The rise of the religious left
Is Kevin Rudd part of the global rise of the religious left? Or, more accurately but less evocatively, is he part of the rise of the religious centre-left?
Keen observers of the Australian political scene will remember that his campaign for the leadership of the Labor Party back in December 2006 was something of a faith-based enterprise. It was achieved partly on the back of a serious-minded, 5,000-word essay in The Monthly magazine on religion in politics. In it, he spoke of his admiration for Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who stood in defiance of the Nazis and was executed at a concentration camp in 1945 as a result. 
Rudd described him as "the man I admire most in the history of the 20th Century".
He also argued that a "Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed".
Other global leaders have enunciated a similar message from the centre-left. In his book Courage, Gordon Brown also eulogised Bonhoeffer, while Barack Obama regularly ventriloquises the religious teachings of the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr (as opposed to the civil rights leader's searing critiques of white America, which he has a tendency to downplay because they blunt his "post-racial" message).
The global religious left's views on social justice are animated by their interpretation of the Bible as a social gospel.
I mention all of this because of the speech Kevin Rudd delivered in the open-air mass that launched the recent Catholic World Youth Day celebrations. I wonder whether a modern-day Australian prime minister has ever delivered such an overtly religious speech (any help on that front gratefully received).
His brief comments that day sound and read like a counter-blast to Richard Dawkins, the best-selling author of The God Delusion, and Christopher Hitchens, who has recently written God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Rudd offered a stout defence of the welcome place for religion in the public square.
"Some say there is no place for faith in the 21st Century. I say they are wrong. Some say that faith is the enemy of reason, I say, also they are wrong... It was the church that began first schools for the poor. It was the church that began first hospitals for the poor. It was the church that began first refuges for the poor and these great traditions continue for the future. And I say this, that Christianity has been an overwhelming force for good in the world."
For the leader of a secular nation, did Kevin Rudd go too far? Or is it only natural and entirely appropriate that Rudd's religious beliefs should find expression in his politics? And finally, the question with which I started, is he a happy standard-bearer in the global rise of the religious left?
PS Staying with religion, I've thought long and hard this week about how we reported World Youth Day, and whether we focused too much attention on the sexual abuse scandal. On reflection, I think our overall coverage was balanced. On television, radio and the website, we gave regular voice to the young Catholic pilgrims, along with their spiritual leaders, and reported on their infectious enthusiasm and impressive spectacle. Frankly, they received much more airtime than the critics. But we did report on the plight of the victims, and I firmly believe we were right to do so.
That we kept on revisiting the abuse story was largely due to the public relations of the Vatican and World Youth Day organisers. On his flight to Australia, the Pope indicated he would apologise. But doubt was cast on that by a senior Vatican spokesman later in the week who said, rather cryptically, that there was no guarantee of a verbal apology. Bishop Anthony Fisher, the co-ordinator of WYD, also kept the story in the headlines by suggesting that victims should not "dwell crankily" on old wounds (later in the week, he apologised himself).
Had the church simply announced beforehand that the Pope would apologise and meet some victims, and indicated when that would happen, the story would not have received anywhere near as much prominence. But the guessing game lasted the entire week. Even until the apology itself, the church kept reporters and the victims groups in the dark. The prepared text of the homily that Saturday morning, which was distributed to journalists, did not include the apology. His meeting with four victims chosen by the Catholic church on Monday morning was also kept a closely-guarded secret.
Many of you have already addressed this in your comments, but, as always, I'm keen to get your feedback.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I'm afraid I simply find it amusing that the replacement for John Howard, who was so loathed by some of my atheist friends, is a dedicated Christian. They find it so disappointing!
Complain about this comment
Dawkins work 'The God Delusion' has clearly made its mark. Having done so, does it not then serve to strengthen the determination of those at the other end of the playing field, like Rudd, who question 'Is there not more to life than just this material world?''
For me, the two men are not so different from one another, Dawkins and Rudd exude similar confidence with respect to their faith. One sees no need or place for the church/mosque/etc in modern society, the other clearly does.
To answer your question, it is not entirely appropriate for Rudd to espouse his faith in his political addresses, in the sense that the relationship between religion and state has been problematized in Western society. Considering this, however, I wonder is it not natural for history to once again reach a point where the two begin to banter or embrace again?
(No comments regarding Bonhoeffer - I have not read his works)
Complain about this comment
Perhaps if Tony Blair had been as honest about his Religious conviction someone would have had the sense to oust him before he allowed the little voices in his head to lead the UK into Iraq.
As an Athiest (or atleast someone waiting for more proof than a man in a dress) it pains me to say it but humanity needs to belive in something. Humans are weak, pitiful creatures howling into the darkness desperatly seeking a ray of light and hope to cling too. Whether that be a God, Mother Nature or Science is really not important; but a Politican (especially at PM level) should be open and honest about that conviction. Allow for the free practice of any belief, but no man should be allowed to force his view of the world onto another.
Complain about this comment
Got to say I agree with all three of the above comments!
I'm one of those people who would probably be disapointed to see an overtly religious man in charge.
That said, I admire people who have Faith even though I can't understand it myself, and I don't think that leadership and faith are mutually incompatible. Sure it can be taken too far (see Bush, or any fundamental state) but many religious values are those that us non-religious, but hopefully ethical, types aspire to too.
Complain about this comment
That speech is probably the first courageous thing Rudd has ever done.
Non-religious lefties would've crucified Howard for similar remarks!
Will they now turn on Rudd?
Complain about this comment
Also, in response to a post above, can I just point out the obvious and say that Blair did not go into Iraq because of his religion.
Blair was a closet Catholic and admirer of John Paul II.
