I agree with what Steve (Cookster) said.

Dr. Hovind I pray daily for you and your wife’s release from prison and for the work of your ministry. I have listened to you for over ten years now and have turned a lot of people your way. I have always appreciated the way you communicate creation science and the gospel.

I also pray that once you get out of prison that you would go back to teaching creation science and preaching the gospel, that is what this country needs in it’s last hours.

I believe we as Americans have allowed the wicked to rule us for so long without any dissent that it is too late to turn the laws around.

Our biggest problem and error is that we have forgotten God. How many churches send out missionaries anymore? There are untold millions of dollars spent for buildings and self entertainment instead of outreach for God’s kingdom.

I believe if you take your resources and spend them on prison reform and every other political thing you don’t agree with, it will be one great voice silenced for the gospel.

David

Now, for Joshua’s comments on my post…..
Joshua said:
I almost never weigh in, but you made some comments that need to be addressed. I hope no one minds me taking the liberty to do so.

Geno responds:
I’m one of the “contrarians” mentioned by Jason. Since the changes to this blog when you took over from Paul Abramson, I’ve made little effort to post here. That said, there were clear errors of fact in the most recent Kneemail as well as some issues I didn’t think had been thought thru very well.

I do appreciate that you allowed my comments thru and, after this post, I intend to return to “lurk mode”.
#####

Joshua said:
First, you cited the commerce clause as a justification for federal intervention into what Dr. Hovind called “private affairs.” In the past 200 years of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, I don’t think one justice has gone quite that far with the commerce clause, which clearly limits federal jurisdiction to just that: interstate commerce – not private affairs. I’m not sure how you can equate the two.

Geno replies:
“Commerce” is the sale or trade of goods or services. If you engage in the sale or trade of goods or services across state lines, you are engaged in interstate commerce and Congress has the Constitutional authority (from Article 1, Section to get involved. In fact, there are some states (Montana comes to mind) that are passing measures to ensure firearms manufactured entirely within their state are not subject to federal firearms controls.
#####

Joshua said:
Second, you cite Article 1, Section 8, as justification for the mass pillaging of our economy. What you fail to understand is that Congress has not been in the business of coining money since 1913 (nearly a century now). Currently, the private banking cartel known as the “Federal Reserve” (no more federal than Federal Express)has been given this responsibility that Congress alone rightly had. This is criminal, and we are reaping the whirlwind for it. It is a VIOLATION of Article 1, Section 8.

Geno responds:
You misunderstand. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate the value of our money. Congress has delegated the authority to do this to the Federal Reserve. They cannot, however, delegate their responsibility. In general, I agree with you that Congress has failed in this responsibiliity. In fact, I even pointed it out in my initial post when I said: “Mismanagement of the monetary system will likely lead to an economic collapse.”
#####

Joshua comments:
Third, I don’t know where you get your legal advice, but every state that I’m familiar with will punish you heavily if you drive drunk. The deaths or injury of others in this infraction will result in much heavier penalties, almost always in the form of heavy time.

Geno replies:
Yes. But Mr. Hovind’s complaint was that this should NOT result in “heavy time”. Instead, according to him, “If you drive drunk and injure my family, that’s my business.” He seems to propose that these matters should be settled in a civil action which would result in a court ruling that the driver should pay the victims some monetary compensation rather than jail time. My point is that many people would NOT be able to pay that compensation which would mean there would be NO impact on the drunk driver. Like I said, if I were to injure someone while driving drunk, a judgement of $100,000 would just as likely be paid as one of $100,000,000,000.
#####

Joshua says:
Lastly, I fear that your statement about God’s form of punishment bewrays your vantage point, thus explaining your error. You do not seem to hold God’s Word as your final authority, stating “I’m not sure we want to go to that standard.”

Geno:
Not quite.

Mr. Hovind had compared our current imprisonment with Roman justice by claiming that the Romans thought long term imprisonment was “cruel and unusual punishment”. I pointed out that I don’t think the Roman idea of what is “cruel and unusual” would be a good standard for us to use since they had no problem at all with torture, dismemberment, and deliberately cruel executions.

As for the matter of “Biblical justice”… that would include stoning to death for disobedient children, those who commit adultry… even those who pick up sticks to make a fire on the Sabbath.

