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:
PilchardPrincess · 29/03/2015 22:48

When I click your link I get a load of images of Jesus on the cross, of various types. Maybe you have fucked the link up? Which I thought you had tbh as your post made no sense which is why I said, I assume your link has gone wrong. So why on earth you are expecting me to comment on something you know I'm not seeing is beyond me.

Also op said image bloody so surely even if you think a picture of a man being crucified is benign if there isn't blood (!) , it doesn't sound like that was the type of image anyway.

Canyouforgiveher · 29/03/2015 22:51

will probably be flamed for this (if anyone reads it) but anyway...

Logically the OP makes complete sense. An image of torture and agonising death shouldn't be looked at lightly and so is not appropriate for the cover of a magazine.

but the arguments here in support of that all seem to be made in a vacuum. As if the UK hasn't been a christian country for centuries, as if people in the UK haven't for centuries gone to churches which depicted the Crucifixion in paintings, stained glass, statues. As if western art hasn't been depicting this for a thousand years and as if it hasn't been at the heart of the british culture for the same length of time. So looked at like that, the picture of the crucifixion on the front of a church magazine isn't anything like a beheading.

I realise UK is now a post-christian society where all religious symbols have reverted back to their non-christian origins, but there is something odd to me to have people act as if the last 1500 years of british history/art/religious focus never happened.

Springtulip · 29/03/2015 23:27

I've heard of some things to get het up about but this tops the lot. Christ died on the cross for us, I don't suppose it was much fun for him. But let's not look at the nasty picture eh and pretend it didn't happen.
If you'd spoke out about images of Islam or any other religion you'd be shot down instantly but as usual anything to do with Christianity is fair game.
Im sure if you think hard enough you'll find far far worse things to get upset about. Show some respect to those who don't have the same beliefs as you.

BigDorrit · 29/03/2015 23:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Springtulip · 29/03/2015 23:41

I really can't be bothered to go looking at your past posts Dorrit, and how ridiculous to say "prove it". So something that can't be proved can't be true?
No point in arguing that one is there.

limitedperiodonly · 30/03/2015 00:19

No, PilchardPrincess I didn't fuck the link up as you so charmingly put it.

If you clink on the link you get a number of images and if you wait for 10 seconds or less you get the main image.

Is your attention span shorter than that?

I don't understand why you didn't get it, but now you mention it, it is really useful for you to have seen the images that OP could have got as opposed to the sanitised clipart ones that supposedly she did because they are a lot bloodier.

And I never said crucifixion is not a prolonged and agonising way to die.

Please don't intimate that I did.

I said it was unlikely to be the image that was posted through OP's door.

However, I do think those graphic images have their place if we are to confront the horrors of the world.

Though probably not in parish newsletters.

Which is what you brought up, didn't you?

DioneTheDiabolist · 30/03/2015 00:38

Canyouforgiveher has hit the nail on the head.

itsbetterthanabox · 30/03/2015 00:51

I was around 8 when I saw something that made me phobic of the image of Christ dying for the rest of my childhood. I still avoid churches as I find the image so distressing. I didn't sleep properly for years. Honestly years. I couldn't look at anything remote cross like. I don't like even writing the actual word.
I dread easter every single year to this day.
I just want you all to know that as much you defend this. I am proof that it can and does impact children. All the op is saying is don't put unsolicited images of torture through her door. If I were her daughter and I'd found that I would have vomited and had a panic attack.
It's not hard. Just treat it as you would any other kind of barbaric image and keep it for those who choose to see it.

BigDorrit · 30/03/2015 01:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 30/03/2015 08:17

If you'd spoke out about images of Islam or any other religion you'd be shot down instantly

^^ This. FWIW I agree there's a lot in religion which can't be proved; it's the difference mentioned here I find interesting

Each to their own of course, but personally I believe there's a lot more to worry about in current cultural/religious practice than some picture of a man being crucified, which may or may not have happened

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 08:23

If you'd spoke out about images of Islam or any other religion you'd be shot down instantly

I honestly don't think this is true. In fact, if someone had been posted a picture of a torturous execution related to a different religion I think there would be MORE outrage, precisely because it's not such a common image.

