Religion Triangle

Not quite sure this is true… what do you think?

  • Elemenope

    I don’t think ”honest’ is quite the right word. ‘Consistent’ (in an intellectual sense) would be better. Dishonesty implies an intent to deceive, whereas most of the time the problem is really just the maintenance of unexamined assumptions and the application of insufficient rigor when contemplating religious matters. Religious people–*for the most part*– do not examine or think about religious categories with the same set of tools they tend to use to evaluate mundane claims.

    The phenomenon is just like how people tend to treat their spouse or lover differently than perfect strangers given the same facts when deciding whether to trust what they say. It is doubtful that the average example of a spouse or lover is more or less trustworthy than the average perfect stranger, but we all maintain two sets of criteria to distinguish the cases anyway, for other reasons that do not really have much to do with whether those tools tend to give a correct answer.

  • http://fugodeus.com Nox

    Cute logo, bad argument.

    Overlooks some smart honest options which should properly be classified as religious.

    And among those types of religion marked by stupidity and dishonesty, there are (as I just put it on another thread) the stupid, the honestly misinformed, and the liars. A great number of people out there are applying good reasoning to bad data.

    Admittedly, “Smart, honest, informed, or religious. Pick any three.” does not have the same ring to it. Also it would be a square.

  • Custador

    Mmmm, I don’t think this triangle allows for self-deception, indoctrination or cognitive dissonance. I think it’s entirely possible for smart, honest people to believe in quite outrageously absurd things, simply by being unable (either through choice or indoctrination) of examining those things as critically as they would examine every other topic. I know this to be true, because I know many people who I know to be smart and honest (in many cases smarter and more honest than me by far), who are also religious.

  • http://www.brgulker.tumblr.com brgulker

    If this isn’t the definition of offeensive, I don’t know what is.

    The is a fundamentalist tactic. Swap religious for atheists, and my point is proven.

    • Elemenope

      Well, yeah, and no.

      I mean, sure, the presentation is at once oversimplistic and gratuitously provocative. It implies a moral failing (self-deception) or a practical failing (stupidity) as an inescapable result of religion, where the actual moral and practical complexion of any situation involving the act and state of belief is at once more muted and a great deal more subtle.

      But still, underlying it is an important point about the inconsistency between how religious people tend to handle religion (epistemologically and ethically, in particular) and how they handle everything else that intersects their lives. It is in parts an *unfair* criticism if it is meant to be decisive, as pretty much everyone applies inconsistent rules and practices to different situations at the best of times. It is also unclear that it would even be a good thing if we were capable of being consistent in that way; Emerson’s words on the subject come to mind in particular. But it *is* entirely fair as, at least, a point of interest when viewed in terms of how large religion looms in importance to the lives not just of religious people, but of others who live along side them, since the practical scope of religion tends to be very, very broad, impacting many aspects of life. That scope makes the practical consequences of such inconsistencies to be massive, such that it would almost be perverse to ignore them or let them go unremarked.

      And for what it’s worth, while nobody likes being called stupid or dishonest, especially in a somewhat flippant way, but it is far from the most offensive thing one could do with regard to Christianity. Trust me.

    • Michael

      I agree with you. While this triangle will be somewhat funny and ring true to many atheists, and while I rarely complain about jokes “at the expense of” a group of people, this seems pretty offensive toward the religious and also pretty inaccurate, so I’m not sure it has a place here. But sometimes comedy requires no justification, so I can’t feel entirely bad about it.

      I say this despite having already reposted it in a different context though, so maybe I’m not immune to the allure of reposting offensive shit.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      The word “fundamentalist” has a specific meaning. It refers to a religion which has an intensive, even obsessive, reliance on one or more concrete items or notions, which are its “fundamentals.” In the case of fundamentalist Christians, their “fundamentals” are their Bible and their beliefs about it (specifically, Biblical literalism and inerrancy).

      But there is no such thing as an “freethinking fundamentalist,” because freethinkers have no distinct “fundamentals” that one can point to. This means, in turn, that they can never engage in “fundamentalist tactics” because to do so, they’d first have to be “fundamentalists” … which is impossible for them.

      Most people who toss around the word “fundamentalist” really intend it as a slur or pejorative, in order to dismiss something they don’t like. That they’re semantically misapplying it doesn’t seem to matter to them very much. Nevertheless, they are wrong to do so. It’s name-calling, and as such, is juvenile at best.

