Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 19:05

I'm not comfortable with a romanticised version of such a horrible death

You think you can 'Romanticise' it? Hmm

I thought the OP didn't like it because it was too graphic.

(trying to imagine how you can possibly romanticise nailing to a cross Confused

soverylucky · 29/03/2015 19:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 29/03/2015 19:23

I think it is romanticised. The narrative is (or was when I attended a Catholic school) 'yes, Jesus died a horrible death, and he was tortured and humiliated beforehand, but it's okay because he came back to life a couple of days later and anyway, he did it all for us.' He is depicted as a glorious martyr, not some poor sod who spent the last days of his life in agony.

Fair enough if you disagree, but that is my opinion.

Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 19:27

Saskia In that case I really don't know what OP is complaining about!!!

There you are OP-not only is it 20yr old clip art but it is 'romanticised'!

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 29/03/2015 19:38

What I'm saying is not contrary to what the OP said. Quite the opposite. Showing gruesome images is one thing, to show gruesome images in a romanticised context is, in my opinion, vile. And the fact that this is being done as part of a celebration, at a time when real people are being killed in this way is, frankly, repellent. Christians can and should celebrate Easter, but I'd think representations of the resurrection or ascension would be more appropriate.

Original poster
NikoBellic · 29/03/2015 20:24

As the OP I decided to step back from this a little as things had all gotten a little equiminical...

Once again, to try and return to the original point and to clarify for any latecomers who have been bogged down in the last 18 pages...

The image itself does not offended me, I personally do not view it as gruesome. The point was that why is it OK for the church to post execution imagery through my door but not for anyone else. That is the point that offends me

OP posts:
Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 20:44

Has anyone else tried posting that sort of material that is over 2000yrs old? I don't see why they couldn't. The church can do it because it is mainstream. If you were to ban it you would have to tear down crusifixes in churches, destroy works of art, paint over ceilings, burn books etc- an utter tragedy.Or are you allowed to visit art galleries as long as you don't print the pictures and put in magazines?

Otters2 · 29/03/2015 20:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hakluyt · 29/03/2015 20:47

Mehitabel- what on earth are you talking another?

Hakluyt · 29/03/2015 20:48

Talking about, I mean!

Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 20:54

Very clear, Hakluyt - I do wish that you wouldn't use every opportunity to portray me as an idiot.
I assume that it is OK to go to the National Gallery and view The Crucifixion by Raphael? Or are you supposed to destroy works of art? If you can why is is wrong to print it in a church magazine and put it through the doors of those that want it? Why is it being compared to present day execution imagery?

PourMyselfACupOfAmbition · 29/03/2015 20:54

Are you joking?

Bin the magazine.

Get a fucking grip.

(I'm aware I should say something a bit more engaging but I'm honesty bloody speechless. Do you know what, I'm really pissed off that people who dare to portray the image of Mohammed get massacred. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, we AlLhave a right to express our views.)

Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 20:57

To go back to my original question - do you want to paint over church ceilings in Rome , take art works out of galleries, burn offending books - or is it all OK as long as it isn't reproduced in magazines and put through doors? (Bearing in mind it is a church magazine and you don't have to have it)

Hakluyt · 29/03/2015 21:05

Surely it's the person who doesn't understand who's the idiot?

But if you genuinely don't understand the difference between an image put throught your letterbox and images you choose to go and look at then just maybe you might need to think a little more.

But I know you do. Not sure what game you're playing, or why. Very odd.

PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 21:06

The press in the UK do avoid showing disturbing imagery generally there are a host of codes around gratuitousness etc.

I would think that the image of someone being crucified and on the verge of death and with visible wounds etc - would mean that a TV prog for example would give a warning before showing it.

I really don't see how one image of a man being crucified after being tortured is different to another. It is a picture of what it is. When I look at an image of the crucifixion in an art gallery or on the internet or in a church I see an image of a man who is about to die, having undergone torture, and is nailed to a cross through his hands.

There is simply no argument that this is not a disturbing image. Of course it is. Just because some people are inured to it (for understandable reasons) doesn't change the fact of what it is.

I agree with the OP anyway.

BigDorrit · 29/03/2015 21:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 21:08

So you can go and view it- but you can't copy it and put it through a letterbox in a parish magazine?

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 21:09

exactly because one is a choice you make yourself. the other is being forced on you.

Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 21:12

It isn't being forced- she has never told them she doesn't want it. If she does they will respect her choice.

limitedperiodonly · 29/03/2015 21:12

As the OP I decided to step back from this a little as things had all gotten a little equiminical

How very gracious of you

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 21:15

but it should be opt in not opt out as not everyone has the same beliefs. if she had opted In then she couldn't complain.

Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 21:21

I agree that it would be better to charge like most places. However since it is free it is really up to the person to just ask not to have it- very simple.

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 21:25

no one is disputing that it is simple not to recieve. just wonder why it is ok to depict such horrendous forms of murder on something and then just shove it through someones letterbox, but it wouldn't be ok, for example, to show the image (even a clipart one) of someone being beheaded

Mehitabel6 · 29/03/2015 21:26

I get lots of leaflets through the door- pizza etc- and I just stick them in recycling without reading. If I felt strongly I would just get a little notice saying no circulars etc- very easy.

fattymcfatfat · 29/03/2015 21:28

yes of course, but how would you feel if someone put a leaflet containing an image of a man being beheaded through your door?
and why is the crucifixion ok because it is jesus? (even though that is a brutal form of murder)