You’ve seen the now-iconic photo of US officials being updated on the Bin Laden raid. Right?
But have you seen this version of the photograph, published in Di Tzeitung, the ultra Orthodox Hasidic Jewish newspaper.
Notice the absence of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Counter Terrorism Director Audrey Tomason?
They were removed from the picture.
It is Di Tzeitung’s policy to never publish pictures of women in their newspaper, because these images could be considered sexually suggestive.
My wife is Jewish, but when it comes to Judaism, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews are similar to her in name only. In fact, most, if not all Hasidic Jews would not even consider my wife’s reform brand of Judaism to be Judaism at all, and I contend that she should in turn do the same.
You simply cannot affiliate yourself in any way with a group of people who would:
A. Erase the images of female US officials from photographs as important and historic as this one.
B. Believe that a fully-clothed, black-and-white image of Hillary Clinton might be so sexually suggestive as to warrant removal from their newspaper.
Nothing against Hillary, but she isn’t exactly eye candy.
And if this is the case, what else might they do?
Would the editors of Di Tzeitung have removed the image of Jackie Kennedy from the JFK assassination photos?
Does the newspaper routinely remove the Statue of Liberty from its images of New York harbor?
And most important, what would this ass-backward newspaper do if America ever elected a female President?
And did they refuse to show an image of Margaret Thatcher during her term in office?
Or the Queen of England?
And how the hell would they handle the images of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir if she were in office today?
Would they refuse to print a photograph of the Prime Minister of Israel?
Of course, these photographic restrictions are just the tip of their sexist iceberg. Orthodox and Hasidic Jews don’t even allow men and women to sit together in temple, providing men with preferential and segregated seating.
You cannot use the perils of sexual suggestiveness as an excuse for doctoring a photograph of our Secretary of State while simultaneously treating your house of worship like an Alabama schoolhouse in 1963.