      If you don’t like this, just say so. Name-calling isn’t going to help anyone.

      • JonJon

        “This means, in turn, that they [freethinkers] can never engage in “fundamentalist tactics” because to do so, they’d first have to be “fundamentalists” … which is impossible for them.”

        That’s extremely bogus. I don’t have to be X to do one or more of the same things that X does. Likewise, I can have characteristics P, Q, and R without being identical with other things having characteristics P, Q, and R.

        • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

          “Having the characteristics of X” is not the same thing as “being an X.”

          As I said, calling freethinkers “fundamentalists” is name-calling with no valid semantic basis. It’s much more accurage just to say, “I don’t like this” than attempt to slap the label “fundamentalist” on it.

          In other words … it’s time for religionists to come up with a new insult for those “uppity” freethinkers who’re insolent enough to dare make their ideas known to others.

          • Michael

            That’s his point. Atheists can engage in “fundamentalist tactics” even if they aren’t themselves fundamentalists.

            I’m not really sure how this is even disputable.

  • Kate

    I had a similar conversation with someone, and we decided that potential mates can be a triangle diagram too.

    Women, for instance, can be [Intelligent, Gorgeous, Insane]. Pick two.
    Same goes for men, but as my ratio of friends tend to be more men to women, the woman triangle typically comes up more often.

    Back to the point, I think the people I know who do happen to encompass all three sides of the triangle are more spiritual than religious. Although they do believe in a higher power, they’re not succumbing to a specific doctrine and still continue to think and believe on their own terms.
    Additionally, “honest” is sort of a loaded word…

  • joe

    If this misrepresntation had any validity we would not have so many cults in the main stream competing and winning converts from the tried and true faiths of the world.

    • Elemenope

      All religions were young cults (in the anthropological, not necessarily pejorative sense) at some point. Why does age make something more reasonable to believe?

    • Darwin

      “tried and true faiths”? So they’ve all been found true in the scientific sense?

  • Len

    A bit like the programmers’ favourite: on time, on budget, on spec. Pick two.

    I tried a few different combinations:
    * Smart, religious, informed
    * Smart, religious, rational
    * Smart, religious, [something else]

    I couldn’t really find anything that allowed an honest combination of the two items excluding smart – eg, religious + rational or religious + informed. That’s assuming that smart includes critical thinking and rationality (also applied to religion).

    • Len

      Oops – c&p problem in my last para…

      I couldn’t really find anything that allowed an honest combination of the two items excluding smart – eg, religious + rational or religious + informed. Maybe “smart” is the wrong word.

      How about:
      * Honest, religious, rational
      or
      * Honest, religious, informed

  • Laura

    I disagree with this for a few reasons. For one, this diagram overlooks the concept of faith. Faith has nothing to do with honesty or intelligence. Faith can exist in the minds of smart and honest people who have engaged in genuine self-reflection and have come to the conclusion that faith makes sense. One could argue that this represents a dishonesty with the self but I think that’s an oversimplification. As an atheist, I believe that when a person says, “I have faith,” he or she concedes that they could be wrong. Faith, by definition, is an understanding that one has no proof that he or she is right but that belief serves a higher purpose than correctness. To call this reasoning dishonest takes onto account ONLY the atheist approach. It’s impossible to believe something dishonestly. From the atheist perspective, it looks like dishonesty or an inability to reason properly so as to come to the same conclusions we have, because if one of us were to believe, it would be dishonest or a forfeiture of reason. Now, this is obviously a best case scenario as most of us undoubtedly know people who don’t examine their faith and simply believe because they’ve been taught to (or for whatever other reason). I can’t call such a belief smart, but I can call it honest, if misguided.

    Secondly, and this is anecdotal, the two people responsible for my interest in ethics and philosophy were both religious. One is a deacon in the Catholic Church who studied theology and law, the other was my father who was a physicist. Both men are/were very smart and understood their religion from an intellectual angle. They were also honest with themselves (in the way I outlined above). My father spent a lot of time pondering the existence and nature of god, and after he died, my mom gave me some of his old notebooks filled with his contemplations. His logic is sound and his arguments are decent, but he came to a conclusion I believe to be erroneous, which is that god exists.

