ravan: by icons r us (flamethrower - from icons r us)
( Jan. 11th, 2006 08:56 am)
Dear City of Palo Alto,

Thanks to your incompetence or laziness, it took me over an hour to drive from Sunnyvale to downtown Palo Alto. From the moment I crossed into Palo Alto to the moment I reached downtown proper, Every goddamn light was flashing red!! That meant that every doofus had to stop, and do the "is it my turn yet" at every friggin' intersection!!

You had no police out to direct traffic, and relieve congestion, as far as I could tell. I saw a couple patrol cars, and they just continued on their merry way to a date with the donut shop. What were you thinking! At least the railroad crossings worked, but they aren't maintained by you.

If you like your tax base (businesses), you might want to revisit your archaic and assinine traffic policies.

No love,

Me.

P.S.: Even if I'd taken the train, I would have been risking my life to cross the street to get to work.
Tags:
This is prompted by an otherwise valid rant on kinky/oversexualized behavior/dialog in general public spaces. While I don't believe that kids should be exposed to sexuality before they are ready (as determined by their parents and/or biology), I don't think that kids should be the "most sacred thing" in any religion.




Children are the most sacred element of your religion.

It may be a blow to some people, but the most important element is NOT THE SELF, maybe the self is the most important part of your spiritual journey (although I pity you if it is), but your religion is nothing, absolutely nothing without a generation to hand it off to.


No, they aren't. Each person's "most sacred" element is different. It's not a "blow" to me, it's a stupid pronouncement that bears no damn obligation on my part.

I hate to tell this guy, but kids aren't the center of everyone's universe, nor should they be. Really. He is welcome to take his stinking pity and tuck it. I don't need to breed a "generation to hand it off to" in order to have a valid religion. My religious views definitiely do not include forcible indoctrination of children, and/or requiring children to indoctrinate. I would much rather support those who chose to have children, than feel compelled to produce my own, no matter how unwanted by me.

Children should have a place in our religion(s), but should not be the center of it. They should be protected, but our rites should not all be dumbed down to what children can handle. Adults only spaces should be honored, as well as general or "child safe" spaces. IMO, if it is *NOT* designated "adults only", then it should be able to be assumed child/abuse survivor safe.

What's so hard about that? Why does the cult of the child have to be dragged forth? Why does someone feel the need to tell me and everyone else that, essentially, my religion is invalid unless I consider the most sacred thing in it to be completeing a simple biological act? Yuck!
.

Profile

ravan: by Ravan (Default)
ravan

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags