So Destiny Church has finally found a new home. But is that any reason we should help fund it? On the other hand, if other faiths get a go, why not them?

The Destiny Church's plan to build a new "city" in Wiri, South Auckland is following what's become a tried and true path for any stories involving Brian Tamaki's controversial movement – Tamaki utters hyperbole aimed at believers, media report said hyperbole to wider audience, and that mostly secular audience instantly expresses strong but divided opinions – either horror and suspicion at his weird beliefs or support for his social work.

Tamaki, whose self-stylings as a "bishop" tell you much about where he's coming from in terms of ego and self-centred interpretation of Christian faith, is good copy.

Yet while he's unique in New Zealand these days, he's really just a combo of two archetypes – the late 20th Century US mega church leader and the 19th Century Maori prophet. There's a long tradition of pentecostal Christian pastors who both prey on and nurture their followers and an even older tradition of Maori prophetic movements offering hope and glory to those who feel oppressed or out of kilter with modern trends.

I'm not saying Tamaki has anything like the Mana of a Te Whiti, Te Kooti or Wiremu Ratana, just that that's the local tradition he stems from.

The latest news is that Destiny has won Auckland Council consent to build what he calls a new "town" in South Auckland. Drawing on more biblical language he describes it as the church's "promised land"; in 2008 he spoke about building a "kingdom" in Manukau before an earlier proposed property deal fell through.

Cue public outrage and debate. But let's step back a moment. This "town" is really a school, offices, gym, hair salon and, well, not much more. Presumably it involves a number of homes, but no-one has reported how many. That's a key question, but let's not forget this is on all of three hectares.

Reports say Tamaki is talking of building a university. That ain't gonna happen; some private training establishment offering tertiary papers is of course possible, but the red tape is extensive and the thresholds very clear and high. The Education Act 1989 has clear guidelines for what a university must be, including these characteristics:

(i) They are primarily concerned with more advanced learning, the principal aim being to develop intellectual independence:

(ii) Their research and teaching are closely interdependent and most of their teaching is done by people who are active in advancing knowledge:

(iii) They meet international standards of research and teaching:

(iv) They are a repository of knowledge and expertise: and

(v) They accept a role as critic and conscience of society.

Ultimately government has to support the accreditation, something even Unitec failed to achieve despite years of lobbying.

So while the language for his congregation is typically grandiose, let's not get trapped by that.

Last night One News reported Tamaki reckons he could do with some government money and Dr Pita Sharples said that may not be a bad idea. Cue further outrage.

But again, let's step back. Catholics get state money for schools, the Salvation Army for social work. Neither of those are perfect institutions with perfect track records.  Indeed, Destiny already receives government money for its (reportedly effective) social services.

And heck, some Pacific churches can be just about as all-inclusive as Tamaki proposes (as the ever-wise Dr Peter Lineham points out here).

Sharples, as a founder of the Kura Kaupapa movement, could hardly credibly argue against schools that do something different but still get government funding. And as co-leader of the Maori Party he could hardly rail against a movement that has significant support amongst his core voters.

But that's a long way from winning over the government and sundry bureaucrats.

Still, politicians should beware involvement with Destiny and its leadership; they march to a different beat. Their values are less negotiable than most in the political world, their goals very different and their language and method devoutly faith-based.

Should our leaders and our taxes head off to Destiny Town as well?

Dr Sharples said:

"It's far more positive if you can keep people out of going to prison. That's where we've got a start, not try and reform them after."


Which is all well and good, but is there any evidence that a school, gym and a few homes keep anyone out of prison?

Destiny Church is a very mixed bag. I've had too many people tell me of the good work it does with the down-trodden to dismiss them out of hand; spiritual discipline of any kind can be a good thing (yet, of course, can become a very bad thing as well). And I'm not convinced that "cult" is quite the best word to describe the church. Have no doubt that Destiny has changed many lives for the better and is full of decent, committed people with a sincere faith.

Still, that doesn't give it a free pass. Tamaki also distorts the faith he claims to represent – the extent (and manner) to which he profits from his followers is disgraceful and at odds with the gospel, his theology is bigoted – in some cases frankly bizarre and unhealthy, and the congregations' commitment to him over Christ and the bible is verging on dangerous.

It's too long a bow to assume that any Destiny "town" will turn into a Waco-style compound with terrible ends, but politicians should consider where this community may end up, for good or ill. Right now some politicians may be tempted to see Tamaki as a nutty guy who nevertheless does portions of their hard work for them, and therefore deserves a shot. It's true that you don't have to agree with or like everyone you fund – it comes down to evidence of what the agency in question can do and how it does it.