    But I think this little triangle dealie gets at something about how how we look at each other. As one poster said, if you replace “religious” with “atheist,” it would look true to a fundamentalist. As you can probably tell by this lengthy comment, I don’t like arguments as simple as this graphic because I think they’re blunt instruments. If we ever want to convince anyone that religion is false, it probably won’t help to call believers stupid or dishonest. As we’ve learned from some of our religious friends, semantics =/= a solid argument.

    • JonJon

      Nice point.

    • Elemenope

      It’s impossible to believe something dishonestly.

      I’m really not sure that’s true. I suspect, in fact, that it really isn’t true at all, but we are predisposed to think otherwise because we are predisposed to think that we are not in control of what we believe; we think that our beliefs cause our actions, rather than the more complicated notion that our actions in part cause our beliefs.

      In my experience, humans compartmentalize like it’s going out of style. Hence, we are fully capable of maintaining sincere beliefs in contradictory propositions. We are also capable of holding tentative beliefs, in the sense that our outward conviction is not reflected in an inward state, but is instead driven by something external (like peer pressure, for example). We are certainly capable of training ourselves to change beliefs over time, given an external motivation; the expression “fake it till you make it” comes to mind. Beliefs, and most mental constructs, find roots in physical habits and are strongly tied to them (hence the importance of ceremony and ritual in religion in general); the physical habit can certainly be established before the belief is.

      When taken to reasonable extremes, these phenomena can certainly yield what might best be described as a “dishonest belief”, a belief driven not by what one honestly considers to be true, but rather by other processes. I think this is particularly true once a person becomes aware that two of their beliefs conflict in an irreconcilable way and yet chooses to continue to maintain them both.

      • JonJon

        I’m not sure that being contradictory makes a set of beliefs dishonest. It might make them logically problematic, but if I’m not versed in logic that might not register. Even if it did register as problematic, I’m not sure that “sticking a pin in it” and continuing with both beliefs even though they appear to be contradictory, is dishonest.

        It is interesting to note the difference between the idea of belief as something that you have no control over and that of belief as a choice. Counterintuitively, I hear the former view expressed most often by theists, and the latter by non-theists. “I can’t change what I believe about the world: I see no evidence of God, therefore I do not and cannot believe.” I’ve heard sentiments like this here on UF. Dishonesty might be more or less possible depending on which route you take.

        But I don’t think that a strong belief can be dishonest, exactly. Certainly it could be inconsistent, viciously circular, and variable. It could also become stronger and/or weaker over time. And it could be abandoned with the realization that it was primarily motivated by selfishness. But it seems to me that the only kind of belief we could properly call “dishonest” is a belief which you profess but do not actually hold to. A very inconstant and variable belief might occasionally fit into that category, too, I suppose.

        But certainly some people’s definition of belief requires an opposed set of facts, along with sufficient knowledge to see that opposition. Believing against reality, for example, would seem to be excluded from the label of “dishonesty” by definition, or at least by some definitions. I think you could make the case that belief, when it is properly carried out, is incapable of being dishonest because of the kind of thing that it is.

        • JonJon

          Rofl. Mixed up former and latter (or theist and non-theist… not sure which is worse.) Should say:

          “It is interesting to note the difference between the idea of belief as something that you have no control over and that of belief as a choice. Counterintuitively, I hear the former view expressed most often by non-theists, and the latter by theists. “I can’t change what I believe about the world: I see no evidence of God, therefore I do not and cannot believe.”

        • Elemenope

          I’m not sure that being contradictory makes a set of beliefs dishonest.

          I agree that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

          It might make them logically problematic, but if I’m not versed in logic that might not register. Even if it did register as problematic, I’m not sure that “sticking a pin in it” and continuing with both beliefs even though they appear to be contradictory, is dishonest.

          I think “sticking a pin in it” is fundamentally dishonest, since you know at the point where two held beliefs point in different directions that one is incorrect about the facts of the matter. If it isn’t clear *which one* is faulty there is no dishonesty (just confusion), but a lack of desire to find out which one is malfunctioning in regards to reality can be a form of dishonesty all its own, depending on its extent.

          It is interesting to note the difference between the idea of belief as something that you have no control over and that of belief as a choice.