Do you really believe, for even one second, that the American people would buy into either of these justice systems? More important, do you really think either of these justice systems are one that we should actually implement?

Crime necessarily means that there is a victim.

Seeing no one could stand up at your trial and say that they are a victim of your actions I don’t think the word “crime” or “criminal” applies.

Victims, in a very real sense, are DinoAdventureLand staff.

I think the word you are looking for is “Quasi-criminal”; in this form “quasi” assumes the meaning “not really”.

Kind of like today’s money is “quasi-money”; not really money at all.

Since the resurrection/ ascension/ baptism of the Holy Spirit, I think that there has only been one single yardstick for the judgment of this world. Peoples acceptance or rejection of the gift of Jesus. A rod of iron, I would suggest, is what shall fall upon all manifestations of unbelief. Sodomy, thieving or idle gossip are all the same shade of jet black [I would suggest]. Jesus set a standard that a lustful thought/ imagination (to “look upon”) is no different from the acting out of fornication.

So the man or woman who acts to remove or separate a family/ husband from wife is exactly like the rapist. The guards who profit from these filthy deeds?

There certainly is a “Victim” in all this.

Jesus shall execute wrath in a real visitation.
Sin is to be judged.

Quasi-criminal, like all the other forms of fiction, is only acceptable to the extent that everyone benefits. To the extent that any one member suffers, the purpetuation of the “fiction” itself becomes a criminal act. And certainly the unrepentant can expect wrath, because Jesus if good for His word – all of them.

To the Honorable Representative _________________,
As a constituent who is concerned with our corrections system, I highly urge you to support HR 61 to reduce the sentences of non-violent offenders. This is a good bill, and your support will be greatly appreciated. Please co-sponsor and vote for HR 61.
Sincerely,
____________________________ (your name)
____________________________ (your physical address)

Can someone provide us a suggested / sample letter to get HR 61?

Who do we send to – senators or congressmen or both?

Thanks!

I read your response and still am not sure where I stand on HR 61. I do think there are some flaws in it. You referenced Bernie Madoff in your post. I totally disagree with you on this point. Lying and deceiving many out of their life savings and retirement, ecspecially those who are already retired, destroys lives. If you are blind and I tell you that I will help you across the street and lead you into the path of a truck…is it your fault because you trusted me? Of course not. If my intentions where to deceive you and cause you harm, I should be punished. You made the comment on how prison destroys families, but so does bilking someones life savings that they worked 40 years for and leaving them with nothing. Also, how many people I hurt and how much hurt I impose DOES make a difference. If I steal a dollar from you, there should be a consequence. It shouldn’t be as severe as if I steal your retirement, your home, your car, and then do the same thing to your neighbor and so on and so on. The amount of pain and wrong I cause should be taken into account when doling out punishment.

I also take issue that the Bible never calls for prison as a form of punishment. We know that satan is punished in prison and in Revelation 20:7 is released from his prison after a thousand years. It also implies in the old testament that one of the punishments for the Israelites for their disobedience is slavery and imprisonment by their captives. Now the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that “prison should be a form of punishment”, but I certainly don’t think that it implies that in shouldn’t be.

One more comment, we need to be careful not to use Levitical law as our standard, (as you did with the sheep stealing), when it suites us…yet shy away when it doesn’t. If we are going to use those standards, we are going to be executing a lot of people…those who work on the Sabbath, homosexuals, adulterers…we can make quite a list. We are under the new covenant of the shed blood of Jesus. Are some of those laws reaffirmed in the New Testament, absolutely, but we must be careful not to twist scripture to make our points, as I think most of us have done at some point in our lives.

Joshua…be careful how you rebuke those who share their opinions on this blog. Telling someone that “You do not seem to hold God’s Word as your final authority”, is a strong statement. I may not agree with Geno, but I think his point was in reguards to trying to reconcile Levitical law to our present judicial system, and Dr. Hovind used the example from the Old Testament that sparked the comment. If I disagree with you on a particular issue, I must lay out why I disagree before accusing you of not using the Bible as your authority.

