Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think the parish newsletter is not appropriate

755 replies

NikoBellic · 28/03/2015 21:51

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?

OP posts:
fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 11:50

ah that's ok then. I thought they would. I wondered how they could teach that god loves us all and that if you are truly sorry then he will allow you into heaven regardless of sin, but wouldn't let the babies in

SetPhasersTaeMalkie · 29/03/2015 11:57

I think it would help to see the actual clipart that was used.

Otherwise it's quite hard to say.

I would certainly unsubscribe/contact your local church.

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:02

That confused me as well though as surely the answer was what it was and if unbaptised people can't go to heaven then they can't and changing your mind because it looks bad just seemed, well how did they know that they had it wrong all along? Why did they have it wrong?

Between that and the whole noah's ark fiasco you can see why I'm an athiest! I just listened to the stuff and thought, even when very young, this is just nonsense isn't it. I haven't got a spiritual bone in my body unfortunately which is a shame really because people with a belief system tend to be happier apparently. Still you can't force yourself to have faith when you just don't.

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 12:06

of course you can't. as I said I do believe in some form of god but I don't believe the crap the bible trots out. I also believe that all religions are worshipping the same god. Every religion throughout history has had one main god, some have other gods aswell, some have prophets, saints etc. so whats to say that the one main god in every religion isnt the same being? thats just my view on it anyway. I don't get this.whole you are terrible because you are atheist/christian/muslim/jew or whatever. we can choose for ourselves what to believe and we shouldn't try and force others to believe that.

Binkybix · 29/03/2015 12:07

What good is starting a thread mocking Christianity just to make yourself feel good?

Why is questioning a double standard mocking Christianity?

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:14

I think if I were of a spiritual inclination I'd be looking towards paganism (my friend is one) and that is all quite nice, trees and mother earth and gaia type vibe.

DH believes in "something" but can't stand organised religion and he doesn't really know quite what it is he believes in just that there is something more IYSWIM.

Hmmm maybe I should point him at my pagan friend!

The point being that of course it takes all sorts, and there is no right or wrong, but being a spiritual person isn't something you can just be, if you aren't, you can't make yourself. And I have met people with faith who really struggled to understand that.

Gralick · 29/03/2015 12:17

ChilliJeanie, I'm not actually reading this thread but you post about V. Bede inventing the Easter goddess was shortly after mine, and I'm glad I saw it! Thanks! Thanks

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 12:22

exactly. it does take all sorts. but that shouldn't be forced down the throats of people. they should be left to figure out for themselves what they believe or not.
not forced to view horrific images just because its jesus so it must be ok...
really don't see why its ok to shove that at people and tell them this is right.but I don't suppose there is a sensible answer

limitedperiodonly · 29/03/2015 12:27

I'm not a practising Christian but I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church.

Despite not being a person of faith, I find the pure message of Christianity a good design for living. Be nice to others; help the weak; don't engage in violence even under the worst provocation.

What's wrong with that?

I also find the story of Easter and Christ's sacrifice for the whole world moving and uplifting even if I don't believe he was the son of God.

I believe a man called Jesus, existed about 2,000 years ago and was executed by crucifixion in Judea. Some of his followers were too.

I think of it as more of the execution of an enemy of the State by a local representative of the Roman Empire and other vested interests opposed to his radical message of peace, love and understanding and nationhood.

A cult grew up around him, as tends to happen with political martyrs. I concede that this is quite a big one Wink

The image of a crucified man does not upset me and never has. I was the sort of child who was fascinated by saints' knuckle bones in dark chapels.

I also look at footage of people scourging themselves on the Via Dolorosa with the same kind of wonder mixed with incomprehension.

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:29

What I find interesting is how people are utterly inured to the brutality of the image. And sort of totally unaware that they are.

It's a really good example of exposure lessening impact or whatever the fancy term is. Desensitising, that's the one.

I suppose as a non believer when I look at it I see an image of a man who is being tortured to death in the most excrutiating and cruel manner. I don't see something beautiful. Maybe the fact that he "comes back to life" lessens the impact for believers because they know it has a happy ending IYSWIM, but for people not au fait with the story it's just a man nailed to a cross wearing a crown of thorns, covered in blood, who will die shortly of his injuries.