          I don’t precisely believe (heh) that beliefs are a result of choice, but rather a result of experience and habituation (which are only partially amenable to choice).

          Counterintuitively, I hear the former view expressed most often by non-theists, and the latter by theists. “I can’t change what I believe about the world: I see no evidence of God, therefore I do not and cannot believe.” I’ve heard sentiments like this here on UF. Dishonesty might be more or less possible depending on which route you take.

          I’ve seen it too. I think taken at face value it simply isn’t true; many people who say it in fact were capable of changing their prior beliefs from theism to atheism, so they are clearly structurally capable of change, and since they’ve been a theist we know there is no fundamental incompatibility between their brain circuitry and belief. I prefer to interpret such statements as just statements of reaffirmation of the current belief structure (non-belief, such as it is) with a high degree of emphasis; essentially, a rhetorical exaggeration.

          But I don’t think that a strong belief can be dishonest, exactly. Certainly it could be inconsistent, viciously circular, and variable. It could also become stronger and/or weaker over time. And it could be abandoned with the realization that it was primarily motivated by selfishness. But it seems to me that the only kind of belief we could properly call “dishonest” is a belief which you profess but do not actually hold to. A very inconstant and variable belief might occasionally fit into that category, too, I suppose.

          I think on the topic of strong belief, where dishonesty enters into the picture is on the front end, when forming the belief. Many people desire to believe strongly, perhaps because all their friends are doing it, or because they hold out hope that it will solve their problems, or they had a spiritual/emotional epiphany but don’t know how to give it structure. The state of desperately wanting to believe without having yet formed the habitual inclinations of an actual held belief is, at least technically, a dishonest one (you want to believe what you currently do not about how the world works).

          But certainly some people’s definition of belief requires an opposed set of facts, along with sufficient knowledge to see that opposition. Believing against reality, for example, would seem to be excluded from the label of “dishonesty” by definition, or at least by some definitions. I think you could make the case that belief, when it is properly carried out, is incapable of being dishonest because of the kind of thing that it is.

          I’m not sure I understand you, here. I would think that believing against reality would be the very essence of dishonest belief, unless I’m misunderstanding your turn of phrase. Help me out. :)

          • JonJon

            Belief doesn’t depend on reality. At all, really. I can believe I am the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte. Whether I am or not need not affect that belief in the slightest. Is my belief dishonest because it is delusional? If that meets your criteria for dishonesty, then we have a bigger problem, which is that our definitions of dishonesty don’t match up.

            I think on the topic of strong belief, where dishonesty enters into the picture is on the front end, when forming the belief. Many people desire to believe strongly, perhaps because all their friends are doing it, or because they hold out hope that it will solve their problems, or they had a spiritual/emotional epiphany but don’t know how to give it structure. The state of desperately wanting to believe without having yet formed the habitual inclinations of an actual held belief is, at least technically, a dishonest one (you want to believe what you currently do not about how the world works).

            I don’t see how even this is true. If I want to believe that I am Napoleon Bonaparte, but I do not believe so, then I am not being dishonest. I merely want to be something other than what what I am; that is, I want to be someone who believes himself to be a diminutive Frenchman.

            If I decide to myself “I will live as though I were someone who believed himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte. I will think like that person, who I aspire to be, and I will make every effort to believe the things that that person must believe. Maybe someday I will actually believe those things, and be more like the person I want to be.” I’m not being dishonest, here. I’m only trying to behave differently.

            If I pour my heart and soul into my wackjob self-improvement program, and habitually think as would someone with delusional beliefs–that is, I now believe what I did not believe before, just as I think as I did not think before, act as I did not act before, and desire as I did not desire before (e.g., the transition from the desire to be someone with a delusional belief to the desire to conquer Europe.) But is this dishonest? Not really. Just weird.

            So I figure the best shot for something actually being dishonest is somewhere in between when I believe new things and when I believed old things. But in each individual moment, I believe what I believe, either old, new, or some kind of blend of the two. Because I believe what I actually believe at each of the moments in question, I have trouble defining those beliefs as “dishonest.” The only way I can see belief being dishonest is if I do not believe what I do believe. I feel like that’s a contradiction precisely because that state is precluded by the definition of belief. The thing that commonly gets in the way of this analysis is the trouble between belief as fate and belief as choice. If you stick with one definition, you can characterize the other as “dishonest” pretty easily. But that boils down to a disagreement over the definition of belief rather than a question of the accidental properties of belief.

