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?

*AndyWarholsOrange' - how Jesus dying actually saved us question? Yes it probably needs it's own thread. Have I the courage to start it

limited I do understand that it is two different testaments but we are told to follow the bible ( as I saod I am Catholic) but how can we when it contradicts itself? as I also said, it just proves that religion is personal interpretation and it is not fair to force that interpretation or belief on others.

Inkanta I wouldn't bother! There's no sensible answer.

At my Catholic school, it wasn't about being "allowed" to see an image of the crucifixion, it was about being actively encouraged to look at and listen to the details of every wound inflicted on Jesus. The difference between that, and say, a modern pic of a firing squad or GTA or whatever, is that the nuns believed this was good - and necessary - for the children to hear. In their minds, we needed to understand the suffering Jesus went through and feel the horror. Established religion gets a free pass because it means your soul is going to be saved.

'the suffering of Christ on the cross so that we could be forgiven for our sins'

Now that is something else I don't understand. How does it follow that Jesus dying on the cross meant that our sins are forgiven?

and if him dying on the cross basically wiped away our sins then why do our children need to be christened? as that is apparently washing away sin. but how can a baby be a sinner?

To clarify who produces the newsletter

"Parish newsletter, produced by the Anglican Church"

The newsletter covers a number of neighbouring villages under which there are several individual churches. I'd be surprised if an arm of local government would even use the word Easter

For those who sought clarification on this, why does it matter who produced it. The image (once again, that doesn't offend me) is distributed on the basis of its religious context. I fail to see how that excuses the double standards.

A similar issue arises when I hear interviews with some Muslim commentators (some, not most) who claim that we must view the rise of IS in terms of the RELIGIOUS CONTEXT. Once again, how does that make it OK?

I'll answer the question - it isn't ok. It doesn't matter if nobody takes offence just because we've all been subjected to the story so often - that's not the point.

Just because the Easter story is taught in school, doesn't make a graphic image of a murder acceptable. I was forced to go to church until my teens, and images like that actually did scare the crap out of me until I realised that being a good person doesn't have to involve martyrdom. It didn't make me any tougher emotionally either - I've since seen a few dead people and if anything it made it harder to deal with.

I never get why people give it the 'well if you want a secular newsletter why don't YOU do one?'. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. News can still exist without pictures of dead people.

I think we should be aiming to change the perception of death so children come to accept it as a normal part of life rather than a grotesque and terrifying experience.

Whether the OP opts out or not doesn't change that the double standard exists. If anything it should be an opt in thing. I wouldn't appreciate a clip art picture of someone getting a blowjob through my door either, because I want to choose how and when I talk to my child about sex (which is also far more 'normal' than crucifixion!). It's about choice.

Ah ok, so it is the church parish rather than parish council.

But you are right OP, regardless of your views on Jesus / Christianity there is a very noticeable double standard going on. I can't think of any other group who would have free rein to push violent imagery through people's doorways, no matter how culturally significant. Even referring to other religious practices and beliefs - would it be acceptable for pictures of alleged adulterers or blasphemous being stoned? How about enforced infant circumcision? The fact that we are all familiar with the crucifixion scene doesn't make it less violent.

I sought clarification, OP, because lots of posters were suggesting you opt out of receiving a clearly religious newsletter if you object to their imagery, whilst other posters suggested that parish can and does also mean local government.

Tbh, I feel rage when anything with clip art on it descends through my letterbox. Very offensive to my aesthetic sensibilities.

I saw the image from around the age of 3, I am not disturbed as a result. It's a 2D picture which meant nothing to me. At 49 I can rationalise a man dying to save us (as proposed by the Christian faith). at 3 or 4 I couldnt and the images of that time were far more graphic and gory than anything clip art can produce. Meh! Can't be bothered to get stressed over it.

YANBU OP. I am on your side on this one.

I personally don't think there is any need to put unsolicited material through the letterbox that depicts Jesus being crucified, whether that be Church or Local council material.

If people want to look at that fine but don't post it willy nilly through people's doors.

I personally wouldn't be offended [and I really don't think OP is either] but would think it was a bit unnecessary.

I am not Christian and think bible stories are just that, stories. But I respect other people's right to believe if they wish to do so. Just don't push your gruesome religious iconography on me please.

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.

The others get their own exemptions in other areas.. ritual slaughter...

We haven't yet moved on to sending out images of sacrificial lambs at Ramadan yet thankfully, but no reason in theory why the Mosque shouldn't also do a drop off of leaflets with depictions of Abraham's son being replaced with a sheep.

I assume all those saying pictures of a man nailed to a cross are also ok with decapitated sheep and goat pics ?

"CocobearSqueeze" - some Christians like yourself like to see the image of a crucified Jesus. Others like myself are thinking out loud whether it's necessary to have these images everywhere. We are exploring the issue.

How does that follow that MNs are anti-Christ?

Inkanta I'm an atheist so I can't explain it well but the whole shebang is based on God sending his only son to earth to suffer and die for the sins of humanity so we get a pop at getting into heaven.

Makes no sense to me but apparently they built a world religion out of it.

Fatty - newborn babies have original sin according to Christians.

If one of the many Christians on this thread could explain these theological points rather than just saying "because Easter you professionally offended meanie" that would be unlikely refreshing.

Cocobearsqueeze

How does this thread mock Christianity?

"limited I do understand that it is two different testaments but we are told to follow the bible ( as I saod I am Catholic) but how can we when it contradicts itself?"

Because the New Testament supersedes the Old As a Roman Catholic, I am surprised you were encouraged to have much to do with the Old- generally RCs avoid it.

" Let's put it this way - people here always feel the need to take a jibe at Christianity and not so much other religions. Is it a crime now to be Christian?"

Absolutely. Christians are forbidden by law to put their point of view across. And nobody ever has a bad word to say about Muslims, Jews......

Oh, don't be silly.

We got a lot of o t at school, also catholic. Our god was a vengeful one with rivers of blood and so forth, as well as the good Samaritan etc.

Our crucification images were also pretty gory, from what I remember.

I also had trouble reconciling God is good with a lot of o t stories, and I found the Noah's ark story confusing and illogical.

This was at primary school, I left for another school at 8, so it's feelings and thoughts I remember rather than clear stories of who said what when.

Basically the gist I got from my (convent) school was it was all rather frightening and gruesome and scary. Lots of mass murder, torture, blood and death. God was to be feared. That had stayed with me much more than any positive new testament Jesus stuff. Interesting isn't it.

I wasnt encouraged I was more intrigued as to why our old testament is so large compared to the CofE so I have flicked through from time to time. granted I have never read it properly. I cant be doing with that.
I don't get how a baby can be born with sin. that bit I believe is utter crap. (as I said a lot of it is) I understand the theory behind it but just can't accept that it is right.

we obviously covered the whole fear of god crap aswell.

Rc have backtracked on that a bit at least with babies dying before baptism no longer being sent to limbo.