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?

But posters are complaining the clip art crucifix, on the parish newsletter in question, is likely to traumatise/disturb young children. So why is discussing what is disturbing to children irrelevant, BigD?

In terms of unsolicited mail through your letter box, I would have thought the only course of action is as per advised by Citizen's Advice, here:

www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_post_e/consumer_problems_with_post_e/consumer_problems_with_unwanted_or_junk_mail_e/how_can_you_stop_junk_mail_that_is_addressed_to_you.htm

And here:

www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_post_e/consumer_problems_with_post_e/consumer_problems_with_unwanted_or_junk_mail_e/how_can_you_stop_un-addressed_junk_mail.htm

Do those posters with children who are 'traumatised' by an image of Christ on the cross have to put blinkers on them every time they pass a church??

Mehitabel6 - I don't want censorship. I would appreciate it if the rules that apply to most apply to all. So many points missed here!

What specific rules are you referring to, OP? How do you propose they should be enforced, re letterboxes and Christian the iconography displayed in public spaces?

The point of the OP is whether or not the same standards apply to all unsolicited mail, or whether the Church is somehow exempt. I don't think anyone has talked about "traumatising" children. There are plenty of things I would rather my young children did not see- certainly without me to explain them- that I did not think would "traumatise" them.

As a side issue, is there a name for the sort of argument that goes -Person 1 "I don't like X much and I rather wish it didn't happen" Person 2 "Oh, for goodness sake, what are you getting so worked up about? Nobody has ever been traumatised by X- there are a million worse things in the world! You're so incredibly angry about something so trivial- get a grip!"

What do you see as the point, Hak, then? Your last post does not say...

I thought if I kept on stating it quietly and calmly, people might notice...........

Hakluyt - I like your side issues :D

I think you could write a book about the different sorts of arguing techniques.

Duh. Misread. Sorry Hak my question is what specific standards do you think apply? And what enforcement do you refer to?

Because I am not sure much of unsolicited mail is actively censored, anyway. No double standards, just not much active censorship of unsolicited mail full stop.

Can I ask why you keep saying "censored"? Do you regard stopping inappropriqte images being put unsolicited through people's letter boxes as censorship?

Living life on the edge, eh? Didn't know you were such a thrill seeker, BigD

Because a function of censorship is to prevent the production and distribution of inappropriate material, Hak. Although, apparently, what is considered inappropriate is not an absolute.

Capsium - I think what particularly has taken my interest here is that the Church down the line may need to review what they depict on the front of a parish pamphlet, as they seem to assume (or are conditioned to think) that anything goes - maybe because they are The Church. They may need to re-think it. This may also extend to the images in church as well ... in my opinion.

I think some denominations have, Inkanta. I watched a lecture once which argued why churches should only use the plain cross and not the crucifix.

Capsium - You joined a little late in the day to see my previous posts.

The "Rules" aren't rules, but a moral standard. Let me give you an example.

If I were to post an image of two men or two women holding hands or kissing through the letter boxes of my neighbours, particularly in the kind of village I live in, there would be an outcry. Yet it just so happens that a gay relationship is a much more natural and common occurance than a man being crucified.

Likewise, if we used a similar issue, for instance if I drew a cartoon of JFK having his head blown off in the back of a car and posted it through letter boxes, the reaction would also be of shock, probably a bit of anger. This is a well documented moment in history, one that people cannot deny took place.

Finally, a third example. Lets say you are a staunch atheist and lets imagine you replaced the image of Christ with one of Spiderman, bleeding, dying on a cross, and you left it to ME to distribute rather than the church. Again, this would create a rather awkward atmosphere in my village and due to complaints I imagine the the local constabulary would probably pay me a visit.

ALL of the above examples are comparable (and don't you dare say they are not because... well... because Jesus). Yet why do the church feel this is OK, and a question which has become all the more apparent, why are so many people quick to fob me off as the person who "is offended". I am not offended by the image one tiny little bit. My child wouldn't be either.

If you can argue coherently about that and give me a reply somewhat better than "because its jesus" or "because the church" then I may concede, but up until this point I haven't heard one argument against my point that has been put together in a rational manner.

Shoot

Of course it is censorship if OP stops the church magazine picture for everyone because she doesn't like it. I find it very appropriate for an Easter church magazine - when the church will be having at least one Good Friday Service, all about the crucifixion.
People seem to forget that this is the church magazine which is primarily to give church services, church meetings, weddings, burials, the flower rota, church cleaning etc. they give it out free- and to do that they sell advertising space for local businesses - the bit OP appears to want. The huge mistake is to put it through doors of those that don't want it.
They are hardly random people putting things through letter boxes.
They are church news. Are they supposed to manage a Good Friday service without mention or pictures of the crucifixion- airbrush it out because it is unpleasant? You couldn't have Easter Sunday without Good Friday.
If OP wants the local businesses etc without church stuff she could do a local magazine of her own with no need to have any mention of Good Friday.

There is constantly the need to balance the need for acknowledging and informing people about suffering, which has happened, is still happening, and what is regarded as gratuitously offensive. Achieving the right balance is not straightforward. The intent of the distributors is important, IMO. I would be truly sickened if the intent was primarily to make money, sell newspapers or mock the victims, for example. A Parish Newsletter does not fall into this category though.

Much as I am disturbed by depictions of war and suffering, though, I do think there is a place to acknowledge it still happens and has happened. Not to do so, would be as wrong as offending people with these images.