A Voice of Reason on Religious ‘Morality’

dogmaticCURE brings together images and music with the words of atheists (in this case, Richard Dawkins).

This video focuses on religious “morality,” and whether it’s really any better than anything we could come up with on our own:



About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • observer

    I’ve always thought that the reason why religion, in this case Christianity, was automatically deemed “moral” was because it came first, and to discourage the flock from being too curious of competition (i.e. atheism, other religions, and perhaps even other branches of Christianity). In other words, “history is written by the winners.”

    • Kitspog

      “Atheistic morality” is absolutely asinine. Hemant, stop daydreaming and start thinking.

      • RobertoTheChi

        Start thinking? Says the sheep…

      • RobMcCune

        And religious morality has been demonstrated to be asinine since Plato’s day, maybe you shouldn’t depend so much on an imaginary friend.

      • http://www.everydayintheparkwithgeorge.com/ Matt Eggler

        Atheism is just and absence of belief in gods, it has no inherent philosophy, meaning or dogma attached so in that sense you are right, there is no “atheistic morality” because we don’t derive our morality from our atheism. But to therefore assume we immoral or incapable moral behavior and judgement, that is truly asinine.

        • Kspark

          Evil is just the absence of good (not negative), just like cold is the absence of heat, and darkness is the absence of light; and you are right: Atheism is absence of theism (belief in God). I agree with you here!

          True theism does not depend on “belief”, but on absolute conviction due to realization and revelation. I don’t have the realization, or revelation, but I have many pointers in my own life. If I had revelation, I wouldn’t have bothered to lash against “friendly” atheists on this site.

        • Kspark

          I regret to say that you are certainly incapable of moral behaviour and judgement.

          Quote: It is true, certainly true, that the vagina of a woman secretes profusely when she sees a well-dressed man, even if be he a son or a brother

          Now don’t go asking women if that is true, because no one will reveal the truth, except a very few.

          What do you think? Is this response in a woman (especially a young woman) moral, or immoral?

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Why are you being gender and age specific here? What are the moral implications of a male having a similar reaction? What about an infant? And, what are you talking about?

            • Kspark

              I have nothing against gender or age, nor do the Vedas. Atheists can only misunderstand.That was just an example.

            • Kspark

              For a male it is natural to be agitated on seeing a beautiful woman (or even the thought), but if he indiscriminately wants to fulfill his desires by having sex with anybody he wants to, serious, unpleasant consequences await him. the same appluies to a woman. The fluids will be secreted, and her mind will be tormented, she must learn to restrain herself. She must be trained–and it is not repression. The secretion of fluids is a type of unwanted suffering (which the woman perceives as pleasure) for a woman because it will ultimately lead to suffering.

              (The soul in the man/woman desired to enjoy separately by disobeying God, when the soul had a blissful, non-suffering spiritual body and was joyful with God, and serving hm, and due to the soul’s own misuse of free will is now suffering in the body of a man/woman, with blood, flesh, bones.) When there is joyfulness at the beginning of an act and that ultimately ends in misery, that act is said to be in the mode of passion (rajo-guna).

              I hope you can digest this complex aspect of truth.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                Bullshit by any other name would smell the same.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                Bullshit by any other name would smell the same.

          • Blasphemous_Kansan

            You are so fucking weird. If you truly believe that your quote (quoted from whom?) proves or even hints at ANYTHING, then you should seek help.

          • http://www.everydayintheparkwithgeorge.com/ Matt Eggler

            You didn’t bother to attribute your quote but it is some Hindu nonsense from the Vedas that, as with other religious assertions, falls apart when confronted by science. But, what the hell, I’ll bite.

            From a rational, atheistic moral perspective this reaction, in and of itself, is neither moral nor immoral – it is just a biological reaction. It is only what the woman chooses to do in response that can be judged as moral or immoral.

            From a theistic stand point the only logical answer would be that it is moral because the response is the result of how the god or gods made here and she has no choice as they have made it impossible for her to react otherwise.

            Of course, the theistic stand point frequently is not logical and often finds gods condemning people for doing what the gods themselves have forced them to do. These situations demonstrate the innate superiority of rational morality over theistic morality.

