The moral failings of another Labour politician
7 February 2005
Garnet Milne Reformation Testimony www.reformationtestimony.org.nz
The moral failings of yet another Labour politician.
When members of Parliament take an oath to be faithful in the discharge of their duty, we expect them to at the very least obey the law. Mark Peck, a self-confessed drunk and problem gambler is another example of a growing number of politicians who choose to break the law, while elected or appointed to make the law. Such people are not qualified to be our political masters and if the Prime Minister cared about the people of New Zealand and our reputation she would demand the resignation of Peck and others who break the law and risk killing or maiming others while driving with excess blood alcohol. We cannot see the Prime Minister making such a call given her track record following the moral lapses of other ministers and MPs. Members of Parliament should be models of virtue because they are some of the most high profile leaders we have in society today.
Drunkenness and addictive gambling are not qualities we would want our young people to emulate. What happened to old fashioned accountability and honour? Peck should have had the decency himself to resign immediately he was caught breaking the law. He still seems to be in denial, calling his drunkenness a chemical addiction because he wants others not to be ashamed of their addictions also. He should be very much ashamed. Peck also has an inane belief in a guardian angel while apparently excluding God from his world view: "You've got to believe in something”, he utters boldly “ it doesn't have to be God ... I'm calling it my guardian angel. I could be dead."
Peck, of course, rejects biblical Christianity (that is true Christianity) while at the same time claiming the high moral ground during the debates on the Civil Union bill. To quote him: “I have had a gutful of those people who run around and say that they know best—that they know better than us how our families should live. That is just as bad as any other form of prejudice. The Puritanism that has overtaken the United States will cause people to suffer for a generation.
It has seen George Bush be re-elected President of that country. It will see the conservatisation of the Supreme Court in the United States. It will see the abortion laws of the United States be overturned. Brian Tâmaki and his thugs sat in the gallery the other day to point out those of us on this side of the Chamber who dared to stand up against them, who dared to say that their prejudice needs to be put to rest. This is a debate that will evoke strong emotions, but it is a simple matter. I have no right as a human being to tell others how to live, and neither does anybody else in this Chamber”. Not only has Peck in a few poorly constructed sentences managed to write off the millions of Christians in the US, along with the President of that fine nation; he has also managed to contradict himself in the process. “We should not tell others how our families should live”, Peck excitedly asserts.
He then bravely raises the terrible possibility, in his eyes, that abortion might be outlawed in the US because of this new Puritanism he detects. Hang on a minute Mark. You have managed to tell 55 million Americans how they should have voted. Is that not telling people how to live? You have also endorsed the status quo of abortion which means that members of families actually don’t get to live? Who are those souls? Little babies, often fully formed in their mothers’ womb. You are telling these poor little ones that they have no right to live; they have no right to decide whether they even want to be puritans or liberals.
Instead Peck is desperately worried that babies will not be killed and thrown into a dumpster to be deposited at the local tip. Not only does Peck want to tell those little family members that they cannot live, but he also tells Christians that they are thugs and Nazis. His “logic” would also label President Bush and half of the US as Nazis and thugs as well. How do we explain this outburst in parliament unchallenged by the Speaker? Well now we know the likely reason, don’t we. This man who wants to rubbish Christianity, who worships some guardian angel of unknown parentage had more than likely been imbibing the sponsors products a little too early on that day. Not only should Peck resign, he should come out and apologise for his hateful rhetoric against the Christian community, and admit that his mind has been clouded by the turps, if it was the case, even as he makes these arrogant prejudiced attacks on honest and decent people who do not go around breaking the law, but rather who want to be governed by those who also have some moral fibre. Is that too much to ask?