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?

Can I just ask...sorry to but in. Will the Easter Bunny be OK . I know he hates loud bangs and lots of shouting.

Laquila, just google "church stance on homosexuality" and take your pick

Totally understand what you mean OP, along with some of the other posters. This is an image that we are inured to, for obvious reasons. But clearly a picture of a man being crucified, nailed to a cross, hoisted up and left to die, is an extraordinarily violent image. Why should it get a "pass" because it's part of the culture.

Also my older DD was quite upset when she got told the crucifixion story at school, some children do. Due to it being about a man being tortured and killed.

However there is fuck all you can do about it (christian country) so all you can do is seethe gently and I (and a few others) will join you.

How do you take religion out of a church magazine? And why?

I grew up with the Church, Easter, Christmas, etc. It hasn't done me any lasting damage. It is just an image - are you going to spend your whole life 'protecting' your child from any images you deem inappropriate? If so, you will have a nervous breakdown very quickly.

Why does it make it okay because it is an image that we all know? I don't understand why that makes a difference? The OP makes a good point, if she did produce a secular publication, would you be happy if it contained a gruesome image on the front cover? Maybe an image of a pig with it's throat being slit- perhaps as part of a village farming publication? I doubt you'd all be saying 'well it's a farming publication, we all know that pigs die for food, what did you expect would be on the cover?'

Hmm....... While I don't really agree with you OP I do find the point you raised an interesting one.
You only have to look at many crucifixes to see that they are hardly gory and shocking images like a firing squad one would be and I doubt a 'clip art' one would be very graphic. Plus crucifixes are common place in many churches where children see them all the time. I'd equate it with sort of 'cartoon violence' level in many ways. (NOT that I'm saying cartoon violence is ok, but I mean by levels of 'shocking' or 'graphic')
However I can totally see where you are coming from with the whole 'double standards' thing in that people can use 'religion' as an excuse for lots of things and your probably right that you'd get complaints about posting pics of gay couples holding hands through letterboxes.
(And I'm a churchgoer myself who is not offended either by pictures of Jesus on the cross or of gay people holding hands or kissing and whose 6 year old DS has seen pictures of both and the latter two in real life so make of my comments what you will.)

I'm atheist, but I don't have a great problem with representation of the crucifixion. It's usually a bit camp, really.

OP, the assassination of JFK wasn't directly relevant to the vast majority of people in the UK. Nor is there a huge organisation here running places of worship, community centres, youth clubs, food banks, playgroups and OAP groups that has anything JFK-related as its central tenets. AFAIK.

Neither is the UK's public national calendar, or cultural history, based on JFK.

His aggrieved followers do not create and produce newsletters or magazines for the benefit of the community, free at point of receipt, that can act as a real help to isolated locals, new arrivals, new parents, small business owners, lonely pensioners etc.

I don't think the two are comparable.

Mehitabel, I've been saying all along, take the church context out and simply have a man being crucified. Suddenly that is no longer OK.

TheFecklessFairy - I am not attempting to protect anyone from anything, the post is about the double standards. I do not personally deem the image inappropriate, I deem the fact that because of religion its ok.

I guess thats the point right? Religion getting dispensation?

Lets rephrase the original post...

AIBU to think that religous establishments should be held to the same moral code as the rest of us?

I'm aware of some Christians' stance on homosexuality, OP (but thanks for the pointer towards Google) - I was asking specifically what you meant by that reference?

Off to dig our Parish Mag out of the recycling now to see if there is anything offensive about it.

YABU - the clue is in the title, it's a parish magazine, produced by the local church parishioners.

YAalsoBU for the pseudo Russell Brand, slightly hysterical hyperbolic tone of your OP.

Laquila... Are you saying you miss the comparison with the most powerful man on the planet being killed?

Jesus' crucifixion being somewhat culturally relevant has no bearing on how shocking or otherwise the image would be for a small child who has not previously been exposed to it.

It's always good when certain religious types come on threads like this and start deliberately playing dumb because they have no real argument.

I have more of an issue with images on facebook of unfortunate seventeen year olds being crucified by ISIS. (Remind me to defriend the person who shared them!)

Ofcourse images of anyone being crucified is disturbing. What is more distrubing is that Jesus was not the first political prisoner to be crucified and there will sadly be more people suffering death by crucifixion in the future.

If one more person says "the clue is in the title" I'm going to end up crucifying myself...

In this context, NikoBellic, yes - I am. You're not comparing apples with apples, and I think surely you must know it.

I agree with you, OP. But I am constantly amazed at the doublethink Christians seem capable of- simultaneously "this is so important I insist on being allowed to do it" and "don't be silly, you're making a ridiculous fuss about nothing" About the same thing

Oh, and yes I would say exactly the same thing about Islam, Judaism and any other world faith in ht same circumstances. Before you ask.

The crucifix image has become anodyne because we've become familiarised and desensitised to it. The point is it's a violent and horrific way to die. Hands and feet nailed to a piece of wood and left to die in the sun - think about what would happen to the body, what gravity would do, what would happen to the wounds.

I'm surprised that Christians are arguing that it's not comparable with execution imagery. The whole point of the story is that Jesus suffered in the most brutal way to deliver humanity from sin.

I don't think that small children are particular distrubed by the stylised image of Jesus on the cross. People are used to seeing such images. Young children are more interested in how crucifixion kills the victim. (ie. blood, guts and gore) In my experience older children around eight or nine find the idea of crucifxion and the events of holy week more distressing than younger children.

Smillas (I am mildly irritated that I don't agree with your POV as I love that book) - I don't disagree that the image might be shocking to a small child. I do disagree that it's categorically inappropriate in a parish newsletter.

What "certain religious type" am I, out of interest?!

I am comparing the assassination of the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, by being shot while travelling in his motorcade, an event that was captured on film, documented, and subject to intense scrutiny...

with the execution of a man who, some might say, was (or is) the most powerful man in the world, as described by the bible.

I see the differences

No pics of nailed half-dead guys here.

But, from the Bishop....

'The Five Holy Wounds, or Five Scared Wounds, are the five piercing wounds that Jesus suffered during the crucifixion. We can see the way in which they have been in a particular focus for devotion by they way in which they have been depicted in art'.

Oooh... and I can pay £20 a year to join a community oil buying scheme where I will save 5p a litre on average! Will also be given advice on how to keep my tank safe from thieving bastards

I think the fact that someone is reporting this thread sort of proves the OP's point really- religion appears to be untouchable, and we're just supposed to accept it as okay because we're a Christian country. Apparently it's offensive to question a potentially inappropriate image on the parish newsletter, but to have put the image there in the first place and dropped it through so many doors is seemingly completely inoffensive?! Oooookay then.

Could the church not put a less shocking picture on the front (Jesus alive, Jesus moving the boulder, etc) seeing as it is going to largly be distributed to non-religious/other religions, and then save the shocking images for people who go to church and want to see them? Is that not a nice compromise?