      • Len

        Cognitive dissonance FTW

  • http://atipplingphilosopher.yolasite.com Jonathan M.S. Pearce

    I don’t know, I think this works.

    Let’s take Craig:

    Smart, religious. Dishonest.

    Most religious people are honest and religious, but evidently not very smart.

    Most secularists are clearly smart and honest, obviously!

  • SundogA

    Not, in every case, precisely true, but still a good rule of thumb.

  • http://fugodeus.com Nox

    JonJon,

    Is self deception a form of dishonesty? Ie, if someone convinces themselves to actually believe something they know not to be true, is that act of lying to oneself the same as lying?

    I’m not talking about the first moment of putting on the hat and talking in a french accent (although misrepresenting to others what you yourself believe is kind of the definition of dishonesty). I am referring specifically to the moment when a person says “F*ck it. I am Napoleon”.

    Johnathan MS Pierce,

    It is right most of the time. That’s why it’s wrong.

    Craig is flagrantly dishonest and not as smart as he gets credit for. And obviously he is religious. Actually this triangle thing works pretty well with all the major christian apologists.

    Josh Mcdowell?: Stupid, dishonest, religious

    Lee Strobel?: Below average intelligence, dishonest, religious

    C.S. Lewis?: Above average intelligence, dishonest, religious

    Let’s try a couple harder ones.

    JonJon?

    Thomas Paine?

    Albert Einstein?

    And the one that breaks the machine.

    Ayn Rand?

    Anyone who agreed with the triangle and anyone who was offended by it,

    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.

    Yeah, “religious” has a pretty obvious negative correlation with “honest” and “smart”. After all why would people state demonstrable falsehoods as truth unless they are trying to deceive you or somehow don’t know any better. There is good reason to say that lack of honesty and lack of intelligence are the two main reasons why people choose to be religious (the usual form is lack of honesty in the pulpit, lack of intelligence in the pew).

    In light of all this it could be quite tempting to make statements like “Smart, honest, religious, pick any two”. I understand this temptation and it is not my place to tell others what to say, but I think this is exactly the kind of statement we should avoid making.

    People may have a variety of reasons for coming up with the same answer. (And here’s the f*cked up part) They may even have perfectly valid reasons for coming up with completely wrong answers.

    They may also be at various stages of the search for answers (Anyone remember Little_Bird or JohnTheBassist). And this touches on the other reason we should avoid oversimplifications like this. The word “religious” covers a lot of ground.

    I am aware of exactly one argument which is valid against both buddhism and christianity, and that is that both make claims about the nature of the Universe for which there is insufficient evidence. Belief without evidence is a flaw in a person’s thought process, but that isn’t the same thing as not smart.

    How many of us here used to be religious? What was the problem? Were you not smart enough or not honest enough?

    Or were you just f*cking born there, and hadn’t made it out yet?

    Many of us were smart enough to examine our beliefs and honest enough to care whether they were true. This inspired us to dig deeper into our beliefs, which brought us face to face with reasons which convinced us those beliefs were not true. We chose intellectual integrity over commitment to faith and tradition precisely because we were smart and honest enough to make that choice. I do think that is something we should respect in ourselves and our fellow atheists, but what I hope we can also remember is that there are many people as smart and honest as any of us who are in earlier stages of that process right now (and some religious people I’d have to call smart and honest who have thought about their beliefs and are still “christian”).

    But yeah, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.

    The triangle argument is wrong because of how it is stated. It is wrong because it makes a true point in a vastly oversimplified way which relies on the total absence of readily available exceptions. It is wrong because “smart”, “honest”, and “religious” can each have a broad range of meaning.

    It is not however, completely without basis.

    Stupidity and dishonesty are f*cking rampant in religion (anyone who is offended by that statement I invite to witness our recent apologist infestation or watch the next episode of the 700 Club). Let’s not pretend otherwise.

    If you are willing to accept the slight misuse of “Religious” as shorthand for describing the vast majority of religious beliefs and practices believed and practiced by the vast majority of religious people then if not the triangle, at least the square I proposed upthread still stands up.

