The Kennebec Journal falls off the deep end

After reprinting a sweet story about a cat with a signficant medical operation, my local paper, the Kennebec Journal, has once again printed an article full of bullshit.

They returned to the Readfield Historical Society expecting to hear a metaphysical teacher delivering a grammar lesson and the sound of a chalkboard being cleaned.

Instead, the team of paranormal investigators encountered occult forces that were far less welcoming.

Those were the results of a six-member team’s ghostly investigation into the Readfield Historical Society building, a former schoolhouse built in 1823.

I can’t believe this crap is getting printed. This team observed nothing. They’re liars. They’re making it up. There is no evidence of the bullshit they claim, only evidence that they’re full of shit.

The Kennebec Journal need only look to this article to answer why they’re doing so poorly.

Because apparently it’s a slow news day

My local paper, the Kennebec Journal, has an article today about ghost hunters.

Florence Drake, the Readfield Historical Society president, will be especially interested in the investigation’s outcome.

She and the historical society’s board heard an initial presentation of paranormal evidence last fall, but Drake said many of the recordings weren’t quite clear enough to discern exactly what was happening.

“Some of the spirits, or whatever they are, I’d like them to speak a little more clearly, more loudly and clearly,” Drake said, “something I could play to our members and say, ‘Here. This is going on.’ “

What a monumental waste of time. Drake didn’t hear anything because it’s all a big scam. Ghosts are as non-existent as God.

Fortunately, there’s a commenter with some good sense.

“There’s voices and stuff moving and unexplainable crap,” she said.” Such phenomena ARE explainable. Steatorrhea, for instance, is often the result of too many fries and too much fried dough with your KFC, especially if you or the kids suffer digestive problems or malabsorption syndromes. Porta-potties at state fairs are an excellent venue for investigating such paranormal occurrences.

What made me most happy about this was that it prevented me from needing to sign-in in order to leave a lengthy comment myself. But that happiness was quickly dashed when I read this:

Divinity (the first commenter), can you prove it’s NOT haunted or that spirits DON’T exist? I didn’t think so.

Oh dear. This old canard. Didn’t the Flying Spaghetti Monster answer this? Didn’t Sagan already do away with this bull? Hasn’t anyone taken a basic science class?

But no need to worry! That same user, Divinity, is to the rescue.

mdenis46 said… “Divinity, can you prove it’s NOT haunted or that spirits DON’T exist? I didn’t think so.” Remember that beautiful summer, Michael, when you had to spend the best days of it in class studying statistics while your mind was on the beach? While you were day-dreaming the instructor was explaining that you never prove the null hypothesis, i.e. similar to “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Personally, I not only believe in spirits, I like to imbibe them when socializing with kindred ghouls and ghosties. I used to love my visits to Mount Desert following those C.E. tribulations; Caspar was always friendly and could drink like a fish.

Burn.

National Day of Prayer letter to the editor

On April 22nd I read a letter to the editor about the National Day of Prayer. It made no sense.

That this case was not dismissed is ridiculous. One’s decision about whether to pray or to participate in organized prayer is an entirely personal decision, protected by the Constitution.

(Judge) Crabb’s ruling says that she believes the government has the right to decide otherwise. A judge cannot undo the Constitution.

This was baffling to me because right before this, the writer (Stephen Russ) had just quoted where the Judge said that praying is a personal decision. In other words, the guy used the Judge’s logic, but stopped short of its conclusion when it became inconvenient. As such, I was compelled to respond.

In a letter on April 22, Stephen Russ said a recent federal ruling on the National Day of Prayer was “ridiculous.” He continued, “One’s decision about whether to pray or to participate in organized prayer is an entirely personal decision, protected by the Constitution.” He then bizarrely claimed that the ruling undermines this personal decision.

What makes this really weird is that Russ also quoted the judge’s decision, where she said that prayer is personal and government ought not interfere with “an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.” This specifically speaks to the fact that the National Day of Prayer is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion; via the government, it encourages individuals to specific religious action.

What so many believers miss is the fact that one cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. An endorsement of a specific religious act will run counter to another religion every time.

But even should there somehow not be an inter-religious conflict, believers are not to be given preference over atheists and other non-believers. It, of course, happens all the time, but, ideally and constitutionally, it should not.

