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 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 
Comments
or to comment.