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?

So a Giotto etc are horrendous forms of murder? To be banned - or just banned in magazines.

You have an reasonable argument there. Just the weapon of torture would be sufficient, surely (i.e. the cross). The newsletter people don't really need to ram the point home (sorry for pun).

Personally speaking I would put a fluffy bunny on the front.

I never said that they should be banned, just that it shouldn't be forced on people. and you didn't answer my question. how would you feel if someone posted imagery of a man being beheaded through your door?

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

Yep. That's right.

If a picture of a beheaded man came through the door I would either see who did it and get off the list of bung straight in the recycling.

The answer is to charge for the magazine, put it through the doors of those who subscribe- or are they still not allowed to have a copy of a great work of art?

This thread is mad! It is a church magazine- simply ask not to have it!

OP what image did the parish council or local church really post through your letter box?

Was it something like this? BEWARE. VERY UNPLEASANT VIEWING

or was it something
like this - quite benign?

As the second image is what you sneeringly described as clip art, I guess it might be closer to that than the first one, but you tell me.

If that was the case I don't see how the tinies would be horrified by that rather than their mum for screaming about:

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

Your shouty capitals.

Your sneering about the art work.

It was in your OP.

So what offends you most?

Mehitabel I think maybe you're not getting what kind of a publication this is hope I'm not about to describe something completely wrong the parish magazine doesn't just contain news of upcoming church services and details of who is taking over the church flower arranging, but also adverts from local businesses and information on local events. I think OP has stated that it is free? It's not the same as the paid for, church news only example you are thinking of.
Opting out of the magazine would also mean opting out of getting good local info like who the local thatcher is and when the next school fete is going to be. In these circumstances you are unlikely to opt out even if the violent image on the front seems a bit much.
our parish mag just has a picture of the church on the front and never changes it presumably to avoid this kind of outrage

mehitabel I find it very hard to believe that you would feel nothing upon seeing such imagery. and if that really is the case then I actually feel.quite sad at the level of violence some people are immune to.
each to their own and all that though. I still don't think crucifixion is ok just because of jesus though. but that is just my opinion.

PARISH COUNCILS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHURCH

Those images in your second link are not benign they are pictures of a man hanging on a cross about to die. Many of them show an agonised expression, and blood etc. but I assume maybe your link has gone wrong somehow with those?

Can you really not see that your experience of "Jesus on the cross" imagery as "benign" is everything to do with the fact of lots of exposure, it is simply not a "fact" that these images are "benign" - they show a man nailed to a cross dying. Even without showing the blood that's horrendous.

TalkinPeace I know. There are both in our village. OP confirmed that she was talking about a church mag (Anglican).

I lose the will to live......
Carry on without me.

I know that OP knows it, but lots of city dwellers think that Parish Councils are something like the Vicar of Dibley, rather than local businesses that turn over millions of pounds and employ tens of thousands of people - many of them Mums.

Lol. I couldn't be bothered reading 19 pages, the first two were enough,full of people saying there was a clue in the title, as in parish. They couldn't be more wrong!

As TalkinPeace says, a Parish Council has nothing to do with the church. The clue in the title is the word COUNCIL!

Around here we have the Parish Council newsletter and the local church newsletter. One I would expect Jesus on, the other not.

PomeralLights if I am guessing correctly from the OP's description of 1995 clip art, then the image on the newsletter is an extremely sanitised view of crucifixion.

It's not an accurate view of it.

Some people might take issue with the fact that that method of torture and death had been sanitised and to depict such an atrocity in that way was an obscenity in itself.

They would be unlikely to scream as the OP did about receiving A PICTURE OF A BLEEDING MAN BEING CRUCIFIED THROUGH MY LETTERBOX!?

Because that's what she did.

Of course, someone on the parish council may have a taste for torture porn.

It takes all sorts...

Fair enough PomeralLights.

Personally I don't like getting church magazines full stop, whatever is on the cover. Our local church only deliver it to churchgoers and subscribers.

Of course, someone on the parish council may have a taste for torture porn.
AAAAGGHHH
FFS
THe parish council is NOTHING to do with this CHURCH magazine.

I'm with you OP. Former Catholic here and the images always bothered me. Unfortunately for us we sat by the stations of the cross - when ds was 5 and very disturbed about the thought of pain and suffering let alone the image of it - at Christmas too not even Easter. He demanded to know what 'those people' we're doing to 'that man' and I ended up telling ds the whole Easter story on Christmas.

I don't think it's too much to ask that churches refrain from showing shocking images, true they may be, on something that is going to be put through your letterbox and young children will see it.

I'm Episcopal now and love the fact that there is much more emphasis placed on the image of Christ risen from the dead than the suffering Christ on the cross.

One last word for those who haven't read it - OP confirmed today that it is an Anglican magazine and not the Parish Council.

PilchardPrincess In those clip art pictures the Christ figure is not bleeding, much less being A PICTURE OF A BLEEDING MAN BEING CRUCIFIED THROUGH MY LETTERBOX!?

Those are OP's shouty capitals, not mine.

It is a sanitised depiction of a long and barbarous method of torture and death.

But it is what happened to the person called Jesus Christ, who some but not all of us think of as the son of God.

Many Christians think it is important to remember his suffering, sacrifice and resurrection at this time of year.

As I've said many times, I'm not observant.

But I do think it's important to sometimes think about the sacrifices countless nameless people have made for the sake of peace, love and understanding and Easter seems as good a time as any.

Of course, someone on the parish council may have a taste for torture porn. AAAAGGHHH. FFS. THe parish council is NOTHING to do with this CHURCH magazine.

I mentioned this earlier TalkinPeace It made me go AAARGGH! too.

Would you like me to stroke your brow?

Mehitabel6 I'm not suggesting it should be banned. I'm saying that it is disingenuous to suggest that it's in any way different to any other image depicting a slow and painful death, that the use of it as a symbol for what is supposed to be a celebration is odd, especially when there are better symbols available. Not all Christians use the cross, so clearly this isn't a unique position. And it isn't hard to understand why some people might not want it shoved through their letterbox.

"our parish mag just has a picture of the church on the front and never changes it presumably to avoid this kind of outrage"

Ours has a picture of a local historical feature. I'm guessing it's for the same reason.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed It could be argued that it's disingenuous to say that Christians don't use the cross to display their faith.

Christians use a variety of symbols: a lamb, a fish even a pelican.

But if we were playing Family Fortunes, most people in our survey would say: a cross.