And, in fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is as protected as any religion. This does not mean atheism is a religion — no more than not collecting stamps is a hobby — but it does mean that the government cannot have a preference for religion over a lack of religion.

But just for giggles, let’s say the National Day of Prayer is constitutional. It then follows that the government also can encourage a lack of praying. How would Russ and other believers feel about a National Day of Godlessness? It would improve society, I think, but it certainly would be unconstitutional.

(Damn you, Kennebec Journal, for changing my en dash to that ugly, double en, pseudo-em dash.)

As stunning as my take-downs always are, some people still disagree. For example, one person in the online comment section said this (in direct response to another user):

There is no mandate, nobody is going to be “penalized” on their income tax for not praying, or not saying a prayer that is satisfactory to the IRS. You need to go back and review the history of the establishment clause and relevant court cases. The government can not “establish” an official religion or require participation in a specific religion. Nor can it act in any way which gives a preference to a specific religion. When the majority of us establish that day and use the government to distribute that, or our representatives meet and determine that the day is going to be “May 6”, or whenever. That is our right. Don’t like Democracy unless you’re shoving it down someone else’s throat huh?

Got that? Government cannot act in any way which gives preference to a specific religion, but if a majority of people decide they don’t like that, it’s their choice. And that’s just democracy!

Only a member of a majority religion could possibly think the National Day of Prayer makes any legal sense.

Quack attack: A source of pride

Earlier this month I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper disparaging the practices of naturopathic ‘doctors’. They aren’t especially qualified. I would sooner go to a grad student than one of these guys. Of course, not everyone feels the same way. As such, a couple of people felt compelled to write their own letters. This first one is from Richard Maurer.

A fellow physician relayed a letter by Michael Hawkins, who used inflammatory language against an entire profession. Because his letter was printed, I am compelled to respond to his inaccuracies.

It’s a good thing Maurer didn’t read the original letter I wrote. I directly called a naturopathic ‘doctor’ a charlatan and quack, said he directly lied, and also effectively called him a mountebank. Fortunately for him, my local paper is concerned about libel (though it would never be honest enough to admit that), so I only managed to say that ‘doctor’ “misrepresented facts” in the letter that did get published.

Hawkins claims that Maine is only one of several states to license naturopathic doctors. He claims that naturopathic doctors “have no relevant medical training” and even questions the title “doctor.”

Maine is one of 17 states that licenses naturopathic doctors. Licensure here depended upon passage by the Business and Economic Development Committee, the Legislature and approval by the governor.

Yes, one of 17 is also “one of several” in my book. But I wasn’t making the point that Maine is “only” one of several states; the point was never to say that naturopathy is bad because so few states give it credence. I made that point in my previous letter, and did so in a far more direct, succinct way: I said two states actively prohibit the practice of naturopathy.

No, the point was instead that the fact that several states allow prescription rights to these ‘doctors’ is a dangerous thing. I pretty much directly said that. I was bemoaning the fact that so many lives are at risk, not pointing out the lack of validity in naturopathy amongst state governments.

Naturopathic doctors in Maine have a four-year undergraduate premedical degree, followed by a four-year residency-based naturopathic medical doctorate, more than 1,500 hours of clinical training, passage of both basic science and clinical board exams. Continuing medical education is necessary annually.

His last sentence is the closest thing that matters here. He just needs to change “annually” to “daily”.

Much of the training for naturopaths come from schools which also offer several false degrees: ones for chiropractics, acupuncturists, even one which features training in the practice of “cupping” – the ‘art’ of lighting a match inside a cup to create suction, removing the match, and then placing the cup on a person’s body. It’s obvious with what sort of practices naturopathic supporters are willing to associate.

Naturopathic doctors in Maine offer a wide range of proven natural therapies and can prescribe classes of medications such as hormones, antibiotics and immunizations when necessary.

Show me the evidence. The best anyone can expect from naturopaths is non-original research which becomes predictably distorted. And those prescription rights are dangerous given the lack of training from proper programs.

But wait! There’s more! Emily Albee of Readfield has written in.

Michael Hawkins Dec. 12 letter, “Naturopathic medicine is not science, untrustworthy,” infers that those who participate in naturopathic medicine are “quacks.”

To be fair, I did want to outright say it.

Specifically, Hawkins was referring to Dr. Christopher Maloney’s opinion on alternatives for combating and treating the H1N1 virus.