            • Kspark

              I deeply regret to inform you that morality and your material logic have absolutely no relation with each o her. Please wait till you die. And if you think science (scientists) will one day prevent death or prolong life (say maximum 1000 years, you (or me) are still going to die), that is never going to happen. Wait and watch (your thousands of generations also have absolutely no hope). We are not on the same level, no point arguing with you people.

            • Kspark

              There is only ONE supreme God, and He has not forced anyone. All these reactions, sufferings in the world (sexual pleasure is hidden suffering) are due to the desires of the living entities. It’s not God’s fault. He said, “don’t, don’t, don’t”. We said “I want to, I want to…” He is merciful, so he said, “I don’t want you to suffer, but you are adamant, so go ahead and suffer.” You should have brains to understand such simple logic.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                The Bible predicts that there will be false prophets such as yourself. I pray God will show his mercy on you and rescue you from Satan’s clutches.

  • Guest

    Eh, any opposing comments are immediately deleted? Atheists should be ready to fight against theists. Your smiling face doesn’t make you right, Hemant.

    • J-Rex

      So far 3 out of 4 comments are opposing…

    • Adam Thorn

      How can that face not make him right, I mean look at it. Still claiming that posts are being deleted is complete horseshit but in no way reflects on your character or honesty.

    • Bdole

      Maybe those damnable communistic atheists hacked into your computer and prevented you from uploading your comments?

    • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

      The smiling Mexigay is always right…

      • baal

        I’ve not seen “mexigay’ before. If you’re referring to Hemant, I’m pretty sure he’s of Indian decent and not necessarily of Mexican decent.

        As to guest, ? – you know that it’s possible to work towards common goals without fighting? i know some folks like to chew on the tables and throw things but I find greater satisfaction and success by getting along and working towards what I want.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

      Guest, you have already lost the fight by being stupid and intellectually dishonest.

  • Kspark

    Dawkins does not know anything about Vedic literatures, he speaks absolutely nothing of Vedic religion. He does not know about strong arguments, and reasoning that the Vedas give. God is absolutely the basis for morality. This video does just one thing: comforts (so-called reasoned moral) atheists that they are right, and tells them “sleep cozy, we’re going to not exist at all after death. What a futile understanding.

    • Sven2547

      Morality is what you are when nobody’s watching.
      Is morality possible if you think you’re always being watched?

      • Kspark

        Very good thought, Sven! You echoed the Vedas. A section of Vedic literature says: “A person’s morality is to be judged depending on what he does when he is all alone.” What do atheists do when they are all alone (each atheist is individually alone)?

      • Kspark

        Strictly speaking, even if no one is watching, God is always watching. If atheists accepted that, they wouldn’t have done whatever they like or pretend in front of others that they don’t do whatever they like.
        If a theist does wrong, it is his fault: he is using his God-given free will.

    • baal

      Were you going to give us (nice and short version please) this strong argument and reasoning? Every single time I (or anyone else who has reported back) head down this particular rabbit hole (oh just one more book, what about this author…) we find more of the same and nothing new from the religionist. The ‘sophistication’ is the same from the local guy blathering on a corner or the latest WCB debate.

      • Kspark

        Yes, read stronger (but not the strongest) arguments on “How do atheists talk to their children about death” on this very same site, and then talk. There are many, many comments. If you still think you are right, tell me.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

      Ksparkm, you won’t convince people by being stupid, irrational, and intellectually dishonest.

      • Cosmologist

        YOU are intellectually dishonest, and an ignorant fool. Kspark speaks lot of sense. Im a bit heavy, but you don’t know what you’re blabbering. You don’t have any real knowledge about the universe.

    • Intelligent Donkey

      “God is absolutely the basis for morality.”

      Then what about slavery? God is perfectly OK with slavery, and it’s not being condemned anywhere in the bible.

      If your morality comes from god, then you have nothing against slavery, right? Would you like to sell me your daughter? (Exodus 21:7-11)

      • Kspark

        I don’t know too much about the Bible. The Bible is a recently composed scripture, but the Vedic literatures are eternal (don’t laugh, read on).

