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?

I think it's an important part of a free society that people should be able to share images and ideas of things that other people may not want to see, as long as they fit in with the norms of that society (so no images of abuse or incitement to racial or gender hatred, for example).

I equally think it's polite not to go out of your way to force your beliefs on people who aren't interested. So, if you ask the local church not to send you any more parish magazines, they should respect that.

But I think it's unreasonable to expect a church to guess that people will be such sensitive flowers that they are offended or alarmed or bothered by an image of Jesus on the cross.

Now completely baffled by the thread!

just as a matter of interest, how does this differ from the "Je suis Charlie" campaign?

Is it because the newsletter with the offending images was put through people's doors? (that seems fair enough to me btw)) or is there a general feeling that offensive images shouldn't be out in the public realm - in which case, presumably if you believed this you would also believe that Charlie Hebro were wrong in what they produced?

I think it's an important part of a free society that people should be able to share images and ideas of things that other people may not want to see

Go ahead and share it. Share it on your social media feeds. Paint the entire outside of your house with it. Put a big banner up that says "I really love jesus!!!!" for all I care.

But do NOT put gruesome nasty images on leaflets and drop them through my front door, taking the stance that just because it's not illegal it's ok. It's not ok.

Or put another way, would you be happy if I started a leaflet drop with several photos of tortured children with the headline "religion only causes problems and believing in Jesus is a load of crap"?!

You would REALLY have to be ok with that - because it's free speech and I wouldn't be doing anything wrong right?

BigDorrit and queenBean, how is anyone supposed to know what you consider decent or gruesome in advance? Our society is fine with the image of Jesus on the cross. It's on thousands of churches, pendants, homes etc.

how is anyone supposed to know what you consider to be gruesome?

You don't. So do me, several others and the environment a big favour and don't drop anything through the letter box.

Treat me like an adult and let me come to my own decisions.

I am not completely baffle - although the thread has meandered a lot. I understand the points raised about graphic, violent, images and disturbing images.

However people see a necessity to distribute them, in acknowledgment of suffering, in this particular case, Christ's. I understand this too. To totally deny the suffering that has happened and still does would be equally wrong IMO.

It seems self censorship is being requested. Fair enough, but people must understand that there is going to be variance in this. Finding the right balance between not shocking gratuitously and remembering and acknowledging suffering, depends largely on knowing the audience.

Queen bean, our society has a slightly different attitude to photos of child torture (i.e. Evidence of child abuse) and a drawing of Jesus on the cross. Do you honestly find them morally equivalent?

And without distribution there is no wider acknowledgement.

How about a leaflet through every letterbox in the town with a picture of an upsidedown Crucifix. Or a banner headline equating belief in god with a belief in fairies, or referring to him as an imaginary friend- both statements some Christians get hot under the collar about?

X poSt. My last point referred to my previous post.

East

This is pretty laughable. I'll just quote you back from a few posts ago:

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

You said it. It represents a time in history, needs to be remembered and ultimately wouldn't be disallowed by the courts.

Queen Bean, if you have a sign on your door saying "NO UNSOLICITED MAIL" then it would be polite not to post anything.

If you want to waste your money Hak....

I don't know where you live Queen Bean, but here in the UK, photos of child abuse would certainly be disallowed by the courts. Quite right too. They are a world away from a drawing of Jesus on the cross and I pity you if you can't tell the difference.

East you keep raising points, I come back to those and then you move on to something else. This is not intelligent debate.

With regards to your point about having a sign that says no unsolicited mail, the onus shouldn't be on the receiver to somehow block this crap, it should be on the sender to treat adults as adults and let them do their own research and make their own choices

As another side issue, why on earth would a church decide to use the image of the crucifixion to symbolise all of Holy Week? The whole point of Easter is surely the Resurection?

Photos of the atrocities of Syria then put out by charities? Or photos of young children working in cotton mills in 1800s? They're upsetting images of children but as you say, historic events such as Jesus need to be remembered so no difference really?

Not all churches do Hak. Some use an image of the resurrection.

East - So you wouldn't consider an image of someone being murderously tortured being put through your letterbox anything to worry about?

A drawing of a fictional character 2,000 years ago? No. A series of full-colour photos of a hostage being beheaded by ISIS? Yes.

Clearly, they are not the same.

Would I be OK about photos of Victorian children working in factories being put through the door? Of course.