More specifically, I was referring to his non-medical opinion.

My experience working in public schools and having the privilege to work with tremendous young people has taught me illness is a risk.

As opposed to my statements that illness is all fun and water slides?

Dr. Maloney’s recommendation of a daily regimen of elderberry and garlic supplements has helped me maintain an excellent level of health during a very difficult flu season. I trust his opinion because his recommendations work.

I liked Maurer’s letter for not using anecdotes. I like this one for filling my expectations.

There is evidence for jack squat. Research does not indicate black elderberry acts as a vaccine. The nutritional benefits of garlic are well-known; it contains plenty of vitamins and minerals. It also can help with infections. Beyond that, the research gets fuzzy. Naturopaths are willing to prescribe it for several different ailments without any proper evidence (and certainly no original research). They routinely go beyond what they know and delve into what they wish were true.

Recently, I suffered from extreme vertigo. Constant debilitating dizziness made for the worst six months of my life. Numerous non-naturopathic doctors and multiple antibiotic prescriptions ($45 per prescription) later, I was left with no relief or hope that this nightmare would ever be over.

There’s this constant, underlying notion that because real doctors cannot cure everything, pretend doctors must have the answers. It isn’t true.

Dr. Maloney took the time to listen and, after a thorough exam of my ears, he diagnosed chronic ear infections as the source of my vertigo. He recommended a treatment of daily garlic supplements and garlic eardrops. This naturopathic remedy is the only thing that was able to stop the perpetual dizziness.

This isn’t evidence that naturopathy is at all valid. First of all, why were the real doctors prescribing antibiotics? They must have recognized some sort of infection. Second, the fact that they were prescribing something indicates that they did not miss a diagnosis only a naturopath could have made. Third, there’s no way to know if it was actually the garlic which cleared up the infection. Fourth, there’s no way to tell from this if Albee was taking some other medication prior to the garlic ear drops which had the side effect of vertigo.

Naturopathic medicine under the care of Dr. Maloney has brought innumerable benefits to my family and me. I would argue Dr. Maloney is a rare gem in this world of corporate and policy-driven medicine.

Ah, there it is. The real doctors are just evil and American health care sucks. Thus naturopaths.

I am safer for it despite Hawkin’s opinion that naturopathy is “malarkey.”

*Hawkins’.

More directly, my opinion is actually that unevidenced medical claims are malarkey. Incidentally, that includes naturopathy.

Another letter

The Kennebec Journal (KJ) has done what has become rare and published something which is full of sense and science: a letter by me.

Naturopathic medicine is pure bull.

Let’s not beat around the bush on this one. Those who practice naturopathy are quacks. They may be sincere quacks, but sincerity does not translate to evidence — or your health.

The Ontario legislature is considering giving naturopathic “doctors” prescription rights. This presents a serious danger to the health of any Canadian ignorant enough to be duped into the “care” of these charlatans.

But it hits closer to home than that. Maine is just one of several states that give these vastly underqualified “doctors” such rights. This presents a serious risk. They have no relevant medical training for offering prescriptions; this makes them highly susceptible to blindly doling out contra-indicated drugs, among other dangerous possibilities.

I cannot overstate this fact: Naturopaths are not doctors and they are not qualified.

They cherry-pick evidence, often lie and misrepresent facts.

Recently, a local naturopathic “doctor,” Christopher Maloney, wrote a letter in which he committed himself to that third possibility. He implied H1N1 vaccination properties for black elderberry. The only relevant studies on black elderberry are for the regular flu, do not show vaccination properties, and far larger studies are needed (as noted by the original researchers).

I implore anyone considering naturopathic “medicine” to not do it and/or cross-check Maloney’s “facts.” Naturopathy is not a science in any sense of the word; it is not to be trusted.

A long laundry list countering false naturopathic claims can be found at the qualified page Terra Sig on http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2009/11/more_naturopathic_nonsense_in.php

If everyone began to demand evidence, we could do away with this naturopathic “medicine” malarkey. We’d be all the safer for it.

Michael Hawkins

Augusta

withoutapologyinmaine@gmail.com

I’m glad I was able to sneak that email address in there. Without Apology is my publication and the sister site to FTSOS. That little advertisement is probably the best I can do there since I’m sure the KJ won’t let me link back to myself.

