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?

Hak but stylalised artistic impressions of violence are common place in art, along with not so stylalised ones.

War photography is also common place, as are other images of suffering (famines, animal cruelty).

New censorship would have to take place for the OP's situation not to happen.

We just had a line drawing of 3 empty crosses on a hill this month.Depicting Jesus on the cross is more a catholic thing isn't it?
I think YANBU , the whole criucifixEon thing scares the bejesus out of me , even as an adult.

My child is familiar with the crucifix, BigD.

'So how far would you take any degree of censorship of Christian iconography'

Well we were exploring this issue - it was an exploration of ideas more than coming to conclusions as such. It was a relatively gentle discussion. Seems to have got derailed a few times with folk coming on here making big statements and calling them facts, and then having an argument about it a while, flouncing off, taking their bat and ball home, and then its back to as we were - talking about the cruxifiction images.

All sorts of unsolicited stuff comes through my letterbox - I simply put it in the recycling box. I can't think why I have spent days writing about it- most especially since it is hardly going to change anything for OP!

I bet most people have no idea what their DCs were shown in school. If the children didn't mention it they would assume it hadn't been done.

"OP wants censorship- she wants the church magazine to her specifications- but she hasn't offered to do the work and take it over!"

No she doesn't. She wants the church magazine to follow the same standards as any other publication which is put unsolicited through letterboxes.

Imo YABU - It is a familiar image and I don't remember myself or any of my friends/family being upset by the image.
It was Catholic Ireland, we were used to it!

First of all I think I need to spell Crucifixion right!

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

I would let my child see a crucifix and have, BigD. It is an image if violence and suffering, so is disturbing - but it is also common place in Christian religious iconography and the crucifixion is a central part of Christian belief and I do not deny my child exposure.

Tbh when I was young I was naive, I could not fully understand how actual death by crucifixion actually worked. The nails I understood would be painful. But you might not notice the nails on a crucifix.

Fairy tales frightened me more, Hansel and Gretal was terryfying. A witch was going to kill and eat them and then the children murdered her by putting her in the oven. A wolf actually ate Red Riding Hood, which was then cut open for her to emerge. Axes, wolves and woodcutters were stuff of my nightmares. Burning Guy Fawkes also terrified me, as did Hangmen (there was a coin operated model of a gallows in a local museum.) Oranges and Lemons and the axeman to cut off your head. My DC is exposed to far less than I was, I think.

It's really not a question of what you personally choose to expose your child to, capsicum.

'I don't remember myself or any of my friends/family being upset by the image.'

I think I was unconsciously disturbed by it - but got used to it. I asked my daughter tonight what she felt about these images. She said, they are not very peaceful are they - they show Jesus as if he is asleep and at peace on the cross but he can't be with nails in his hands and feet...

Smillas I talk about my own experiences and thoughts as a reference point. Added to this no one has said how they actually see the type of censorship, that would prevent the OP's situation, would work.

" Added to this no one has said how they actually see the type of censorship, that would prevent the OP's situation, would work."

So are you saying that anyone should be allowed to put any image they like through people's letterboxes? I presume not. So how does that "censorship" work?

Oh I remember now the story that disturbed me the most was 'The Little Match Girl'. I cried and cried. Still do, it is awful. It is still in school libraries today.

It seems to work informally Hak. Is that what you are proposing, then?

I'm not proposing anything. I am still trying to find out, and so far Google has not helped me, whether there are any restrictions on the type of images that can be put unsolicited through letter boxes. And if so what they are and how they are imposed.

Sorry, can't help you there, Hak. I don't know either.

There used to hang in the Kelvingrove art galleries Salvador Dalis crucifixion of christ.

It was at the end of a long dark coridor and spotlit. Spooky as a child but stunningly beautiful. I don't rember our parents clasping their hands over our eyes and whisking us away.

I found the bloody great big spider crab that was mounted over a doorway far more disturbing. That gave me nightmares.

People will be offended by any old crap. Being offended is not an automatic veto over other people's free expression. A line drawing of a centuries-old familiar image that can be seen in thousands of public spaces across the Western world is not something that can or should be forbidden or censored.

BigD the point relates in terms of what children find disturbing and what images they are exposed to - in art galleries, fairy tales, nursery rhymes along with churches and church publications.