But is his work thus far sufficient? Is there any proof Tamaki can deliver on any of his promises to build healthy families? And can he do it better than other organisations already working in the field? How tightly are the services bound up with accepting the theology?

Is Tamaki, as a man who manipulates money from his followers, a fit and proper partner? Should public money go to a community where its leader cannot be challenged? Or is that no different from the Pope? Is Destiny willing to make the concession to secularism that the other independent religious schools do? Is it good for the South Auckland community to have an island for this unhealthy community in its midst? Or is it no different from any gated community?

While Destiny's good works cannot be ignored, our leaders need to be careful not to be taken in by false prophets in any form.

Comments (28)

by alexb on January 12, 2012
alexb

For me the defining image of Destiny Church remains legions of blackshirts marching down Wellington's streets against the civil union bill. Destiny got a lot of press coverage at the time, and members who were interviewed showed a remarkable uniformity of opinion and ideological orthodoxy. This was made even more clear when kids were interviewed, they would say things like "I'm against the bad people, the gays" and then fail to show any understanding of any facet of homosexuality. The flock of Destiny are taught opinions, not the ability to form their own opinions. I highly doubt any school run by Destiny will produce children who can easily slot into the rest of New Zealand, and as a result this Wiri project can only make Destiny even more of an insular institution. I don't think it is unfair to use the word cult. 

by Tim Watkin on January 12, 2012
Tim Watkin

Alex, that's a key question. And I'm no fan of the cult of personality and tight doctrine you describe. But will that doctrine seep into any school? Catholics have a similar theology towards gays – now, you can argue there's more room for dissent in that demonination and it has a centuries-old tradition of that – but Destiny is hardly alone in having a disturbing theology AND getting public funding.

So where's the line? Would be interested in views on that.

by Chris de Lisle on January 12, 2012
Chris de Lisle

Is this proposed community really all that different from Temple View (the Mormon suburb) in Hamilton? That community also has insular tendencies, and is, I would have thought, almost as controversial as Destiny.

Yet the reality is, that even with their own suburb, they are very much part of Hamilton, and the realities of daily life in a city mean that they have to leave Temple View and interact with the wider community regularly. And vice versa, they cannot prevent outsiders from moving into the suburb, either (I have no idea whether they wish to).

This new Destiny Village will surely be likewise. It would be, perhaps, much more of a worry if they were setting up their community out in the wops, where isolation could be achieved much more easily.

by Tim Watkin on January 12, 2012
Tim Watkin
That's a good point Chris, and part of what I was getting at. We need to be a little calm about this. You could argue many in Destiny are already very closeted in their own faith, so a little geographic togetherness may not make much difference. It's building a bit of a fence, but it'd be impossible to pull up the drawbridge.
by Mr Magoo on January 12, 2012
Mr Magoo

It is much easier to fathom the finer points when you don't believe that religious based schools should receive funding either. Why does religion get special treatment?

How about Military schools? (they have those in the US of course...) Scientology? A school based on the principles of communism? NAMBLA school for wayward youth??

And why do we have such stringent restrictions on universities and not our schools?! The kids have less choice/say/ability to react well to the crazy ramblings and teachings from such organisations. 

I think the moral/ethical/logical problems you are having differentiating between brian and the catholic church is that if we have a rule for schools based on one set of made up and unsubstantiated beliefs and another that does the same thing.

It is a bit like calling scientology a cult and not a religion. (as has happened in at least one country) It is a very hard argument to make because of the above. And no, being "established" or "old" does not count either.(my personal take on it is that cults "harm" their members and do not allow them to freely leave - but this is also a minefield.)

 

by Julie Carr on January 12, 2012
Julie Carr

Anyone who can instill Christian values in dis-enchanted youth deserves all the help they can get.

by Tim Watkin on January 12, 2012
Tim Watkin

Julie, I have sympathy for what you say, but where's the line? Magoo's getting at that point, I think. Why not instilling some Buddhist or Islamic values? As a country with no state religion and freedom of worship, we have to be even-handed.

And "all the help they can get"? Really? Regardless of what form those values take and what other values come as part of the package? The Klan claimed to be instilling Christian values; I know that's an extreme example, but it makes the point that this is a trciky line to draw and we should be wary.

