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?

Yep, Santa nailed to cross is making me snort.

This is a good thread because it's made me think.

I have always assumed that I have to be subject to lots of images of Jesus on the cross - because I am a Christian. I don't like looking at those images though. Are they really necessary?

I think in context to the story and wanting to be a part of that religion then perhaps we should have some form of imagery as it is supposed to be shocking and vile and to make us think...about what im not entirely sure, I don't see how jesus dying actually saved us but thats just me.
as for the images being thrown around by religious groups and being told that it is ok because, well, jebus. then no. thats not right. no one has the right to tell another human what to believe or what is ok. if that makes sense. not had a lot of sleep so if it doesn't blame that

Sadly the crucified Santa does not survive a quick Snopes check....

Some types of Christianity has always been quite keen on sado masochistic imagery. Maybe something to do with the emphasis on atonement.

"OMG I'm so tired of people like you OP"

What, people who don't agree with you? Tiresome, arent't they!

a lot of religion does the same thing. as a Catholic I was told.to be tolerant of others but an eye for an eye...that has always made me

but I think any religion should be free for the individual to interpret as they see fit. I don't think it is right that any religion is forced onto people as absolutely this is correct and what you say is bad! etc.

To be honest, i'm not sure why such a gruesome image is so important anyway- if papers printed depictions of murder victims, they'd be massively called out on it, people would go mad, and if you looked at the image you'd be called a 'tragedy tourist' or something. It is possible to recount the easter story and celebrate easter without these images, it's just because it's been going on so long that we accept it and are expected to accept it.

It's the church magazine! Easter is a big church festival. If you don't like it ask not to have it delivered

FFS it may very well not be the church magazine.

FFS just tell them you don't want it. End of story.

In a world so stressful I cannot get excited about religious imagery, I just can't.

As for Jesus being real or not, I can't get excited about that one either, I personal,y bi he existed and was the worlds first socialist (allegedly) and he preached love. Fine by me as is someone saying "I don't believe in all that".

I don't necessarily "believe in all that" either but goodness knows there is more in life to get stressed over, there really is.

Cocobear, in such of people missing point of this thread. You just said, and I'm paraphrasing somewhat, "c'mon, it's the church"

You did so in bold font

And lo she proved the point

Too late Coco, the OP's DC have already seen it. And they'll see it in school next week too. It's quite a disturbing image for a child but it's ok because it's Jesus.

I think the imagery should be used more in a historical context. as in the history of the religion. I think that may be why it is used. thats how I see it. it is the same as the jews being brutally tortured by the Nazis. horrendous and heartbreaking but needs to be shown as part of history. just as jesus/crucifixion is part of the churches history. it should be taught in church/faith schools but not forced onto others. (obviously there is no denying the horrors of ww2 but whos to say in a couple thousand years they won't argue about that?)

Show the kids a picture of a man nailed bleeding to a cross accompanied by an incomprehensible explanation, tell them a story about a loving supernatural being deliberately wiping out almost every living thing on the planet because they didn't do as they were told, and you'll be glad of the chocolate eggs to cheer them up and stop the crying.

I also object to the sexualised images all around us, and full blown Annabelle posters on the Tube which I cannot even avoid.....why pick on an Easter image? To paraphrase OP, is it because it is Jesus?

I have never heard of, let alone seen, an Easter parade through a village or town centre.

This proves what I have always suspected, which is that I live in a very non-religious part of the country, which delights me.

Maybe a third to a half of our primary schools are CofE, but they all have normal council imposed entry criteria, no religious ones. There are barely any religious secondary schools (maybe 2 Catholic ones).

I know about 5 people who go to church in my entire circle of friends, acquaintances and family. Though I work in a school and there are, of course, practising Muslims and a few Jws.

I agree entirely with the argument that the country as a whole, however, is awash with double standards when it comes to religion.

And would quite like the OP to clarify if it's the parish council magazine (which is nothing to do with the church) or the church parish one, just in the interests of full disclosure!

The thing is though, that Christians won't see it as a violent image. They see it as an ultimate act of love. They believe Jesus laid down his life, suffering horrendously, so that we might be reconciled with God and once again be in a true relationship with Him. As the old story goes, 'how much do you love me', I asked Jesus. 'This much', he said, and he opened His arms and died.

Some of the responses on this thread!

I would be embarrassed if I'd reached adulthood with the same level of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

1. the OP is not offended
2. The newsletter is not necessarily a church one
3. The OP speculated why it was acceptable for one gruesome violent image to be distributed widely so that children could see it and not others eg JfK assassination

That is an interesting question which no one has answered. Why is the crucifixion necessary to Easter iconography when the last supper or the resurrection or carrying the cross would be just as acceptable?

An analogy would be the centenary of WWI - we all were able to commemorate the violent and pointless deaths of 20 million people without every magazine cover showing mustard gas attacks or bayoneted corpses.

fatty. Christianity teaches its followers to turn the other cheek.

I know that millions of people calling themselves Christians have failed to do that and millions more will continue to. But the message is there in the New Testament if you choose to read it.

An eye for an eye is in the Old Testament.

It's really not that confusing.

"I also object to the sexualised images all around us, and full blown Annabelle posters on the Tube which I cannot even avoid.....why pick on an Easter image? To paraphrase OP, is it because it is Jesus?"

Er- because that was the particular image that disturbed the OP on this particular occasion? I never understand the "You're unreasonable to be concerned about this thing because there is also that thing" attitude.

Inkanta I think that question needs its own thread Apparently, it's do do with us all (including newborn babies) being 'tainted' with 'original sin' which comes from Adam and Eve eating the apple.
Don't get why that's so hard to understand, sounds perfectly logical to me

I would be embarrassed if I'd reached adulthood with the same level of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

Indeed.

Anyway I think it's pretty clear why they use the image of the crucifixion and not the last supper. The crucifixion image is threatening and reminding everyone to keep in line.

"Christians won't see it as a violent image"

1. Many Christians do because that's the whole point - the suffering of Christ on the cross so that we could be forgiven for our sins

1. If you don't see the image of someone being tortured to death* as violent then maybe you need to look at your own conscience

*in a real way that happened to real people regardless of your opinion on the existence of Christ

St Valentine was executed in a horrible way apparently. I wonder if we should leaflet households in early February showing a bloody image of his gruesome murder as a lead up to Valentine's day

Just noticed this "why does religion get special dispensation?"

Religion doesn't. Imagine the outcry if a mosque sent out similar leaflets.

Christianity does. Because privilege.