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:31

God, images of crucified people upset me! You know this is still done to people I assume? If you see an image of a man crucified by ISIS does that not upset you at all?

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 12:33

there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the double standards. you personally may not be bothered by the image of christ on the cross but why is it ok for that violent act to be depicted to children who may not have been exposed to that before but not others? why is a man being horribly murdered ok but as has been said, images of a firing squad wouldn't? that was the question. it isn't about the rights and wrongs of religion, it is about the double standards being allowed just because, well, jesus.

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:33

And that's what I mean. I don't see a religious icon, I see a man being tortured to death. That's what it is, after all. And that's kind of the point of the story, that he underwent that suffering for us.

limitedperiodonly · 29/03/2015 12:34

I would say that the not indulging in violence thing is a good ideal but misguided.

Sometimes it is necessary to use force to protect ourselves and others against aggressors.

That's because I don't believe my reward will be in Heaven.

But on the whole I think it's a pretty good message.

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 12:38

he was just a man being tortured, even if he was the son of god it doesn't change the fact that he was a human. and death in such a manner is vile and upsetting for anyone. it isn't ok just because jesus. it is wrong to depict such horrendous forms of punishment. if hanging was still allowed would that be ok?

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 12:41

that's meant to say if hanging was depicted would that be ok? as that was fairly recent in this country
or is it ok to post leaflets with images of beheadings on them?
that is what the OP is saying. why is jesus ok but they are not?

EastMidsMummy · 29/03/2015 12:44

YABU to expect not to see iconic imagery from the major religion of the Western world if you live in the UK. It's just a drawing. Toughen up.

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:50

Maybe there's something around empathy there as well, fatty.

Not sure.

Seems very odd to me.

deliprancer · 29/03/2015 12:51

what about oxfam and the like and their leaflets depicting ACTUAL real people photographed in terrible states of health and dying? Surely they're much worse than clip art?!
YABU - not everything your child sees should be a picture of a fluffy unicorn dancing on a rainbow.

limitedperiodonly · 29/03/2015 12:53

God, images of crucified people upset me! You know this is still done to people I assume?

I should have said that the image of a crucified Christ in a religious context doesn't upset me PilchardPrincess. Sorry, not to be clear.

And yes, I am aware that this method of torturous killing is enjoying a bit of a revival atm to people who won't be revered for 2,000 years or more. Along with other barbarism done in the name of God, the State or gangsterism.

If I were to see those modern images I would experience a range of emotions - horror, disgust, anger and sorrow being among them. If I witnessed it IRL you could probably add fear to that list.

But the image of Christ on the cross doesn't upset me. Neither do some of the more extreme images of his suffering in religious context displayed in some parts of Europe and no doubt other places.

I think there is every argument for images of death, mutilation and destruction done in the name of people's causes being available to wake us up out of complacency.

We don't have to watch them - I would never click on an IS murder of a hostage for instance - but we have to know they exist.

Otherwise we can just turn our backs and pretend they don't exist.

PancakesAndMapleSyrup · 29/03/2015 12:53

We dont get anything like this in ours its produced by someone in the village as the village mag, bi monthly with a page an a half from the vicar etc. Pah crusifixion cant spell it goes along with easter let it go. Never mind perhaps email them asking why this has to be on the front page?

Oh and broadband of anysort dont get me started took 9 months to get a land line put in grrrr.

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:54

I have yet to see an Oxfam campaign leafletted through doors with images of people in the final stages of being tortured to death.

Additionally, I think it's generally accepted that Jesus probably was a real person, isn't it? And that he was really and actually tortured to death?

So is it OK to put images or torture through doors if they are not recent? How recent is not recent?

Or is it because Jesus is apparently a cartoon-like "not real" character, which is pretty insulting to Christians and probably not true anyway?

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 12:54

I think we can agree it is all very strange. and the OP actually said she wasn't offended, just wondering why it is ok?

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:56

So I guess the answer is because people see "religious icon" and not "man being tortured to death".

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 12:56

But of course someone who is not aware of the story will see "man being tortured to death" which is the point the OP makes, why is it OK to put that through people's doors when it wouldn't be if it were a different man being tortured to death.