 

Magoo, I'm sorry, but "old" does matter. It gives a track record, centuries to have been challenged and matured and to have seen it all before and learnt moderation. You open up a can of worms, but the evidence exists that faith-based schools have provided good education to generations without dangerous indoctrination. There is a line between traditional religion and ego-based movements, there is a difference between Christian denominations and Scientology.

Sure, some see virgin births and resurrection as nutty as messages fron outer space, but there's a difference – in the room for dissent and the diversity if opinion within the church universal, in the quality of minds who have tested and followed that faith (from Newton to Einstein), in the legacy of that faith (from slavery to environmentalism) and more.

by Mr Magoo on January 13, 2012
Mr Magoo

Excepyt typically that is not only what they are doing Julie. They are finding willing recruits to indoctrinate in places where it is easy pickings.Of course part of the mythos is helping the poor etc so it makes a very good spin line. Not to paint every christian with the same brush as I have personally met a few who are quite the opposite, but only a few. There are also more people out there doing it without the indoctrination. Just like with education

It is interesting that you bring up the Klan Tim. I watched a doco on some right wing Nazi group in the US. They also went around recruiting disaffected youth and indoctrinating them also. Provided them with "friends" etc etc. They also have their roots in very old ideology and have a shining track record. They tend to have a religious bent also because of the whole viking/norse cross over. Older than christianity in fact.
And while being old DOES give you a "track record" it does not mean you are any less delusional or more right than some new religion. A lie told long ago is no more or less than a lie. That is a terrible argument. Furthermore Tamaki's church is based on the same principles and book as the others so differentiating them based on their "age" is next to irrelevent.

You cannot argue based on "diversity of opinion" when the biggest church organisation in the world has one man at the top who sets doctrine without room for discussion. In fact claims to speak with God's word. Brian is no worse than him.

There are plenty of terrible old religions. The mayans (among others) used to practice human sacrifice. My Maori ancestors would engage in cannibalism as pseduo-religious practice. 

In fact one of those others where the roman catholic church (you know, the first, biggest and oldest church!?) who burnt people at the stake. Then there is the abuse thing. And a host of others. And don't put any of that down to "individuals". It came directly from their world view of aboslute authority and institutional practices.

And so now you are advocating that only OLD churches have a right? Why not the new ones?   

 And it is indoctrination. The WHOLE POINT of sending your child to a catholic school is to try and "instill christian values" into them. That is what indoctrination is.

It may not be the evil, strapped to a chair kind but it is.

It may not sound like it but I have nothing against people practicing religion. Even private christian schools are fine. The public should not be funding it. Church and state should not mix. Period. 

by Andrew W on January 13, 2012
Andrew W

I'm with Magoo on this one. Age doesn't seemed to have stamped certain unpleasant features out of the Catholic church for example, as we see in the constant cover-ups over child rape (and yes these occurrences are rare overall, but the protection of those in the wrong goes high up) and, say, the refusal to condone the use of contraception in AIDS-ravaged countries. The emphasis on intellectual obedience to authority sits uneasy as well. Tim does point out a tradition of dissent, but this is really the exception and not the rule.

And people might then rightly point out some of the better things we can attribute to various branches of christianity, but I think the point here is, again, where do you draw the line? Is it a do as I say, not as I do situation? If you want to discard some of the things I just mentioned, then it descends into cherry-picking, and if we're at that stage, I don't see why we can't just appeal to some more general notion of good human(ist) values, accepting that the overlap with most religions will be large (this in itself is telling I think).

As for the question of indoctrination, I don't think there's any kind which isn't dangerous. The whole idea is at odds with the critical thinking and questioning of authority we should be trying to instill in children; I don't see how any system which places so little stock in truth, as unravelled by science and the scientific viewpoint (the best system so far devised for reliable knowledge gathering) can really be called harmless, because then the boundary for truth becomes arbitrary. For this reason, I'm with Magoo when he says the public should not be funding religious education. Further though, I don't see why private religious schools should be allowed either. To me it's a children's rights issue; they shouldn't be exposed to indoctrination while their critical faculties are undeveloped. But then, a lot of christian groups disagree that children have a right not to be beaten by their parents. Is that a christian value too? And if not, on what grounds?

by DeepRed on January 13, 2012
DeepRed

And if not Waco, then possibly Jonestown?

by Andrew W on January 13, 2012
Andrew W

Also, I think you've mischaracterized Einstein's views somewhat, Tim. He was a self-described agnostic, and the extent of his religiosity really lies in a wonder at the beauty and structure and mystery of the universe. It's far removed from the anthropomorphized god entities of most religions, and scriptural dogma. And on that note, while it's true that great minds have tested and followed certain faiths as you put it Tim, is it not significant that equally great minds have done the same and emerged non-believers?

by Andrew W on January 13, 2012
Andrew W

But I'm really getting a bit off-topic with this, aren't I? Apologies

by william blake on January 13, 2012
william blake

Perhaps the line could be drawn with the help of Human Rights legislation and funding for any public education institution,secular or  otherwise, could be distributed in relation to its adherence to its guidelines.