    JonJon, John C, brgulker, (the following paragraph applies to each of you for very very different reasons, but from what I’ve observed I can say this to each of you),

    You know “religion” is bullsh*t. You’ve said as much. Repeatedly. You know that some of the primary claims of the religion you identify with are untrue. You’ve honestly acknowledged this. You’ve seen the suffering people have inflicted on each other for your god. And it sickens you. The same way it sickens us. You’ve seen religion close people’s eyes and minds. And you think it is foolish. You already make your own belief system (and for various reasons have chosen to keep the christian god as part of that). You already reject “religion”. You reject it because you already know it is false. You reject it because you are smart enough to know it is false and honest enough to care if it is true. So my question to you is (if you want to answer I’d love to read it, but I’m asking as specifically a thought exercise) why do so many people out there choose to embrace beliefs that intellect and integrity have compelled you to reject.

    Tldr for atheists: Atheists are not necessarily smarter or more honest than theists.

    Tldr for theists: Atheism is necessarily a smarter and more honest position.

    • JonJon

      wanna move this to the forums at some point?

      • http://fugodeus.com Nox

        Yes,

        Actually started working on post one for a thread to continue this discussion, but wanted to read back through “whipping boy” to make sure I didn’t ask you anything you’d already answered, and then I got sidetracked again and wound up having to spend much of the last two days talking to cops, pondering mortality, and picking pieces of broken glass out of my scalp.

        May not have a chance to finish my intended post till tomorrow. But if you want to start the thread now, we can go from there.

        • JonJon

          I don’t get email notification of responses to my posts, so I only reread this today. A thread now exists.

  • JonJon

    Dear God, Nox, I sure missed your walls of text.

    “the moment when a person says ‘F*ck it. I am Napoleon’.”

    I don’t think this is necessarily dishonest. I think it’s only dishonest if the person doesn’t believe it, at which point (s)he is probably attempting to deceive others. Because there will come a time when my behaviors, attitudes, inclinations, and even beliefs actually do match pretty closely with Napoleon’s. That’s the whole point of “fake it ’til you make it.” It’s the whole point of method acting. It is something that simply happens to people: if we continue in one pattern of thought long enough, it actually changes who we really are. Stockholm Syndrome is one of many examples.

    What I’m saying is that you wouldn’t say “that’s it, I will now be Napoleon”– what would happen is simply that you would *realize* that you are Napoleon. Again, this is a delusional belief, but not an honest one.

    I don’t like your conflation of self-deception and belief-acquisition. Self deception, I would argue, is a quite distinct phenomenon. Telling myself “I am justified in embezzling money from my employer” is self-deception. (It’s a rationalization–an attempt to convince myself of something which I know at the time to be false). However, upon actually *convincing* myself, through rationalization, that I am so justified, in what way am I continuing to deceive myself? I am deceived, but by a previous (non-belief related) action. My (false) belief does not contain an intent to deceive myself, and my rationalization does. Why assign deception to the believing side of the scenario?

    About triangle based generalizations: it pays to take into consideration that the negative correlation you’re talking about seems in part to be a product of our particular culture. In other (better) words, this triangle could conceivably be absolutely true in some cultures, absolutely false in other cultures, and all varying degrees from helpful to misleading in others.

    A further thought: there are *many* stupid/dishonest people in the world. Religious and non-religious. There are relatively very few smart/honest people in the world from either group. There are *many* religious people in the world, or at least people who do not openly identify as non-religious. There are relatively few openly non-religious people. This could mean that we have a pretty serious sampling bias. I’ll have to think about a way to flesh that out, because all I have now are wacky possibilities and no actual argument.

    • JonJon

      And in answer to your (rhetorical?) question, I would answer: because human beings have an almost overpowering tendency to accept their cultural norms as universal, their experts as infallible, their opinions as sensible, their arguments as compelling, their prejudices as justified, their art as beautiful, and their food as wholesome and delicious. And it takes a great deal of both specialized education and painful effort to escape that tendency even imperfectly, for even a moment. And as a result, most people don’t do it, no matter what their religious beliefs are, no matter the value they place on honesty, and no matter how intelligent.

      • UrsaMinor

        And yet, I have learned to love sushi and appreciate bonsai.

        But I still reject karaoke as the depraved work of demons.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X