        God is certainly against slavery in the material world. The Bible is not entirely incorrect, but is incomplete. The present versions have been distorted over the years. True versions may be very difficult to find. I cannot comment on the Bible more than this. I can quote statements from the Vedic literatures.

        If you think why God does not prevent slavery, or any evil for that matter, that is because those people (slaves) are facing the reactions for his past misdeeds in his previous life. And what about the person who has kept him as a slave. He is acting as an instrument, but he too shall be punished, maybe if not in this life, then in in the next. It is just that God brings together those who deserve to suffer, and those who desire to cause suffering (God does not encourage anyonhe to cause suffering, but if that person strongly desires out of his own free will, God reluctantly allows him). Like if atheists perssist that God does not exist, God does not kill you immediately, or cause cause you suffering, for that opinion/statement.

  • Adam Thorn

    Wow, lot of trolls on today or maybe just 1 lonely guy.

    • Octoberfurst

      I thought the same thing. It must be “Troll an Atheist Site Day”. I find it amusing as they rant and rave but yet offer nothing of substance. Saying “Atheist morality is absolutely asinine!” and telling us that the Vedic scriptures have the TRUE answers to life—with no proof offered of course. And then we have “Guest” who claims all opposing comments are being deleted when it is obvious that they are not. Ahh the religious. They just make shit up as they go along and then get outraged when their statements are challenged. It’s gonna be a fun day.

      • Kspark

        You think the earth is limited to only 3 dimensions, and nothing
        else. The current version of the Bible is a distorted version of the
        actual incident. In the past people had access to higher dimensions, and
        many, many animals which one can see on the earth as well as others
        which one has no eyes to see could fit into an ark (the ark certainly
        was not limited to 3 dimensions). Even quantum mechanics accepts Hilbert
        space (an infinite dimensional universe). Now higher dimensions need
        not be limited to only spatial dimensions, but also to consciousness
        dimensions. There is at least one extra “vertical” dimension (which
        can’t be sensed by unqualified humans) to the earth as we know it. This
        is mentioned i the Vedic literatures, and atheists just don’t have any
        idea about higher thoughts presented in the Vedas.

        Many Christians get stuck when faced with such questions. There is a
        story similar to Noah’s ark in the Puranas, a part of Vedic literaures.
        And did the atheists know that the moon has a higher dimensional aspect
        to it, and is “farther” from the earth than the Sun. Atheists can roll
        on the floor laughing but they may not understand what I am trying to
        say. The highly learned sages who compiled (not the originators) of
        Vedic literatures have never cared for nonsense immature atheist
        opinions.

  • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

    This video focuses on religious “morality,” and whether it’s really any better than anything we could come up with on our own

    Which is funny, because religious morality is also something that we came up with all on our own. There’s nothing special about it. It originated with human beings, and there’s no reason to give precedence to one set of rules simply because they were written down a long time ago and became popular in the culture in which we live.

  • Misty

    Pretty video, but I like history better.

    Religiously-motivated reform movements were at the forefront of abolition movements and other civil rights-based movements in the 19th century. This idea of “growing out of” religious morality into secular morality bears no resemblance to history for these reform movements. At the same time, secular morality–as wrapped up in the secular legal code and “secular” scientific authorities–was a central part of reinforcing racial superiority in American culture through the late 19th and early 20th century. The Supreme Court cited plenty of secular scientists and academics to maintain inequalities and discriminatory practices up into even the mid-20th century.

    “Equality” and compassion for others is entirely modern–Dawkins is correct–but did not originate from “secular moral philosophy.” We owe these things to the ideas of Enlightenment-era political philosophers, all of whom possessed a religious worldview of some sort.

    Anyone who tells you either “secular” or “religious” morality has clean hands in helping us reach our current moral views is most likely pushing a belief system at the expense of any empirical historical basis. Let’s leave the revisionist history to the David Barton’s of the world and acknowledge the achievements and shortcomings of all moral perspectives.