In my view any organisation which discriminates on grounds of gender, sexuality, (dis) ability, or ethnicity should not recieve public funding.

by Graeme Edgeler on January 13, 2012
Graeme Edgeler

In my view any organisation which discriminates on grounds of gender, sexuality, (dis) ability, or ethnicity should not recieve public funding.

No more public funding for CYFS (which won't approve joint gay adoptions)? No more public funding for Courts (which send men in disproportionate numbers to prison as against women with similar records charged with the same crimes)?

Interesting idea.


by Julie Carr on January 13, 2012
Julie Carr

Interesting discussion about "Religion".  However my comment was 'instill Christian Values'.   IMO the 10 commandments are a pretty good list to go by.
And on our contry's religion.   We are not yet a Republic.   The Queen of England is our head of state.  Her Official religion is 'Church of England" which is Christian. Our  MP's are asked to swear on the (Christian) Bible, and more than 50% of them do (and not choose the affirmation).

And, a comment about 'Children's rights.   Don't our Kids have a right to know that religion exists.   Some have never been exposed to the notion.   And about Maori and religion, the best example there is the pacificism of Parihaka.

And indoctrination is not the unique preserve of religious groups.   What we teach our young in our state schools is indoctrination - in science, ideas that are presented as facts and stifle lateral thinking, and the 'best' literature in the arts, music, which are really only current thinking by so called 'experts'.

And indoctrination by the media on the subject of NZ's best sporting code.

Ha- but I get off topic as above.

So if Bishop Tamaki preaches love thy neighbour, then I am all for it.   And if there are a few dogmas that go along with the message then so be it, nothing is perfect.

by Tim Watkin on January 13, 2012
Tim Watkin

Magoo, sorry mate, can't agree. The timing of a lie is irrelevant, you're right. But that simply raises the question of whether faith – this one or any other – is a lie and that's a matter of personal belief and an entirely different argument. The question here is one of harm and impact. And age does matter on that score, because it provides evidence.

You can say Christianity has caused war, exploitation and much more. But you can also say that slavery and apartheid couldn't have been eradicated without. Our rule of law, chunks of democracy and even some of the foundations of science stem from it. And that's quite apart from the comfort and inspiration faith has given and gives to so many people. So I can't agree and dismiss it out of hand.

And the "track record" also shows room for dissent. Hell, there was that whole reformation thing! Sure, the Pope has doctrinal authority, but many Catholics disagree with his decrees and still worship and practice their faith. So that is different from Tamaki. And many other churches are full of people with very different points of view and differing beliefs, all worshipping together. Tamaki has not yet proved he's open to that freedom of opinion, and indeed seems threatened by it. That's the nub.

Andrew, you and many more might be moved to good deeds by your humanist values... but Wilberforce wouldn't have spent a life fighting slavery without his faith. Can you imagine Tutu apart from his beliefs? As he often says, the simple bibilcal thesis that "all men are equal in the sight of God" is one of the most radical doctrines ever preached. While it might have been other things, it wasn't; it was their faith that moved them.

As for your argument, and yours Magoo, about indoctrination, I think you use the term too loosely. Most children in the history of the world, I suspect, have been taught to believe in some deity. Has that harmed most of the world? Yes, Christian schools try to "instill Christian values". Other schools try to instill other values – competition, work ethic, co-operation, free-thinking, less free-thinking... Every household instills values in their children. Surely that's not all "indoctrination"?

 

by Tim Watkin on January 13, 2012
Tim Watkin

And to follow up Graeme's reply to William... the church is already given an exemption from human rights law and is allowed to discriminate on the grounds of, for example, gender or sexuality. So we already make room in law for some different beliefs, and imposing limits as you suggest William would cause all sorts of legal tangles!

by Tim Watkin on January 13, 2012
Tim Watkin

Hi Julie, thanks for coming back in. We agree on the indoctrination point. My problem is that while Tamaki says the words, I'm not sure if he does preach love thy neighbour. And the 10 Commandments aren't the beginning and end of the theology, of course. My concern is that those extra bits outweigh the good of the bits you mentioned.

