone finding Hillary Clinton sexy, but if so, why just cut her out of the image?

http://images.nymag.com/news/feature...071022_560.jpg

hgc · 9th May 2011, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by AdMan

Does anyone know what the deal is with the supposed "laws of modesty"? Does orthodox Judaism really prohibit showing depictions of women?

As with all religion, it's all individual/group interpretation and preference. Ultra-orthodox Jewish men spend much of their lives in study and discussion, so I'm sure this particular group has it quite well reasoned out.

What I don't understand is how a photo is more suggestive than the live article? Lock your women away!

Kopji · 9th May 2011, 10:30 PM

I'm pretty sure that the moral sin is that the women shown would be in a position of leadership. That will not do - God would be displeased.

Not that anybody is going to get off on photos of Hillary, Although that other lady is kinda cute.

Robert Oz · 9th May 2011, 10:36 PM

The photo has not been doctored. The two images were taken seconds apart. The women were forbidden to watch the video of the raid. There are, no doubt, two small pillars of salt on the floor just out of frame of the second photo.

Travis · 9th May 2011, 10:37 PM

Yeah, you can't show women being all independent and stuff. That's just heresy.

Aepervius · 10th May 2011, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

I can't imagine anyone seeing anything sexually suggestive in Hillary Clinton, no matter what pose she was in.

I disagree : picture this pose : she is holding a super sexy playboy double page right 10 inches before your eye so that you can't see anything else.

kerikiwi · 10th May 2011, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by AdMan

Does orthodox Judaism really prohibit showing depictions of women?

Clearly their version does, and since religion is made up, any religion someone makes up (or follows after someone else made it up) really does prohibit whatever the maker-upper says it prohibits.

AdMan · 11th May 2011, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Clearly their version does, and since religion is made up, any religion someone makes up (or follows after someone else made it up) really does prohibit whatever the maker-upper says it prohibits.

Makes sense.

Resume · 11th May 2011, 03:38 PM

When initially reading this thread title, I was trying to discern the difference between a religious, and a regular old paper cut.

Skeptic Ginger · 11th May 2011, 04:12 PM

I had no idea Orthodox Jewish fundies were as bad as Muslim fundies who think they should never look at women except at home.

Bizarre. You have to wonder how such nonsensical 'rules' ever evolved.

Johny2x4 · 11th May 2011, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I had no idea Orthodox Jewish fundies were as bad as Muslim fundies who think they should never look at women except at home.

Bizarre. You have to wonder how such nonsensical 'rules' ever evolved.

Is this sarcasm or you didn´t knew that?

Ron_Tomkins · 11th May 2011, 04:26 PM

Even though lots of people are going to disagree, the truth of the matter is that this is how it starts: You know, all those other arguments about porn being harmful, about images being harmful, etc etc. These all derive from the same irrational principle which is of course typical in religion, but certainly not exclusive of it.

Kaylee · 11th May 2011, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by AdMan

<snip>

Does anyone know what the deal is with the supposed "laws of modesty"? Does orthodox Judaism really prohibit showing depictions of women?

Originally Posted by hgc

As with all religion, it's all individual/group interpretation and preference. Ultra-orthodox Jewish men spend much of their lives in study and discussion, so I'm sure this particular group has it quite well reasoned out.

What I don't understand is how a photo is more suggestive than the live article? Lock your women away!

There's a lot of diversity within Orthodox Judaism. It's not organized the same way some other religions are, for example Catholicism. Catholics have an established hierarchy, Judaism doesn't. [ETA: Well, to keep it simple -- not the same type of established organization and hierarchy.] As a result I'm sure that there are some Jews who consider themselves Orthodox who are not considered Orthodox by other Jews, and that there are some Jews who claim they do things that are required by Orthodox Jewish tradition and many other Jews who would be happy to tell them that they are mistaken. As the old saying goes, two Jews ... three opinions.

Anyway, out of curiosity I googled Esther Jungreis. I have happened to have heard her name mentioned a while back, and I know she considers herself to be an Orthodox Jew and that many other Jews agree with that self-assessment. Google Images has many photographs of her that look like official PR photos and one of them is at JewishPress.com, an Orthodox Jewish weekly newspaper. So, there you go, proof that not all Orthodox Jews think that women shouldn't be photographed. Keeping in mind we are talking about women in the news, in the type of clothing suitable for the office -- not Playboy type photos.

I would bet that the UltraOrthodox Jewish group who photoshopped Clinton out is probably considered extreme even by other Orthodox Jews.

MusicMan · 11th May 2011, 07:15 PM

I have to admit...that's a pretty good Photoshop job. (At least from what I can see in that low-quality newspaper scan!)

9th May 2011, 10:56 AM	#1
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,328	Religious paper cuts Clinton from iconic photo Quote: Faith has outweighed fact at Der Tzitung, a Hasidic newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York. The ultra-Orthodox Jewish publication ran a doctored copy of the iconic “Situation Room Photo” last Friday – you know, the one taken of President Barack Obama and his national security team during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. Scrubbed from the picture: the two women in the room. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...-iconic-photo/
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,328	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

9th May 2011, 11:09 AM	#2
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	...sexually suggestive? Holy teenage hormones! I mean, I don't mean to judge, and I'm all for religious freedom and freedom of speech and all that, but the women could be seen in sexually suggestive poses? I don't see anything sexual in their poses - and I'm one of the most dirtiest-minded people on this forum!
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch

9th May 2011, 05:14 PM	#3
shandyjan Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N/W England Posts: 2,111	This is when things clash. Freedom of religion>sexism.
	__________________ Belief is the wound that knowledge heals. Ursula K. LeGuin's A dog is for life, not just for xmas!

9th May 2011, 05:19 PM	#4
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,351	Originally Posted by JFrankA ...sexually suggestive? Holy teenage hormones! I mean, I don't mean to judge, and I'm all for religious freedom and freedom of speech and all that, but the women could be seen in sexually suggestive poses? I don't see anything sexual in their poses - and I'm one of the most dirtiest-minded people on this forum! I can't imagine anyone seeing anything sexually suggestive in Hillary Clinton, no matter what pose she was in.
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

9th May 2011, 05:43 PM	#5
MatildaGage Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Risa Posts: 799	That is so pathetic. Obviously I need to change my sig to something that criticizes Judaism. ;p
	__________________ End the grisly, barbaric practice of metzitzah b'peh.

9th May 2011, 05:45 PM	#6
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,051	The Holocaust deniers are gonna have a field day with this tidbit. Typical stupid religion is at it again.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,051	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

9th May 2011, 05:53 PM	#7
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,584	They are free to print what ever nonsense they wish. However, I am equally free to call the publishers laughably fearful boys who probably still have mommy issues.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

9th May 2011, 05:56 PM	#8
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,225	Originally Posted by AdMan Rejoice, this kind of thing leads to reform in the long run. Originally Posted by joobz They are free to print what ever nonsense they wish. Technically not with the disclaimer the WH attached to it but really the backlash will be all the punishment they deserve.
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking!

9th May 2011, 06:06 PM	#9
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,100	Originally Posted by JFrankA ...sexually suggestive? Holy teenage hormones! I mean, I don't mean to judge, and I'm all for religious freedom and freedom of speech and all that, but the women could be seen in sexually suggestive poses? I don't see anything sexual in their poses - and I'm one of the most dirtiest-minded people on this forum! They are being suggestive just by being women and being there!
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

9th May 2011, 08:43 PM	#10
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	I think the White House put the women in, not the Jewish paper taking them out.

9th May 2011, 08:59 PM	#11
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,328	I see that after the OP, the article has been updated as the paper has apologized for the gaffe (though they didn't say they should have printed the picture as-is, just said they shouldn't have broken "official White House photo rules" and didn't mean to offend): Quote: "Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging women, which is certainly never our intention," it continued. "We apologize if this was seen as offensive." Does anyone know what the deal is with the supposed "laws of modesty"? Does orthodox Judaism really prohibit showing depictions of women?
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,328	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan Last edited by AdMan; 9th May 2011 at 09:00 PM.

9th May 2011, 09:04 PM	#12
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,011	Somebody thought that Hillary Clinton is sexy?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

9th May 2011, 09:32 PM	#13
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Abandon All Hope Posts: 4,448	Boy Gevalt!
	__________________ Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -Harlan Ellison

9th May 2011, 10:05 PM	#14
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,328	Originally Posted by Puppycow Somebody thought that Hillary Clinton is sexy? I can imagine someone finding Hillary Clinton sexy, but if so, why just cut her out of the image? http://images.nymag.com/news/feature...071022_560.jpg
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,328	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

9th May 2011, 10:21 PM	#15
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,125	Originally Posted by AdMan Does anyone know what the deal is with the supposed "laws of modesty"? Does orthodox Judaism really prohibit showing depictions of women? As with all religion, it's all individual/group interpretation and preference. Ultra-orthodox Jewish men spend much of their lives in study and discussion, so I'm sure this particular group has it quite well reasoned out. What I don't understand is how a photo is more suggestive than the live article? Lock your women away!
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

9th May 2011, 10:30 PM	#16
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,710	I'm pretty sure that the moral sin is that the women shown would be in a position of leadership. That will not do - God would be displeased. Not that anybody is going to get off on photos of Hillary, Although that other lady is kinda cute.

9th May 2011, 10:36 PM	#17
Robert Oz Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,435	The photo has not been doctored. The two images were taken seconds apart. The women were forbidden to watch the video of the raid. There are, no doubt, two small pillars of salt on the floor just out of frame of the second photo.
	__________________ "I'll be back before you can say Antidisestablishmentarianism." - Blackadder Last edited by Robert Oz; 9th May 2011 at 10:38 PM.

9th May 2011, 10:37 PM	#18
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,100	Yeah, you can't show women being all independent and stuff. That's just heresy.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

10th May 2011, 12:15 AM	#19
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,880	Originally Posted by Elizabeth I I can't imagine anyone seeing anything sexually suggestive in Hillary Clinton, no matter what pose she was in. I disagree : picture this pose : she is holding a super sexy playboy double page right 10 inches before your eye so that you can't see anything else.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

10th May 2011, 12:59 PM	#20
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,859	Originally Posted by AdMan Does orthodox Judaism really prohibit showing depictions of women? Clearly their version does, and since religion is made up, any religion someone makes up (or follows after someone else made it up) really does prohibit whatever the maker-upper says it prohibits.

11th May 2011, 09:16 AM	#21
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,328	Originally Posted by kerikiwi Clearly their version does, and since religion is made up, any religion someone makes up (or follows after someone else made it up) really does prohibit whatever the maker-upper says it prohibits. Makes sense.
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,328	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

11th May 2011, 03:38 PM	#22
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,132	When initially reading this thread title, I was trying to discern the difference between a religious, and a regular old paper cut.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,132

11th May 2011, 04:12 PM	#23
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,798	I had no idea Orthodox Jewish fundies were as bad as Muslim fundies who think they should never look at women except at home. Bizarre. You have to wonder how such nonsensical 'rules' ever evolved.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

11th May 2011, 04:15 PM	#24
Johny2x4 Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Portugal Posts: 472	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I had no idea Orthodox Jewish fundies were as bad as Muslim fundies who think they should never look at women except at home. Bizarre. You have to wonder how such nonsensical 'rules' ever evolved. Is this sarcasm or you didn´t knew that?

11th May 2011, 04:26 PM	#25
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,196	Even though lots of people are going to disagree, the truth of the matter is that this is how it starts: You know, all those other arguments about porn being harmful, about images being harmful, etc etc. These all derive from the same irrational principle which is of course typical in religion, but certainly not exclusive of it.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

11th May 2011, 05:15 PM	#26
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by AdMan <snip> Does anyone know what the deal is with the supposed "laws of modesty"? Does orthodox Judaism really prohibit showing depictions of women? Originally Posted by hgc As with all religion, it's all individual/group interpretation and preference. Ultra-orthodox Jewish men spend much of their lives in study and discussion, so I'm sure this particular group has it quite well reasoned out. What I don't understand is how a photo is more suggestive than the live article? Lock your women away! There's a lot of diversity within Orthodox Judaism. It's not organized the same way some other religions are, for example Catholicism. Catholics have an established hierarchy, Judaism doesn't. [ETA: Well, to keep it simple -- not the same type of established organization and hierarchy.] As a result I'm sure that there are some Jews who consider themselves Orthodox who are not considered Orthodox by other Jews, and that there are some Jews who claim they do things that are required by Orthodox Jewish tradition and many other Jews who would be happy to tell them that they are mistaken. As the old saying goes, two Jews ... three opinions. Anyway, out of curiosity I googled Esther Jungreis. I have happened to have heard her name mentioned a while back, and I know she considers herself to be an Orthodox Jew and that many other Jews agree with that self-assessment. Google Images has many photographs of her that look like official PR photos and one of them is at JewishPress.com, an Orthodox Jewish weekly newspaper. So, there you go, proof that not all Orthodox Jews think that women shouldn't be photographed. Keeping in mind we are talking about women in the news, in the type of clothing suitable for the office -- not Playboy type photos. I would bet that the UltraOrthodox Jewish group who photoshopped Clinton out is probably considered extreme even by other Orthodox Jews.
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,874	__________________ When everyone think alike, no one thinks very much. -- Walter Lippman'' Last edited by Kaylee; 11th May 2011 at 05:18 PM.

11th May 2011, 07:15 PM	#27
MusicMan Student Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Traffic light capital of the U.S. Posts: 33	I have to admit...that's a pretty good Photoshop job. (At least from what I can see in that low-quality newspaper scan!)