    • Bad_homonym

      The point is, the bible for example is the inerrant word of god. It doesn’t change. But modern morals have in spite of the bible. Therefore the changes are not because of the religion which has had to change to try and remain palatable. It has evolved in an entirely organic, secular, for the greater good kind of way!

      • Misty

        Your understanding of religious morality as unchanging is going to require more empirical evidence if you’re proposing anyone other than yourself believes this. Even within the Bible we see morality changing and adapting to circumstance and situation. (See Peter’s morality-changing vision in Acts 10 or Paul essentially accommodating the culture in permitting food sacrificed to idols in 1st Corinthians 8.) Even pre-New Testament, the Jewish tradition has long drawn upon a rabbinic tradition of adapting and evolving the commandments of the law. So Christianity/Judaism does not change ‘to try and remain palatable” out of some desperate hope to remain plausible, as you’re suggesting, rather it has always been evolving and changing. Almost all theologians–with the exception of some fundamentalists–recognize a “development” of doctrine and morality.

        You seem to have accepted the false dichotomy Dawkins presents. For a more empirically accurate view, I’d encourage you to look beyond an agenda-driven biologist who has no qualms about revising history to support his beliefs. Try reading some historians or philosophers–people who actually know something about the subject and aren’t so heavy-handed about pushing their beliefs.

        • Bad_homonym

          Actually The bible is unchanging, and is the foundation for all christian doctrines is the bible. I spent almost half of my life as a devout christian. I was a member of 3 congregations over those years. I am but a simple layman, and i dont need the opinions of philosophers, or theologions who spend lifetimes deciphering what is very plain to people such as me! The changes you list reflect a natural part of human evolution, which I believe is not simply biological but affects us on a social, emotional, moral sort of way. I actually understand fundamentalists not changing, since the scripture they believe doesnt. I can assure you I am not alone in what I believe, and I gave up religion for these reasons at least a decade before I had even heard of Dr Dawkins. He may have an agenda but so do religions. I will never accept that the church has turned away from the uglyness of old doctrine that is FULLY SUPPORTED in the bible. I am glad we have no more stonings, slavery (here at home anyways!), inquisitions, or crusades! I find no evidence that the church has done anything but stunt morality. In light of the factual heavy-handedness of religions in general, and christianity in particular, I find Dr. Dawkins approach to be kid gloves at worst. I have evolved myself, from being simply an atheist to being somewhat of an anti-theist partly due to the general sense of moral second class citizenship, portrayed by religion! The biblical example of morality is a joke, and intellectual gymnastics to make it fit modern human views is the punchline! I KNOW right from wrong, in terms of our society today. A couple millenia from now Im sure it will have changed even more for the better. And it will happen weather or not religion even still exist!

          • Misty

            Ah sounds like you’re assessing a variant of religion you rejected in your past. You have probably assessed that variant quite accurately. Difficult to say how that serves to draw any larger conclusions.

    • RobMcCune

      Yes there were religious reformers, but they were opposed by religious conservatives who cited tradition and authority in defense of injustice. Furthermore the people who wrote scripture the they cited lived and believed in that sort of society. Casting religion as a force for ignores that and raises the question what took so long.

      We owe these things to the ideas of Enlightenment-era political
      philosophers, all of whom possessed a religious worldview of some sort.

      Yes, but they sought to justify their morality from objectively through reasoning on a set of beliefs about human nature that could discerned from observation by anyone. That is secular moral reasoning and there is nothing faith based about it. History is more than a two column table of name and denomination.

      • Misty

        There were religious reformers, yes, glad you recognize that–now both of us know more history than Dawkins.

        And I can tell you “what took so long”–religious reformers were up against not only religious conservatives but the entire “secular” scientific community and the “secular moral reasoning” of political liberalism that failed to extend rights to everyone. You can idolize the status-quo-supporting secular morality if you wish, but I think I’ll go with the religious reformers and their “unchanging” (yet somehow progressive?) morality on many issues in modern history.

        Again, no clean hands on any of these issues, but no need to revise history just to make you feel superior about your belief system.

        • RobMcCune

          Again, no clean hands on any of these issues, but no need to revise history just to make you feel superior about your belief system.

