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?

With respect, limitedperiodonly, nowhere have I said anything about whether or not Britain is a Christian country, nor have I stated a like or dislike of whether it is or not. You don't seem to be following the discussion.

At least BigDorrit is here to keep me sane. I'm going to give it up as a bad job now.

Springtulips - you have my every sympathy, it does seem as if you have strayed into a parallel universe. Take heart that most people don't respond to this sort of thread - they simply bin what they don't want.
When you get Hakluyt condescendingly treating you like a toddler, as of 10.04 this morning , then you know you must have some good points.
They are very good at bullying tactics - as used by BigDorrit in 'do run along '- and then say it is a debate rather than the worst of the playground!

Wow, my original thread really has disappeared.

So are we now saying the Henry VIII founded Britain!?

Churches in the UK were built on pre existing places of worship : Christianity piggy backed on what was here before.

I have no idea but can't understand how you can have denial that the country is Christian- historically and culturally.

So what would all the Secularists / Atheists like? Some kind of act similar to the Reformation, where all depictions of the Saints were defaced?

Whilst my Christian beliefs are not dependent on the presence of iconography, getting rid of all public displays depicting the crucifixion would be quite an undertaking. One which would have implications across every religious belief system present. I think somehow it would make our country a bit less free, making it somewhere where religious artistic expression were not allowed. Not forgetting non religious artistic expression...art itself is often quite graphic and challenging, look in any art gallery.

So what are people proposing? What is it that actually offends? The images or Christian belief itself?

Not founded - but it is historically and culturally Christian.

Apparently you can go to an art gallery but putting a print of a Raphael through a letter box is no different than putting a photo of present day torture through! Although I am not clear if it is OK if you pay for the magazine.

I think you could make an argument that England as a country was founded on Christian lines as it emerged from the union of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumberland under Christian rulers, displacing the previous pagan Danes.

Mehitabel- springtulip said-

"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."

So I pointed out that she was making things up. Because nobody had said anything of the sort anywhere else on the thread!

I expect you could make all sorts of arguments, BarbarianMum, but we haven't actually reached the point of actually constructing arguments instead of stating things and saying 'it's a fact!' 'what exactly is it that is a fact, according to you?' and 'I can't believe you don't know this!' 'ok, that's all well and good, but what is it exactly you think you are claiming and where is your evidence?' and 'you're being goady'. And it is precisely that that is the problem.

"I have no idea but can't understand how you can have denial that the country is Christian- historically and culturally."

Nobody is denying it!

As I said in my post of sometime or other, I suspect it's a semantic point. But it is an important one, saying Britain was founded on Christiantiy denies enormous parts of our history and heritage.

Not at all BigD, in answer to your question.

I was just contemplating the implications of what people were saying re. religious iconography.

So how far would you take any degree of censorship of Christian iconography, BigD?

Googling - it seems to be 10th century when you could first call it Christian ( although there were plenty before that) and the Normans cemented the power of the church.
OP seemed bothered by her child seeing the clip art. No one has responded to me saying that the majority of children will have had the Easter story at school anyway- although many won't have thought it worth a mention.
It was the way you pointed it out Hak - the condescending way that you make people out to be idiots is irritating. You could have stuck to something like 'that isn't true'.

Come on, Britain is older than 600...

And ONCE AGAIN

Not offended by image of the crucifixion, rather irked by church impunity to distribute image (regardless of quality) of act of torture/execution unsolicited through my letterbox while great offence is taken to far more mild images. Nigel Farrage and his breastfeeding mothers, the word "shit" being a post-watershed word, or any other number of double standards.

I don't want to ban- I don't agree with censorship. But a picture of the crucifixion by a great artist is hardly like a photo of torture.

I would object if my children were shown graphic pictures while being taught about the Easter story in school too.

But that is only part of the the thread. The main point is an organisation is allowed to use images that might not be considered appropriate because it is a Christian orgwnisation. The question is should the same standards apply universally.

I'm not thinking of proposing any new bans, at the moment BigD.

Although I am very sensitive regarding any graphic depiction of violence, this is balanced by an acknowledgment to deny existence of suffering, altogether, would be equally wrong. Images Of suffering are disturbing and hard to stomach, for a reason, feeling disturbed by certain images is important. I cannot look easily at any images of war or suffering but this is the right way to be IMO.

OP wants censorship- she wants the church magazine to her specifications- but she hasn't offered to do the work and take it over! She wants to tell others how to do it so that it is acceptable to her.
I was told specifically that it wasn't appropriate to put any pictures of the crucifixion by a great artist, in a church magazine. This seems very odd to me and great censorship if you can only view them in art galleries.

I think the whole problem would be solved if they charged for the magazine and you only got it if you paid.