As for the Queen etc, there is some debate about that, as you can see here in this old Herald story that touches on Tamaki protesting against exactly that claim, but the Human Rights Commission is pretty clear on the point and that's always been my understanding.

Andrew, Graeme et al – can you clarify the legal position?

by william blake on January 14, 2012
william blake

So the Church can legitimately negatively discriminate against society on a variety of grounds but we can't discriminate the Church on grounds of their religious bigotry. Sounds pretty unfair, 'Id better turn the other cheek.

 

by Graeme Edgeler on January 14, 2012
Graeme Edgeler

Andrew, Graeme et al – can you clarify the legal position?

There isn't a law which states that Christianity (or Anglicanism) is the official state religion of New Zealand, and our de facto head of state is not involved in the appointment of bishops. However there also isn't a law which states we don't have an established relgion, and we do have laws recognising our head of state is the defender of the faith, and which require our head of state to be a member of the Church of the England (that law being for the stated purpose of "securing ... religion" in Her Realms, and which notes that the Church of England has by law been established).

Contrast our free religion guarantee in the New Zealand Bill of Rights:

Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

with the guarantee in the US Bill of rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

Does a law in force in New Zealand by agreement of our Parliament recognising that a Church of England has been established by law, make us a country with an official religion? It's enough for me, but the question is really "what does it mean?".

We might have an official religion, but would that make us a "Christian nation", or would that instead be "the State's Christian, officially, but the nation is secular". What does having an official religion mean in New Zealand? It means our head of state must be a member of the Church of England, and that we have a law which recognises the Establishment of the Church by law. It doesn't go any further.

It is possible to be both a secular (as our law and policy-making is) and have an official religion (as that law seems to recognise in one place to not particularly great effect). And it would be possible to have officially no state religion, but still be a Christian nation, while also celebrating religious freedom and diversity.

by Chris de Lisle on January 17, 2012
Chris de Lisle

"As for the question of indoctrination, I don't think there's any kind which isn't dangerous. The whole idea is at odds with the critical thinking and questioning of authority we should be trying to instill in children"

What is the difference between "instilling" and "indoctrination" exactly?

I went to both a religious school and a secular one. There was very little that separated them; both aimed to instill/indoctrinate values of 'good citizenship', and punished those who did not conform to those ideals. In both schools we were instructed by figures whose authority could never be questioned. That was "insubordination" and punishable by detention.

Not only is that the only way that a school could function, but it's the only way that a society can function; we expect people to be instilled or indoctrinated with uncritical respect for the authority of the law and for our established morality, ethics and social mores. Any system of education must provide a significant dose of indoctrination.

by Andrew W on January 18, 2012
Andrew W

Yeah, I really was playing rather too loosely with the term "indoctrination" there without having given it much thought, and you all raise some very good points about that. I guess basically my thinking on the values issue is, yeah, the people Tim mentioned were probably driven in some measure to good or great deeds by their faith, but equally they were probably just generally decent people, and the two are hard to separate. For the kind of values systems espoused by religions to take hold, they surely can't be too dissimilar from the thinking of the masses in the first place, otherwise they would never gain traction. Apply this on a grand scale with, say, Christianity, and it strongly suggests that if you think the values of Christianity are useful, you should also accept that people might just have a pretty decent internal moral compass anyway.

And it's true that presenting such values in a religious context might present a neatly packaged vehicle for their dissemination, but my point, however poorly expressed, was to note that "christian values" is not one thing, in quite a significant way, and it's hard to determine the bases for inclusion. And then, as discussed, there will be some baggage that comes with that, in the form of homophobia, or opposition to life-saving measures like contraception etc, and the question is what the threshold should be.

And basically, what I wanted to convey was that if, as I suggest, people have a pretty decent moral compass already, surely we can codify some kind of values system that sidesteps the baggage (how you decide what the baggage is is another question) and presents the solid core. I think we could do things more efficiently without the use of a religious basis, depending on which religion etc. Because if religion is required to teach us what is good and proper, I question where on earth these imperatives came from? If the answer is largely "us", then that seems like a whole lot of unnecessary middle-manning

by Andrew W on January 18, 2012
Andrew W

I mean supposing we know the values we want to teach (and we do, otherwise we'd have no basis for pushing any, including religious ones), is the claim here basically that when they're packaged in a religious way, they are in some way more compelling to the students? Or that religions present a more readily available codification of desirable value sets?