Anyway.

I don’t know if it was because I recently laid out a short summary of the sort of antics this paper has been playing (and then subsequently emailed the link the head honcho), but it took me some time to get this letter published. I originally wanted a much more comprehensive letter published, but Jim Evans lied to me and wouldn’t admit that libel was his concern, so I settled for a pro-atheism letter. Seeing through Evans’ lies, I rewrote my letter so that I could call Maloney a charlatan without directly saying it and submitted that. And then resubmitted it. And again. It looks like persistence won the day. (And that’s fortunate for Evans because once finals were over I planned on paying him a personal visit to get him to just tell me the truth. I mean, goodness. Just say what you mean.)

In the comment section of this letter, “homesteps” of Chelsea speaks of his/her experience being treated by Maloney. S/he says this.

Chris is very good at looking at factors that may impact mysterious conditions. He helps patients with food diaries and elimination diets. He encourages them to embrace an all-around healthier lifestyle. On top of these qualities, he is focused on finding the true underlying problems and treating the whole patient. He often recommends that people see their regular medical doctors, as he recognizes the limitations of any one-size-fits-all approach. He is one of the most caring doctors we have been to.

Maloney is NOT a doctor by any reasonable measures – and Maine’s measures are not reasonable! He has NO qualifications which earn him that title beyond the state’s bogus measurements!** It’s all fine and dandy if someone wants to waste money on someone telling them to not eat crappy foods* (should I be charging you readers for that nugget of advice?), but let’s not pretend that these people are actually qualified to be doling out medical advice. As I note in my letter, people run the risk of taking contra-indicated drugs if we start treating naturopaths as real doctors.

*I’m not disparaging true nutritionists or implying that their advice is a waste. My comment is more specific; think of going up to some random schlub on the street and asking him for dietary advice. He may rightly tell you that eating a lot of trans fat is bad for you, but that doesn’t mean that he has done anything to earn payment from you.

**Maloney whined to WordPress to make me change this. I originally said he was not a doctor at all. Under the technicality of Maine law, he is a doctor. But he’s a dangerous one because he lies about the efficacy of treatments to suit his purposes. And, again, he is not allowed to practice naturopathy in two states.

Christian ‘Science’ again

Seth Johnson is back in the local paper. I’ve responded to his nonsense in the past, but he keeps on going. My recent letter supporting atheism was published within the past 30 days, so I am not able to send in another letter to make sure people don’t buy into this Christian Science malarkey, so FTSOS will have to do. Here is the letter.

I’d like to respond to the article “‘Spiritual health care’ advocates seeking inclusion in legislation” which appeared on Nov. 27.

The Christian Science church has asked Congress to include a provision so that insurance companies do not discriminate against people who choose spiritual care to meet their health-care needs. The federal government will not be “paying for prayer.” The intent is to allow people who pay in to private insurance to get the care they find effective.

Many people have found spiritual care, such as Christian Science, to be reliable and affordable in meeting their health-care needs for many generations. Individuals pay for this form of treatment as a professional service. Payments go directly to Christian Science practitioners, or full-time healers, who are self-employed and receive no compensation from the church. It’s their only livelihood.

The legislative provision under consideration does not change child protection laws.

That being said, is spiritual care safe for children? Parents are required by law to provide proper health care to children, and the Christian Science church fully supports laws that require parents to act responsibly and provide good care. If families use spiritual care with their children, it must be done responsibly and with good results.

Also, this provision is not trying to put spiritual care on the same level as medical care. It is only about what private insurance companies decide to cover in their policies.

Everyone should receive good health care. In the current debate about mandating health insurance, methods of proven effective treatment should be made available to the public.

Seth Johnson

Christian Science Committee on Publication for Maine

Falmouth

As usual, a pusher of bad medicine isn’t being entirely forthcoming. The inclusion of Christian Science in the health care bill would require insurance companies to consider covering “religious and spiritual healthcare”. Such a requirement (even if it’s only a requirement of consideration) is obviously unconstitutional. Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that these anti-medical faith-heads don’t have a shred of evidence which suggests that anything they do actually works.

I mean, goodness, is that so much for people to ask? Just offer us some actual experiments, some studies, some tests. Give us something which can actually be discussed. Right now all we’re seeing is a bunch of malarkey which appeals to nothing but faith and placebo effects. It’s ludicrous that anyone could support this rubbish.

