To think the parish newsletter is not appropriate

[NikoBellic]

I'm not talking about the notices regarding the horticultural society, nor am I referring to the village "300 Club", or Gwen's amazing contribution to the village hall this month...

...I realise that unless you live in a rural area, much like fibre broadband, you won't get this...

Each month the parish council post a newsletter through my front door. A quaint little wedge of folded paper with some useful information on local gas safe engineers and who is raising what for which charity, interspersed with reminders to pick up dog poo. The outer cover is usually a lot quality 1995 clip art file along religious lines, printed onto coloured paper of some sort. This month, for the start of spring and the Easter period, its a sort of yellow. Its the cover that I'm not completely comfortable with...

We always hear, particularly from the type of person who lives in a village and reads the parish newsletter, that children should not be subjected to images of violence, sex, and general "bad stuff"...

SO WHY IS OK TO POST A PICTURE OF A BLEEDING MAN BEING CRUCIFIED THROUGH MY LETTERBOX!? (Even if it is in 1995 clip art form).

If I were to post an image of a man being hung through someone's front door I'd have to face, at the very least, a police caution. Seems like double standards from where I'm sat.

In an area where Nigel Farage gets a pat on the back (a man who is offended by seeing a breastfeeding mother in a pub...) why does religion get special dispensation?

Is it OK because its, you know, Jesus?

Am I being unreasonable?

Fine

Not fine?

Many people mistakenly believe that Parish Councils are connected to the Church - probably because meetings are often held in local village halls adjacent to the Church and because the type of people involved in running Parish Councils are often the same people involved in running the Church and other local organisations and groups. But they are - and should be - completely separate.

After the first time - ask them not to.
It is the same with TV - if you don't like it switch off- don't do a Mary Whitehouse and try and switch it off for everyone.

As others have said, if it's issued by the parish council, then it's nothing to do with the church. It's the lowest tier of local government.

That said, I think it's a wholly appropriate image for the Easter edition. I'm not a practising Christian btw.

My friend, who was Jewish, worked in a jewellers. Whenever people came in looking for crosses, she always asked them if the wanted a plain one or 'one with a little chap on it.'

She was having a laugh but she used to act very innocent. That didn't offend me.

Perhaps OP needs to find out exactly who produces it. Perhaps she could write to the parish council with her views and see what the general views are. I would be against her, I don't like censorship .

So which other violent images would be relevant to the church in March/April?

A picture of JC praying alone in the Garden? Entering the city on an ass? The Last Supper? Women standing at the opened tomb? JC speaking to the Apostles? JC ascending into the heavens? The story of Easter has lots of imagary that is joyous and uplifting, rather than gory.

For that matter, spring flowers, baby animals and birds, gardening scenes, happy children playing out in wellies would also indicateSpring, if this is a governmental parish rather than a church one.

You do know that the easter bunny is fake right? Easter is about jesus. He was crucified.whether you believe in resurrection, it is historical fact that jesus existed and was killed. Deal with it.

I've just though of a good one, dear to many mumsnetter's hearts. Imagine a parish magazine with a lovely picture of the Nativity on it, and the caption "Celebrate the true meaning of Christmas-Father Christmas does not exist"

Sobering to think that many people would be up in arms about their child seeing that, but are fine about the crown of thorns or the five wounds............

The Easter bunny is fake?! How dare you! She existed just as much as Jesus did. I have just as much verifiable evidence as you do.

Very good point Hakylut!

Is it just me, or has anyone else wondered if there'd been a timeslip and it was April the first??

So we just have 'nice' parts...............

"You do know that the easter bunny is fake right? Easter is about jesus. He was crucified.whether you believe in resurrection, it is historical fact that jesus existed and was killed. Deal with it."

"Sits on hands to stop herself getting into the historic debate - again"

Actually, if I were a Christian I would go for the empty tomb as my image of choice to represent Easter- that is rather the point. Loads of people were executed.........

Oh, and for what it's worth, I think limitedperiod's jeweller friend was being extraordinarily offensive......

After the first time - ask them not to. It is the same with TV - if you don't like it switch off- don't do a Mary Whitehouse and try and switch it off for everyone.

Yeah OP, leave the Christians alone and stop trying to tell them what to do! Oh, the irony.

Christians do like a bit of censorship themselves

Do you really hakluyt? Oh.

Good morning all, I've finally read through the new replies.

There seems to be a huge amount of point missing going on. Please let me clarify...

1. I am not offended by the image

1. I am not offended by same sex relationships or use of contraception

The question was, am I bring unreasonable to question why the church gets special dispensation to post images of death through peoples letterboxes.

When the word "shit" is censored on TV before 9pm, where violent themes and images are accompanied by a warning, why are the church allowed to freely post the image of a dying/dead man through my door.

I am not a fan of censorship, I'm happy to get the newsletter, the complaint is about double standards.

Based on both the responses in favour and not I think I may have been proven right - those in favour agree, those not have almost without exception said, "it's a church image so of course it is OK".

I think I can leave this now and get back to work!

What is there not to understand about it being a church magazine and she doesn't have to have it?

What is there not to understand about the fact it might not be a church magazine?!

I think you should do a secular magazine and think of all manner of gruesome images the are relevant to that time of year. I would be intrigued by the reactions you got.

After the first time......

But their belief in Father Christmas has been destroyed forever.....

Yawn!

Jesus was real, lots of written references to him (ancient texts and stuff), lots of argument about who he was though and equally as many about how the Crucifixion took place, the JWs say it wasn't on a cross for example.
The reference is that he apparently died for all of us, Easter celebrates his death and resurrection. The image of the crucifixion is everywhere, I'd be amazed if your child hasn't already seen it previously.

If you don't want religious stuff through your door just tell the parish council and they will take you off the mailing list, end of story.

This is a non problem compared with the stuff your child WILL be exposed to and see once he/she starts watching videos with school friends. I won't have GTA in the house but I know for a fact that DS has seen the videos as his friends love the bloody game and I am the worst mother in the world for not getting him the game.

The crucifixion I can't get excited about, DS has asked, I've explained that it's what some people believe but others don't.

"Jesus was real, lots of written references to him (ancient texts and stuff),"

This reminds me of when my DB was in Japan at Christmas and one of the shops had done a Christmas 'display' for the Westeners. Unfortunately, they got it slightly wrong. They had a lovely jovial looking Santa complete with reindeers. However, Santa was nailed to a cross.
OP, I've never really thought about it before but I agree with you.

I never understood that line, 'he died for all of us' and still don't understand it.

This whole thread does illustrate a serious point, though.

People of faith often say "oh, stop making a fuss- a little bit of religion never hurt anyone- deal with it"

It's amazing how quick some are to object, however, if they are expected to "deal with" a little bit of somebody else's faith, or a little bit of atheism.

Lol at Santa nailed to a cross