Please don't state that God died on the cross for me as fact, given the lack of evidence for that.

nochocolateforlentteacake · 30/03/2015 08:32

Stick a note on your door that says 'No junk mail'.

Bikey it was Jesus on the cross, not God. Don't ask about the Holy Ghost though - I never understood where he/she/it comes into the whole thing.

And if you got an equivalent mag from your local mosque then it wouldn't show images of people anyway (totured or otherwise).

Hakluyt · 30/03/2015 08:38

"If you'd spoke out about images of Islam or any other religion you'd be shot down instantly"

Hmm. Some Muslims tend to get in first when it come to objecting to images of the prophet............

It is very odd, this insistence by Christians that they are uniquely persecuted in this country.

fattymcfatfat · 30/03/2015 08:52

fwiw I don't think an image from any religion should be forced onto someone who may not share the same beliefs.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 08:54

Sorry - I meant Jesus not God, obviously!

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 09:23

I won't deny my beliefs and faith because you don't want me to. Why should it bother you anyway. I have never been one to force religion down anyone's throat but I certainly won't be made to feel ashamed of it. Non believers are very vocal on here so it should work both ways. Many state categorically that there is no God and nobody says a word. (They have no proof that there isn't).So I am entitled to state catagorically that I believe there is.

fattymcfatfat · 30/03/2015 09:26

of course you are and fwiw I am a believer myself. I just don't think we should be forcefully showing such horrific images to people just because its jesus so that makes it ok. no it is still an image of murder and brutality

fattymcfatfat · 30/03/2015 09:27

ffs. of course you aren't expected to deny your beliefs. stupid phone wiping half of my post

Hakluyt · 30/03/2015 09:30

"So I am entitled to state catagorically that I believe there is."

Of course you are- who's stopping you?

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 09:34

See, this is a perfect example of someone demanding respect for their religious beliefs but offering none for others.

No where have I asked you to deny your faith, and nowhere have I said you should be ashamed of it.

I think you'll find that if people state as fact there there's no God they certainly do get pulled up on it (with accusations of people being rude etc etc) despite the lack of evidence and clear contradictions pointing in the direction of there not bring a god, certainly in the Abrahamic sense.

It seems uneccessary and inflammatory to have made the statements you did to this thread, but it's of course your right to do that if you want.

Hakluyt · 30/03/2015 09:40

Mind you, if I state categorically that there is no God, I am accused of being rude and insensitive to people who might draw comfort from their beliefs......

Hakluyt · 30/03/2015 09:41

Oops- cross post- sorry.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 09:51

And there is a difference between saying 'Jesus died for our sins' as a fact and saying that you categorically believe in God. One is stated as fact, the other as belief.

For what it's worth I never used to care if people added 'I believe' to a statement but it's precisely because I've seen so many atheists being pulled up for stating God doesn't exist that I now think it's only fair that theists are asked to do the same, particularly as the lack of evidence and logic (for Abrahamic God) does point in direction of no God. I understand though that faith is just that - it's not based on evidence and I don't care either way if you personally have that faith or not.

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 09:57

Good heavens, when you think of all the terrible sights and images in this day and age that children are exposed to, there are things on the news these days that give me nightmares. There are horrible things going on right now in the name of religion that years ago it wouldn't have been possible to see but now we have everything in all it's horrid glory streamed into our living rooms every day of the week. But out of all the horrible things that we worry could upset our children we decide it's the image of Christ dying on the cross on a leaflet... that will disturb our children the most. How unbelievably petty.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 10:04

You've spectacularly missed the point the OP was making.

As I've said before I can't really get too het up about a clip art picture of this, although logically the OP is right.

It's when people with the views that you have chip in with the logic of 'well I believe it so it's ok, but it wouldn't be ok if it was for something else' that I do start thinking maybe the OP was making a worthwhile point after all.

But I don't want to start looking for offence on purpose or to develop my own persecution complex so maybe I should back away now.

I have bad form for managing this though!

Swipe left for the next trending thread