Child of what?
Child of the flawed sort of folks who choose their faith over the men who lead it, which means that however much they disagree with religious leadership, they keep to the tenets of their faith and find strength there, that's what. (I could say something similar of some leaders and politicians, which I mention because I'm coming back to this point later.) However much I agree with the acceptance of condoms and the encouraging of communication between Abrahamic faiths, if I'm interpreting this correctly, universal basic income is still a matter for individual nations to handle, and this one at least still has a separation between church and state. Based on that, I'd like to read this endorsement of the idea from a religious head as guidance to leaders and politicians rather than a directive. Meanwhile, if I'm looking for guidance on how to celebrate a prison release and alienate adherents, or which job title to drop in order to telegraph an increase in the worldliness of religious leadership, I'll know who to look to.
On a slightly brighter note, it's a relief to see in the news there's at least one governor choosing to fight alongside rather than against someone in the same foxhole. When others are still tweeting (and deleting) and continuing the race card game, and yet another political head is leaving his party* because of its corrosive focus on politics over the achievements of an unpleasant incumbent, it's good to know there are others out there who don't conflate support for that incumbent with a negative.
* Huh. He changed his mind about leaving. Maybe he still believes there's something worth staying for in that party, even if it has a tendency to prefer narratives that echo that of their bartender.