Pope John Paul II meanwhile was one of the world's leading anti- Iraq war voices and met Blair in person to try to avert the war!
Complain about this comment
I nearly fell of my chair when I read that you felt the BBc's coverage of World Youth Day was fair and balanced. This is the single biggest international gathering of youth anywhere and yet the bBc's coverage was desultory. Are you seriously contending that the BBC's coverage reflects this fact? The problem for the BBC is its 'cultural liberal bias'- you just don't get religion and faith.
Complain about this comment
Seanchpreston, how were you expecting the BBC to cover an event on the opposite side of the world, in which not much (other than that was pre-planned) actually happened?
I don't doubt that it was a great experience for those who attended, but there are lots of examples of that, and they're not generally considered 'news'.
Complain about this comment
Rudd's religious beliefs have no bearing on his suitability or credibility as a Prime Minister. What he uses to make himself feel comfy in the universe is his business. What I angst over is indications that his christian beliefs also come packaged with extremely conservative ethical views.
Rudd jumping to the defense of coppers who foolishly (in my opinion) rushed out to confiscate photos by a renowned Australian photographer (Bill Henson) was worrying. Eventually, and thankfully, the cop's legal advisers told them not to be so silly and put the photos back. And in the backwash Rudd was left standing like a shag on a rock.
Hopefully Rudd will learn a lesson from that fiasco, and also learn that he has to embrace a more catholic ethical position (pun intended) to deal with the complex business of being a nation's leader.
Complain about this comment
We didn't need that foreign imposter arriving on our shores we have our very own Pope Krudd.He started off by telling the Australian population, before the last election, that he was a man of the future, a visionary looking out towards 2050 and beyond.As soon as he took office he proclaimed a 2020 summit to put forth ideas to tackle Australia's future.
However in his speech welcoming the other Pope ,he has clearly displayed that he is a man of the past.
He truly believes that "faith and reason" are not opposed.That "science and religion" can work together for the future of man.He has not heard the many voices from the graves of scientists,astronomers,physicians or anyone contravening the past teachings of the church.He has not heard the African bishops proclaiming that the use of condoms will spread the Aids virus.He has not heard the other Pope beseeching the poor and ill educated to keep the birth rate rising ( which will directly affect the formulation of climate change policy and which Pope KRudd seems to ignore in his praise of religion).He has not heard the cries of the poor of The Phillippines, Latin and South America, as they live amongst the cardboard and the sewerage, in countries were the Catholic Church has been a dominant force for hundreds of years.He has not heard the outrage from the sexually abused and the continued presence of sexually dysfunctional men amongst the Catholic clergy.
Pope KRudd, religion is an immoveable dogma, set in the fairy stories of the holy books.Science and reason are forever on the move forward,analysing,reshaping if necessary,investigating,hypothesising.None of this is applicable to religion in any significant way.
The sooner Pope KRudd is replaced the better,otherwise his brand of Queensland evangelical nonsense will start to spread South and infest the more enlightened.Although I guess that many who voted for him already have the virus.
Complain about this comment
I valued Nic's blog on the Papal viusit and wyd enormously.
The catholic church's handling of sexual abuse
Complain about this comment
I valued Nic's blog on wyd enormously as someone is very interested in understanding religion.
I understand it is disappointing for catholics that such a major joyful event for young people was overshadowed by the church's response to sexual abuse.
However, if the catholic church wants the world to focus on its positives aspects it has to sort out its negative features rather than pretend that these do not exist.
Well done Nic.
Complain about this comment
paulcrossley, let's contrast WYD coverage with say ... I know, Barack Obama's 'Ich bin ein beginner' speech in Berlin. Even less happened but of course the BBc love him because he in the antithesis of Bush, Pope Benedict etc. Wall-to-wall coverage, major headlines on news bulletins etc but what of any significance did he say? Please explain.
Complain about this comment
Seanchpreston, I would say nearly as little happened with Barack Obama's euro visit as WYD. The BBC do go over the top with their coverage of the US presidential election. But lets remember: those events happened close to home and who is the next president of USA has a major influence on the rest of the world. There was always the potential that something significant would happen, depsite it being as pre-planned as WYD. I'm not being critical of WYD, but do remember it was essentially a celebration - great for those people taking part but of limited interest for those who did not.
Complain about this comment
The religious centre left marginal right centre welfare centre left.
Makes me think of the Judean Peoples Front.
and the People's Front of Judea.
SPLITTERS!
Complain about this comment
@6., MakeitEdward
Just pointing out that Bush invoked religion in his crusade and Blair joined in...
It was therefore a religious exercise.
The irony that it actually saw Sectarian countries like UK and Iraq in combat was missed by the media and largely ignored.
The fact that Blair ignored the Catholic church (it was a private meeting, who knows what was said..?) means he would appear to be hell bound, by his own belief...
That is if he is a real catholic... do the Vatican actually do closet Catholics or do they reserve the blessings for those who don't keep it secret in public...
Maybe he worships Moleck...?
Complain about this comment
Mate... I am from the UK, lived in Melbourne 1994-98... Oz is in a mess.. EU or APEC or ASEAN or Asia... they have lost the plot... as you say
I go back regularly, but it never changes... IDENTITY is this issue.. sort yourselves out..
I love the place because of the diversity, but that is it's biggest paradox...
There is no IDENTITY there, a new one unique to Australia has to evolve given time.. embrace it you political boneheads and move forward, look at the big picture and have confidence in what you have... it's your strength and yet you deny it... don't look short term and don't hold on to US or EU policies... put some new ideas forward from what you have learnt!!
Give the immigrants a say in your country... they have the answers!!
Good on ya mates...
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS