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?

It is not a Parish Newsletter- we established that yesterday- it is a church magazine. Easter is the biggest event of the church year and Good Friday is a big part of it. People will be going to Good Friday services - why this has to be censored so that you can't even have 20yr old clip art beats me!

Mehitabel unfortunately you are disqualified for the church-in-bold-font part. You are clearly in the "it's OK because it's the church" camp. I've responded enough to Team CofE thanks. From now on please refer to the dictionary for the definition of crucifixion.

Ooops... "Definition of censorship" not crucifixion.

Google tells me it's called the fallacy of relative privation or the appeal to bigger problems hak

Why not, BigD?

NikoBellic YOU ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT. I have never liked being confronted by this image of a man being executed in the most gruesome medieval (or rather Roman) way whilst I am joining my friends in celebrating happy life events. It's weird. Like you say, the same people who would have selected these "appropriate" cliparts would have a breakdown about images or films of comparable violence that didn't involve a jesus.

I live in the same sort of place as you. I know the people you are talking about.

People should be allowed to distribute all kinds of images through people's letterboxes that are not considered gratuitously offensive by - ultimately - the courts.

So yes, of course images of men kissing should be allowed. Of course images of Jesus on the cross should be allowed. Of course images of the Kennedy assassination should be allowed.

Yes, society has different standards about these kinds of images, but all of the above are commonly depicted on, for example, pre-watershed TV. You could put all of them on a billboard too. What's unreasonable about this thread is the OP deciding that an image of Jesus on the cross is suddenly out of bounds after 2,000 years of it being a perfectly acceptable image.

(Am I a Christian? No. Does that matter?)

"Definition of censorship in English:
noun

[MASS NOUN]
1The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security:
the regulation imposes censorship on all media
[AS MODIFIER]: we have strict censorship laws" (O.E.D)

So no one is proposing censorship regarding this particular church publication?

Thanks Tootsie!

People should be allowed to distribute all kinds of images through people's letterboxes that are not considered gratuitously offensive by - ultimately - the courts.

What?! No they shouldn't! What happened to respect and decency? Just because something is not technically against the law doesn't make it ok. I don't want junk email through my letter box with ANY of those images thank you

Am I suggesting the newsletter be banned from printing the image? Where have I said that!? If anything I'm bemoaning the censorship of others!

Urgh...

Decency is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, that was not at all clear to me, Niko

Decency is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes it is, so let what I want to see be my choice by respecting that and not ramming "all kinds of images" through the letterbox. I'm quite capable of making informed decisions without junk mail.

Not to mention the waste of paper and environmental impact junk mail has

I have read the definifinition. It would be censorship if we were no longer allowed to see the great works of art in galleries depicting the crucifixion , it would be censorship if they were blacked out in books, it is censorship if a church magazine can't print them for the people the magazine is meant for the members of the church . The mistake in this case is giving it to those who are not members of the church.
I have looked at mine online. It is primarily for services.
Good Friday 10.15 service in church followed by procession with the cross to the market place, 11am prayers in the market place, procession out of town and up the hill. 2pm an hour with the cross in church with reflection, hymns and prayers.
The rest is other services, notices like bell ringing , messy church, parenting classes etc
It is for those interested in going to services, other church events. I can't think why you would have an interest if you were not going.
I also can't see why if you are having almost a full day of Good Friday events, centering on the cross, that you can't show a picture.

They are not 'ramming' it through the letter box! I expect they put it through quite normally. You are not forced to take it - you can get off the distribution list .

Banning the distribution of lawful ideas and images doesn't sound like the actions of a decent society at all.

Who said anything about banning ANYTHING?

Mehitabel6

These are cross posts - I'm not suggesting that the parish newsletter is being "rammed" through the letterbox, rather picking issue with the previous poster who said that "people should be allowed to drop all sorts of images through letter boxes"

EastMidsMummy I will repeat, just because something is not illegal doesn't make it right. I don't suggest banning free speech but would prefer you to be more respectful of people making their own choices than bombarding them with images that they don't want to see, just because it's not illegal

Summary
problem church magazine delivered to non church member who is offended by image.
solution ask not to have the magazine.

Are nearly 700 posts on MN going to make any difference to the printing of this particular magazine? I doubt it.

I thought you wanted the crucifix image banned? I am obviously tired- time for bed!

So what do you want, Niko?

No depictions of the crucifixion through your letter box?

Or

More acceptance of images of violence and suffering in non religious contexts?

Or

The people who live, where you do, to metaphorically stop clutching their pearls over anything shocking, when the account of Christ (who they claim to follow) in the Bible is pretty shocking?

Do I really have to say "I'm not offended" one more time?

I don't think anyone wants it banned, just wants to see it when they choose to see it, not when mail falls through the door. Of which the onus is on the sender to be decent and not to choose shocking and gruesome images.

(And I know that the OP can choose to unsubscribe to this specific letter but now I am talking more widely about junk mail)