 

by Tim Watkin on January 18, 2012
Tim Watkin

I hear what you're saying Andrew, but not sure I agree. I think faith, whilst often leading people to much the same place morally as many good, decent people is something different; the element of the divine, sacred and absolute adds something (not always for the better). And some sacrifices asked of followers of certain religions are far from popular or easy.

And Christian values haven't always been so close to the thinking of the masses – look at the abolition of slavery, driven often by people's faith. They had to overcome majority opposition and vast vested economic interests. Christianity at the start was a freaky fringe religion whose members were persecuted.

But I agree Christian values are hard to define, which is why I was making mischief asking for people to draw lines. It's all but impossible, but a fun debate!

by Frank Macskasy on January 20, 2012
Frank Macskasy

"Tamakitown" or "Brianburg"...

This will not end well.

 

by on May 08, 2012
Anonymous

Louis Vuitton Sale Hues, sizes and shapes are additionally apparatus abetment men accomplish the appropriate assessment from the capabilities.Louis Vuitton Bags Outlet If yo appear to amazing go with a submissions all of these? Louis Vuitton Outlet Duplicate Backpack Rate abridgement are abiding that it is a in adjustment to attending for the approaching finishing touches abandonment another business and a lot of vendors. Louis Vuitton Monogram Handbags Require to column to a person's advance of handbags day by day the latest inventions readily accessible pockets in adjustment to reach.

by on May 17, 2012
Anonymous

From the design point of view, the NC200D the main structure is more compact, beats by dr dre,ear muffs can be flipped,dr dre beats solo hd.beat by dre solo hd. beat dr dre.the inside of the flush design, the use of low-resilience polyurethane foam material, the machine with the battery weighs only about 180g, very comfortable to wear. It also can go to the inside of folding, beat by dre solo hd.facilitate the admission in a portable box. beat dr dre.Somic friends always ask the headset sound quality and product highlights technologies since the exposure of the new HiFi Headphones chart.beats by dre solo hd. beats by dre solo hd.As the headset sales ranked first Somic, beats solo hd.has been combined with electro-acoustics bond, baptism after EFi82pro, MH463 audio market, and then stepped up the pace of pushing better quality headphones. Today, I get further information for this HiFi headset.beats dre solo hd. Recalling the earlier exposure map, beat by dre.this HIFI headphones shape than before MH463 domineering, model named the MH489.beats solo hd. Address some of the details of the first beam to wear or headphones, we can see has been carefully designed. solo hd beats by dre.Look at the picture of the latest exposure of the entire headset in black and red mix to impact the entire visual passion in listening at the same time but without losing the sense of enjoyment. monster solo hd.Part of the first beam with a metal frame wrapped in a layer of soft plastic, beats dre solo hd.you can feel in his hand there is a soft feeling. The location of the first beam is loaded decompression headgear sponge with scale to adjust the stretch frame custom user comfort needs.

by on May 17, 2012
Anonymous

From the design point of view, the NC200D the main structure is more compact, beats by dr dre,ear muffs can be flipped,dr dre beats solo hd.beat by dre solo hd. beat dr dre.the inside of the flush design, the use of low-resilience polyurethane foam material, the machine with the battery weighs only about 180g, very comfortable to wear. It also can go to the inside of folding, beat by dre solo hd.facilitate the admission in a portable box. beat dr dre.Somic friends always ask the headset sound quality and product highlights technologies since the exposure of the new HiFi Headphones chart.beats by dre solo hd. beats by dre solo hd.As the headset sales ranked first Somic, beats solo hd.has been combined with electro-acoustics bond, baptism after EFi82pro, MH463 audio market, and then stepped up the pace of pushing better quality headphones. Today, I get further information for this HiFi headset.beats dre solo hd. Recalling the earlier exposure map, beat by dre.this HIFI headphones shape than before MH463 domineering, model named the MH489.beats solo hd. Address some of the details of the first beam to wear or headphones, we can see has been carefully designed. solo hd beats by dre.Look at the picture of the latest exposure of the entire headset in black and red mix to impact the entire visual passion in listening at the same time but without losing the sense of enjoyment. monster solo hd.Part of the first beam with a metal frame wrapped in a layer of soft plastic, beats dre solo hd.you can feel in his hand there is a soft feeling. The location of the first beam is loaded decompression headgear sponge with scale to adjust the stretch frame custom user comfort needs.

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.