Finally, I must say that I agree with Dr. Hovind on the severity and length of many of the prison sentences in this country. People kill people and get a slap on the wrist, but people who may use cocaine or steal may get 10 or 20 years. When you impose those kind of sentences you leave virtually no chance for reabilitaion. Families are destroyed and it puts a huge burden on all of us. After watching what happened to you Dr. Hovind it really opened my eyes. The severity of your sentence was ridiculous.

May God bless you Mr. Hovind and I hope to hear of your release soon. In Christ -Steve

WOW….
I am so impressed with this Kneemail, I am not sure where to start. I have read every kneemail since you were first sentenced, and this one (to me) seems to stand out as a real landmark statement showing Gods work upon your heart. God has changed you from the Kent Hovind of your videos/seminars, worked upon your heart, given you wisdom and UNDERSTANDING that you previously didn’t have. You are newer and better for your experience.

Quote:
“Yes, Webserv, I would have given your answer several years ago. You almost have to get attacked by the beast yourself and spend some time here to understand. It was the fundamentalist Christians, like me, that caused this problem with our cries for “tough on crime!” We didn’t seek God’s face (2 Chr. 7:14) on this matter.”

One thing though, (a small point) I understand that people see a negative connotation with the phrase “Fundamentalist Christian”; associations with a lack of understanding which you seem to admit in the above statement were once lacking in your judgement.

I hope the contrarians who once frequented this blog in abundance come to understand this:
In truth God has actually made you, Kent Hovind, more “Fundamental” in Christianity than ever before.

Although I admit I know nothing about this “HR 61” and therefore cannot comment upon it, I find the perspective and understanding that you have communicated about the problems with the Law thoroughly refreshing. Your perspective upon drugs for instance is totally bang on, drugs should not be illegal.
A case in point, in relation to your point on prohibition.
In Britain during the 1980’s (Liverpool area) heroin was given to existing addicts for free on the National Health Service, another debate could be made as to whether it should have been free, but never the less it was made available in an official regulated way and cheep (heroin is actually very cheap to produce).

These things were noted in the areas where this service was provided:
1. The existing heroin dealers within the area had no trade, they went out of business.
2. The progression of new addicts (young people becoming addicted to heroin for the first time) was considerably reduced. (no dealers pushing their trade).
3. The number of reported crimes within the area was notably reduced, heroin addicts were not turning to crime in order to fund their addiction.
4. The heroin addicts themselves, were getting jobs and becoming responsible productive members of society. A heroin addiction is actually less problematic to the user than an alcohol addiction given an equal ability to fund and maintain with quality controls regulating the respective drugs.

All this fly’s in the face of mainstream propaganda which says that we should treat drug addicts as a disease infecting society’s well being. The fact is that people within society will use drugs whether we like it or not. Society is therefore given a choice as to how these people should obtain their drugs.
1. Via the medical service.
2. Via licensed retail outlets, in the same way alcohol is sold (with age restrictions).
3. Via regular shops, possible regulations on quality control but no age restrictions.
4. Via the criminal, absolutely no quality control or age restrictions will be adhered to by the vendor at any time.

It is bizarre that society chooses option 4 the criminal. The British government Conservative led brought an end to this service and soon after all the negatives normally associated with the drug culture returned.

Although in my past life I may have done otherwise, I wish to say that in no way do I participate in or advocate the use of any intoxicants or addictive substances whether legal or illegal whatsoever.

There is much more that I agree with in what you say in this kneemail such as the punishment hurting the family much more than the criminal. The children do not commit the crime yet it is they that suffer the unseen punishment when their parents are convicted of the crimes and do the time.

I have to finish here but I was really pleased to read this kneemail, I would say more on how our God is a living God who teaches us all things etc but I have to end it here, I love you more than ever having read this.

Lots of Love

Jason x

Please understand, Geno, Dr. Hovind holds God’s Word as the Final Authority in all matters. It is not just something we carry to church or use to learn about spiritual things. There is a danger in the kind of compartmentalized religion that will give God’s Word jurisdiction in some areas of life, but not in others. II Peter 1:3 tells us that God gave us “all things that pertain unto life and godliness.” Therefore, yes we would like to “go to that standard” in all things. Thank you for your comments, and I do hope mine have given you reason to consider your position and its foundation.

Joshua Joscelyn
Blog Manager
CSE