          Odd since you’re doing just that
          plenty of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers advocated for the causes of the down trodden throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Also strange is that you ascribed progress to enlightenment political philosophers until I demonstrated they used reason and not religion to reach their conclusions. After that they became status quo supporters. Sad that all facts contrary to your assertions have to be explicitly stated for you to acknowledge them.

          Bad_homonyms “unchanging” criticism is apt since believers of every age view their view their religion as being the ‘true’ religion that dates back to it’s founding no matter how different it is. Religion isn’t progressive, in text or in practice. Religious people can be progressive, but they are reworking religion to say whatever they want. Society does the same thing in the long run, eventually saying that the ungodliness of a few generations ago was part of their religion all along.

          • Misty

            You’ve never read John Locke, have you? Hardcore Calvinist. You wouldn’t enjoy getting a beer with him.

            All you’ve posted here just reaffirms my point: both religious and secular morality have less-than-perfect records on these things. No one is arguing that no atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers ever advocated for the causes of the downtrodden. Did you have anything new to add? You’ve only corrected Dawkins so far, not me.

            Ah, so in your mind religion is either completely static OR strategically manipulated for other ends. Whenever I see statements like that–generalizing the 6+ billion religious people in the world and thousands of years of history–I know we’re no longer talking about anything empirically real, we’re talking about some illusionary ghost of religion that’s still haunting you from your childhood. Unless you have some sources to cite, I won’t argue with you about things that primarily exist in your imagination.

            Your black-and-white thinking on this seems to serve you well–I certainly won’t be shaking you out of your little world with history and facts anytime soon.

            • RobMcCune

              It’s been a while but I don’t recall any bible verses in Essay Concerning Human Understanding. But since Locke was religious, then every one of his actions and thoughts were religious as well.

              Interesting that you made your point by vilifying one side, and white washing the other. When religion is on every side it will always be on the right side. That said, the major religious institution in society have for the most part been retrograde. Generally the decline of their power and the increase in free inquiry, both religious and secular, has led to reform movements and progress.

              Whenever I see statements like that… we’re talking
              about some illusionary ghost of religion that’s still haunting you from your childhood.

              You defined the scope of the discussion to certain time periods and cultures…

              We owe these things to the ideas of Enlightenment-era political philosophers,

              abolition movements and other civil rights-based movements in the 19th century.

              and then forgot the context. Then charged me with constructing an “illusory ghost” when you claimed that the religious went beyond the constraints of secular thinkers in your first reply. But as I’ve said before nuance is added the more you’re critiqued, and you only acknowledge facts after I’ve pointed them out.

              The idea that I’m employing black and white thinking when you take every statement by me, Bad_homonym, or Dawkins as categorical is laughable. If this is your way of declaring victory and going home, fine by me.

              • Misty

                I was vilifying one side? Nope, I believe I’ve said three times now: no one has clean hands.

                My argument was Locke possessed a religious worldview, and it’s very very clear in anything he wrote. If you are arguing he’s an atheist, I’m eager to see your sources. I’ll wait.

                That said, the major religious institution in society have for the most part been retrograde. Generally the decline of their power and the increase in free inquiry, both religious and secular, has led to reform movements and progress.

                Again, you’re letting a biologist teach you history (very similar to Christians who let pastors teach them science). Take a look at the Civil Rights in the US, the Solidarity movement in Poland, or even the advances of science and progress in Islamic societies in the Middle Ages. Your narrative does wonders to support your pre-conceived notions about the superiority of your own beliefs; it unfortunately lacks historical support.

  • Daniel Schealler

    Well… Okay, sorry to get all pedantic on the subject, but it’s worth pointing out:

    Religious morality is a morality that we came up with on our own.

    Otherwise though, nice video.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Beautiful.

    Religion is intellectual thuggery.

    • Intelligent Donkey

      And if you’re a Catholic altar boy, there’s quite a bit of buggery as well.

      • Kspark

        That is the problem of those who claim to be moral, but have no desire to be. It is their free will. That just doesn’t mean there are no truly moral beings. Some theists can be immoral (definition is required), and its their fault (because true religion tells you to avoid all kinds of immorality) but atheists can never be moral, never. So you think eating beef (especially) /pork/mutton/chicken/fish/seafood/eggs; gambling; drinking beer/wine/alcohol, smoking cigarettes/tobacco or other intoxication; and having illicit sexual intercourse with women you are not married (definition required) to, to be moral?

    • Kspark

      Atheism is a situation where your intellect has been stolen. You are in illusion, but are convinced that you are right.

      • Antinomian

        Kspark, thank you for playing! I’ve perused your posts, both above and below and must commend you for your use of almost every logical fallacy known to humankind.

        Seeing that you are so big on the Vedic texts I have to assume that you subscribe to the Hindu religion. Good for you!

        Perhaps I should help you with the intellectual swirly your religion, as well as any other that has ever existed, has given you and help you understand what atheism really is. Atheism is a disbelief in, or also a rejection, of others claims to the existence of a god or gods. Plain and simple. We as atheists claim no belief system or dogmas. We, each, have our differing reasons. Many of us disbelieve because there is not one shred of physical evidence of any god or gods or because modern science has shredded many of the claims of the old Holy Books. Many of us have completely rejected the idea of anything supernatural.

        So Kspark, your claim that we are “in illusion” when we only accept the existence of what has evidence, is at best, intellectually vacant.

        So, it follows that if there is no evidence that your gods exist, then your holy texts are a lie and their claims are false. Thus you are the one who is the one with the stolen intellect, living an illusion. You have my condolences. But Kspark, if it’s any consolation, you’re not alone on the Short Bus. Most of humanity is riding with you.

        • Kspark

          First, can you please define “religion”. I want everything to be defined, and am ready to define anything I am asked to, (I may need time). Modern science has NOT, and will NEVER shred the claims (they are not claims, but facts) of genuine holy books, of which you seem to have a very poor fund of knowledge.

          Don’t take people to be dumbos. I may not be an expert in “science”, but I know what many scientists are up to. Physical evidence is not all evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean evidence does not exist. And, there is physical evidence. You cannot resort to knowledge filtering (read Forbidden Archeology by M. Cremo and Dr. Thompson: it’s not “a veritable cornucopia of dreck” as many insane so-called scientists interested in filtering out knowledge want to ward it off as), and then say there is no physical evidence. Read the book and thenou say there is no knowledge filtering by modern archeologists and scientists. You atheistic people are guilty of total intellectual dishonesty.

          You seem to think that the conclusion of modern science is all in all. Do you believe that the universe ultimately came from nothing? From a singularity? What is that singularity? I have a very strong cosmological argument, and arguments from information theory from established scientists (not religious) that the chance (probability) of origin of life, by random mutation of genes (Darwinian or similar evolution) is in the order 1/ 10^150000. We can show that over periods many times the estimated 4.5-billion-year age of the earth, the probability of the evolution of higher life forms remains bounded by upper limits of 10^-150000. i am prepared to show this using information theory, and also point out many flawed assumptions in modern science (not all assumptions in modern science are flawed, but that does not mean it can provide answers to everything).

          Just because many of you have rejected the idea of anything supernatural does not mean that there exists nothing that is supernatural. And many honest, worthy scientists accept the idea of supernatural.

          If you still have faith in modern science, wait till you die. Just wait.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

        “your intellect has been stolen. You are in illusion, but are convinced that you are right.”

        BWAHAHAH! The Dunning-Kruger effect on full display.

        • Kspark

          Wait till you die. After your death if you don’t continue to exist, I shall pay you 10^1000 USD, if you continue to exist, you pay me only 1 cent, all right! Remember this statement till you die. You want to believe that there is absolutely no life after death (ie the personality does not survive death). That’s false, and the laws of nature care for no person, and by the time you realize it, it may be too late. So please think seriously that “God may actually exist (even if your probabilty is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001).

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Wait till you die. After your death if you don’t continue to exist, I shall pay you 10^1000 USD

            Deal. And tell you what, if I still continue to exist after my death, I’ll pay you the google dollars.

            But on condition that you take your ramblings elsewhere in the meantime.

    • Kspark

      False religion certainly is.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X