On a separate note, the Kennebec Journal (the paper in which the letter appeared) is showing itself to have a favoritism toward this anti-science nonsense. First it goes out of its way to offer extra space and apologetics to some naturopathic quack at the end of a letter, then it refuses to publish letters critical of that sort of junk, going so far as to lie about why they won’t publish quality criticisms. This pattern of dishonesty is getting out of control.

Christian 'Science' again

Seth Johnson is back in the local paper. I’ve responded to his nonsense in the past, but he keeps on going. My recent letter supporting atheism was published within the past 30 days, so I am not able to send in another letter to make sure people don’t buy into this Christian Science malarkey, so FTSOS will have to do. Here is the letter.

I’d like to respond to the article “‘Spiritual health care’ advocates seeking inclusion in legislation” which appeared on Nov. 27.

The Christian Science church has asked Congress to include a provision so that insurance companies do not discriminate against people who choose spiritual care to meet their health-care needs. The federal government will not be “paying for prayer.” The intent is to allow people who pay in to private insurance to get the care they find effective.

Many people have found spiritual care, such as Christian Science, to be reliable and affordable in meeting their health-care needs for many generations. Individuals pay for this form of treatment as a professional service. Payments go directly to Christian Science practitioners, or full-time healers, who are self-employed and receive no compensation from the church. It’s their only livelihood.

The legislative provision under consideration does not change child protection laws.

That being said, is spiritual care safe for children? Parents are required by law to provide proper health care to children, and the Christian Science church fully supports laws that require parents to act responsibly and provide good care. If families use spiritual care with their children, it must be done responsibly and with good results.

Also, this provision is not trying to put spiritual care on the same level as medical care. It is only about what private insurance companies decide to cover in their policies.

Everyone should receive good health care. In the current debate about mandating health insurance, methods of proven effective treatment should be made available to the public.

Seth Johnson

Christian Science Committee on Publication for Maine

Falmouth

As usual, a pusher of bad medicine isn’t being entirely forthcoming. The inclusion of Christian Science in the health care bill would require insurance companies to consider covering “religious and spiritual healthcare”. Such a requirement (even if it’s only a requirement of consideration) is obviously unconstitutional. Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that these anti-medical faith-heads don’t have a shred of evidence which suggests that anything they do actually works.

I mean, goodness, is that so much for people to ask? Just offer us some actual experiments, some studies, some tests. Give us something which can actually be discussed. Right now all we’re seeing is a bunch of malarkey which appeals to nothing but faith and placebo effects. It’s ludicrous that anyone could support this rubbish.

On a separate note, the Kennebec Journal (the paper in which the letter appeared) is showing itself to have a favoritism toward this anti-science nonsense. First it goes out of its way to offer extra space and apologetics to some naturopathic quack at the end of a letter, then it refuses to publish letters critical of that sort of junk, going so far as to lie about why they won’t publish quality criticisms. This pattern of dishonesty is getting out of control.

Not so humble

Well, I was wrong – about that, I must be humble.

I recently wrote about the local paper not publishing a letter I sent. I was told by Jim Evans it was because staff had been sick and they were trying to catch up. In the meantime, letters referencing dates and events which took place a full week after I had submitted my letter were being published. The conclusion?

Jim Evans is a liar.

There. Simple.

However, I wrote a second letter (while also submitting my first once again). This was just got published (and in the Sunday edition, no less; Ooo la la).

God does not exist. I say that without hesitation, but not without qualification.

There is no way to prove a negative. As such, no one can say God does not exist for certain. However, that same logic means no one can say for certain that Zeus, unicorns, fairies, and other magical beings do not exist. The necessary conclusion is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — however, absence of evidence which should be present is evidence of absence. If, say, the version of the Christian god in which most people believe does exist, we should expect to see certain things. Prayer healing, for instance, should show positive results for those who receive it versus those who do not receive it. This does not happen. This is one piece of evidence that this particular god does not exist.

Of course, losing one’s faith in a god is a process, not a moment. However, should one be lucky enough to complete the course, it will soon be discovered that life is all the better, all the more free.

Atheism has the power to bring about this good, this freedom. It releases the mind of mythical religious burdens and leads to a focus on humanity, on reality. It is itself not a system of belief, so its strengths are limited. This is a good thing. The more free a mind is of dogma and doctrine and ideology, the better.

I implore the great number of atheists reading this to stop coddling religion. It has not earned the deference it is given. We should all stop pretending otherwise. Do not acquiesce to demands of respect by its adherents. Instead, first demand evidence.

Finally, to my fellow atheists, you are not alone. Do not fear speaking our side. The world needs it.

How militant!

Humble pie

Some time ago I wrote a letter to the editor of the Kennebec Journal. After 10 days without seeing it in print, I sent an email.

I recently submitted a letter to the editor. It has been over a week since I sent it. It refuted the irresponsible claims made by a pseudo-doctor. It was properly uncharitable to the man; his ‘profession’ earned as much.

I am wondering if the reason I have yet to see my letter published due to this unkindness. If the KJ coddling anti-science, anti-medicine quacks who have no evidence (or grossly misrepresent evidence)? I hope I am simply jumping the gun and I will see my letter come Monday or Tuesday.

I took an aggressive tact because the KJ has in the past denied publication of one of my letters. They lied to me and said they could not confirm certain facts. It’s no secret they were legally covering themselves. This naturally made me a bit bitter; my letter was about a stunt of a man who actively defended paying an employee under $8 an hour after 8 years of service (in 2005). The fact that his reputation was being protected was disgusting to me.

So, with that in the back of my mind, I wondered if the same was happening with my recent letter. I attacked a quack ‘doctor’ who had recently written about naturopathy. As my above email says, I was not kind. He hasn’t earned such respect.

I made an assumption that the KJ was coddling the man. Of course, I mean two things by that. First, they gave an extra little blurb after his letter describing his ‘profession’. This gives the man credence he doesn’t deserve. Second, the paper has shown itself afraid to let its readers use strong language in the past.

Turns out I was wrong.

Mr. Hawkins,
We are struggling to get those letters in the paper right now because both of the people who handle them have been out sick. We’ll be catching up later in the week, I hope.

Jim Evans
Managing Editor

What happened here was a poor consideration of the evidence around me. Of course, people may be out sick. Or maybe priority had been given to larger pieces (recent editions of the paper have been scant on letters to the editor). I should have given the issue more consideration. I’m happy to admit that I did jump the gun with my accusing questioning. It’s a good lesson.

Some people are just so wrong

This is a Letter to the Editor from today’s Kennebec Journal.

I don’t know about you but I am outraged to think that a felon can vote in Maine. Isn’t it wonderful that we have the reputation of being one of only two states in the country to allow a felon to vote?

Can you imagine that a pedophile who rapes a little child can vote? And, how about the adult rapist, the bank robber, the arsonist, the killer, the guys who used a machete to hack up those folks in Pittston and all the rest of the lowlifes.

I hope the editors of this newspaper write an editorial someday about this travesty of our law. The liberals like it because most of these punks vote for them. It’s easy to know why.

I will sign a petition to get this law changed. Is there an organization out there that will start one? Is there anybody or any group that will say “enough is enough?”

Is there a politician with guts enough to stand up and be counted and start the ball rolling? If the voters of this state don’t wake up and start electing people other than liberals, we will have such a mess that it will never get cleaned up.

C’mon folks, do something!

Roland Preble

Gardiner

Despite the lazy outrage (“Someone else do it!”), I actually was quite pleased to see this letter. I wasn’t aware (or at least had forgotten) that Maine allowed felons to vote. This is excellent. Why should criminality bar someone the voting booth? Committing a felony says nothing of a person’s ability or (more importantly) right to vote. I see no good argument for it.

I do, however, see a great argument against it. We still tax felons, no? We still charge them fees for various registrations and whathaveyou. If we are going to force them to give money to the state for the benefit of the whole, we must also give them the right to have a say in what we do with that money. It is not the place of the state to permanently dictate to any person what it shall do with said person’s money. That is an unreasonable punishment. It amounts to a life-long fine. Worst yet, it strips people of certain fundamental rights. The right to vote should never be taken away from any person, no matter how heinous a crime has been committed.

But I would imagine Roland would prefer felons to vote. The vast majority of the prison population is Christian and against da gays. The whole group could be a boon for conservative issues (like bigotry and ignoring reason).