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?

Spring - one poster earlier on did say that she freaked out as a child after seeing a crucifixion picture, so a small proportion of people may be offended/upset. But on the flip side, some people get spooked by clowns/spiders so you could equally say that zoos/circuses should be careful what they put on their leaflets.

And you're entitled to your own opinions, but please don't state that he died for "us" - you may believe it but I most certainly don't so please don't use language like that

And it's not the same at all because I never stated as fact that children do not get traumatised by pictures of Jews in WW2.

Now, I do agree that the whole debate about whether or not children get scared of it is an unhelpful tangent to the actual point, but I think it's inportant that people don't state things as facts that can be disproved.

FGS YAB Completely U.

Getting back to the pigs, it's been shown many times on TV in full colour, before the water shed,on cookery programmes even......of a pig having its throat slit. You can't get more graphic than that.
Queenbean
Please don't use language like that??
I'm sorry but I am perfectly entitled to use "language like that".
I'm didn't realise you could be so easily offended. It must be hard to get through life for you.

Those images are factual though, 100% factual, so there's the first big difference. Secondly, they aren't being placed on peoples doormats. Thirdly, unless you were reading some particularly gruesome history books when you were at school, then as far as I remember, they don't actually contain pictures of murder victims while they are being murdered- which is essentially what Christ on a cross is. They put undeniably horrid pictures of people in horrible situations, and of course the implication is that they probably did go on to die, which is of course horrific, but by comparison, why can't the parish newsletter just contain an image of the cross- the implication is the same, but the image is much less shocking.

Besides, that's not actually the point. The point is the double standard, that if you put a similarly gruesome picture through someones door unsolicited, then there would be serious repercussions for doing so. You can't dismiss the hypothetical pig analogy just because it doesn't fit your argument.

Coukd you answer my question now?

SpringTulip, that's a very patronising and passive aggressive way to reply. I'm not easily offended and thanks for your concern, but I don't find it "hard to get through life"

I'm simply asking for the same respect that you're asking for. I'm asking you not to make wide-sweeping statements about your beliefs and applying them to everyone. I, and many others, do not believe them to be true so I'm asking you not to make those comments on my behalf.

Your reply is rude and unnecessary and your attitude doesn't do much to back up what are your supposed points.

Wow this thread digressed all over the place.

I think this is a good thread in that now I am questioning what I think about being constantly subject to images of Jesus on the cross. I have been conditioned since a child to think these images are all part and parcel of being a Christian, and that we HAVE to look at them. Now I'm not so sure. It's only a little change in my way of thinking but quite a significant step.

Queenbean
I first responded to your post when you said "No there isn't a God*
You could so easily have said "well I don't believe in God*
But you said it that way purposely, a way in which I saw it as passive aggressive. You the went on to say "please don't use language like that"
Implying that I was being offensive and insulting. I didn't mean to offend you but I really would do think it must be hard to get through life if something like that offends you. There must be far far worse.
Binkybix
If a clip art image of the crucifixion is so upsetting and too graphic for childrens eyes then really they should never be allowed in a church.

springtulip I haven't said anywhere "no there isn't a god", you must be confusing me with another poster

There are bastards crucifying people today, right now.

This is what people should be getting all kicker-twisty about, not "Won't somenbody please think of the children!" over a piece of crappy clipart.

limitedperiodonly those links are exactly the same - it doesn't work on a mobile device to link to the specific image in the same way it does on a desktop.

QueenBean Thanks for the explanation and for not telling me I'd fucked it up. I don't use a mobile device to access MN so wouldn't know.

It's a clipart picture of a mainstream image which is central to one of the world's major religions. If you find that to be ramming it to people then I guess you avoid cultural activities such as visiting art galleries, important churches or even watching Ben-Hur on the telly every Easter.

It certainly doesn't depict a 'bleeding man' and neither did any of the other clipart images of Christ I found. So I found that rather hysterical of the OP, unless the parish newsletter people had found something else.

Perhaps she can return and post the image she found so shocking.

Springtulip:

Children are about to celebrate Easter, it won't do them any harm to see what Easter is all about. They might decide in the future that they don't believe any of it, but that's for them to decide. To deny them that right by not telling them is wrong.

Are you seriously one of those Christians that think other people's children should be brought up within the Christian religion 'just to be safe' and that that's all fine and dandy because they can always decide it's bollocks later on?

It's ridiculous to think therefore that a parish news letter with a picture of Christ on the cross will do any child any upset. Apart from anything else you would be doing a child a disservice if you painted the past in a rose tinted hue.

People like you make me angry.

Sorry queenbean no you didn't actually say that , but you did say "no he didn't" in answer to "Jesus died on the cross for us", you could have said "well I don't believe he did" but you said it in a very factual way.
You mentioned that it isn't appropiate to put leaflets through doors, but really, what does it matter in what context "disturbing" images may be seen by children. They're going to see them come what may, either in history books, in a church< in very graphic detail>, or on the television.
At around 5 o'clock every day, with no warning whatsoever graphic images of starving children are flashed onto television sets round the country, timed to coincide with people eating. Children see it, I haven't heard of any trauma yet caused by this (and this is going on right now) Yet people are getting in a strop over a parish newsletter with a clip art image of the crucifixion, an event that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago. It's petty and nit picking and imo nothing to get in a lather about.

I've just come home to found now one but two offensive missives shoved through my letterbox.

2 election leaflets, one conservative, one labour. Complete with gurning photos of bloody politicians.

Now that's offensive. Read, put in the recycling bin, and I imagine I can just about manage to get on with the rest of my day without too much trauma.

You must be very easily angered then Smilas
People like you don't make me angry, you just puzzle me.

If a clip art image of the crucifixion is so upsetting and too graphic for childrens eyes then really they should never be allowed in a church

As I said, whether or not children find it upsetting isn't really the point here. It's the double standards. I just couldn't leave what you stated as a fact about children not getting upset by it unchallenged, given the inaccuracy of it.

Are you going to answer my question? The reason I ask is because that will tease out whether you think it's fine for all pictures of execution to be posted as long as a group of people believe it's important, or whether you think it's ok for pictures relevant to your particular brand of belief.

I agree it was a good OP inkanta I've never been bothered about this before and prob still wouldn't if I got a leaflet through my door, but questioning it has been an interesting exercise.

I'm just reading in the paper (Times not Mail) that sainsbos and the coop won't stock Easter eggs (I think its fair trade) that have a little booklet about the whole 'what's easter all about then'. I think I've seen them (tradecraft sell them) and they are aimed at children. Apparently they are not 'credible'.

Years ago on the way to my daughters nursery we used to walk past a Jesus van with a gory realistic scene of Christ in agony with blood and gore everywhere. It was life size and painted on the side of the van and used to scare the shit out of my two year old daughter.

I think it was probably worse than the clip art pic but i wouldn't want that thru the door either tbh. Just put up a sign up saying no religious material please/take away menus & mini cab cards only please?

Binkybix - yeah.

I desperate for OP to send a clip art image of a crusified Santa!