vosiznies: Brooklyn, NY – Hasidic Newspaper “Der Zeitung” Releases Religious Statement On Alterd White House Situation Room Photo. http://bit.ly/kFvOd4

weird thing though is that some ultra otho sat behind a computer screen and did the photoshopping .. had to look at the curves of he women to ensure that he got all of them to remove

Prove that they were in the original picuture to begin with. For all we know the entire picture the White House released was photo-shopped and Hillary and Audrey, and perhaps others, weren’t there to begin with and were photo-shopped in later.

So who reads this paper anyway? I read Der Strudel, it’s a sweeter read.

Taliban!

Isn’t this unauthorized altering of a credited White House photograph and publishing it without comment copyright infringement?

Charges should should be brought against the publishers.

A newspaper, for whatever reason, does not legally get to change a real-time, news photograph. Doing so changes history for their (protected?) readers. If the vision of a woman in the news is so repulsive, or so prohibited, then that editor should either not run the article, or not run the photo at all. Shame on them.

Well considering it’s from that part of the World it really doesn’t surprise me.

A couple of weeks ago, The Forward ran an article about orthodox women in Israel who are now veiling themselves in public, in the name of modesty (it also mentioned separate sidewalks for women, in some locales–sheesh). If this movment takes off…

In the wise words of George Carlin: Religion is a form of mental disease.

So what’s the difference between these guys and the Taliban. They’re both misogynists.

I’m surprised they didn’t photoshop Obama into an Orthordox Jews with Beard and a black hat.

Although I am not familiar with this paper, I am familiar with the radical ultra orthodox far right community! the reason is simply because they are women! men are not to look at pictures of women and women, in that community are not suppose to rise to that level of leadership – they hold that the only place for a woman is the home, period!!!

IF THE PICTURE DID NOT MEET THEIR RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS, THEY SHOULD HAVE NOT PRINTED ANYTHING AT ALL. SUCH RIDICULOUS NONSENSE!

All extreme religious individuals are a danger to the world !

Uncomfortably reminiscent of the good old bad old days of the Cold War, when the official Czech news agency, during the Communist era, deleted Alexander Dubcek from a photograph of an outdoor state ceremony. (The before and after pictures can be seen in the April 24, 1970 issue of LIFE magazine, page 81, readily accessible through Google Books.) And this was way before PhotoShop.

BOY THAT’S A REALLY SMALL ROOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I heard that every other paper photo shopped the women INTO the picture.

I CAN SEE THAT THIS IS A RELIGIOUS PUBLICATION LIKE THE TABLIT AND OTHERS. IF YOU CAN’T SHOW THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SHOW NOTHING AT ALL

The super orthodox of ALL religion oppress and refuse to acknowlegde any woman not engaged in making babies, or in support of those women who are just making babies.
The super orthodox Jews are no different than the super religous Muslims.
Their rules for keeping women down in just baby making rolls are almost exactly the same because they both have the same common origination in the prehistoric life in the middle east.
And yes, they both would like the world to return to the family and religous life people lived in the pre 12th century periods, minus the progumms from the Catholic Church which tried to convert both Muslims and Jews, or kill them.

Just remember, in the modern world, less than 20% of Jewish people are orthodox.
The vast majority of Jewsih people aremembers of the Reformed Jewish movement,the Conservative Jewish movement or the Recontructionists Jewish movement.
So everytime you see a person in a black hat claiming that this or that is based on Jewish Law………NO, it’s based on their ancient view of what they “think” Jewish Law sould be, and the other 80% of NON-orthodox Jewish peolple disagree with them.

I just want to know why women are subjected to cover themselves?? Mrs Clinton and Ms Tomassen should not have been edited, they are not ultra orthodox anything.

@Anon: Modifying the truth is the same as lying. By editing the photo, Der Tzitung has misrepresented, altered, LIED about who was involved in the incident portrayed therein. They have changed history to match THEIR version. Isn’t that what Moslem terrorists do every day?

If ultra orthodox newspapers have a problem with reporting the facts as they TRULY happen, women and all, then they have no business being in business. And they are no better Al Jazeera, or any rag in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia. They are no better than AP, Reuters, or any leftist publication.

And no, orthodox women don’t wear burkas, and yes, they do go out and work, but if you think that means they aren’t without pressure to conform to certain standards and stay away from certain professions, then you are either completely naive, or in agreement with those practices.

Newspapers – and I use the term so lightly it’s almost floating away – like Der Tzitung, that behave like our enemies, don’t do us any favors. They contribute to the detriment of us all. And if any of the “righteous men” on the staff (oh oh, that term’s going up like a helium balloon) want to know why Mashiach hasn’t come, they can look in the mirror. I’m pretty sure Hashem doesn’t like liars.

So, I guess the hotly anticipated ‘Girls of Der Tzitung’ issue will be a bust.

The reason why she is cut out is because Orthodox papers do not print pictures of women. Duh!

Der Tzitung does not mean “the time;” it means “the newspaper.” “The time” would simply be “Der Tzeit.”
Ultra-Orthodox newspapers generally don’t carry pictures of women.