Two views of “faith-based”

Richard Cohen is onto McCain about seeking evangelical endorsements.  And I agree with him:

For too long now, the term “faith-based” has been synonymous with dumb. It’s dumb to speak of Islam as if the terrorists are its true representatives (F. Graham). It’s dumb to think the Holocaust was God’s way of getting the Jews to return to Israel (Hagee) or that Catholics are not true Christians (Hagee, again) or that “Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world” (Parsley).

It’s dumb to reject evolution when all of science thinks the opposite, and it’s dumb to oppose sex education, as if knowledge was by itself a sin. It was beyond dumb for the Rev. Pat Robertson to predict a natural calamity for Orlando because of Disney World’s policy regarding gay men and lesbians. Yet, the endorsement of such clergymen has been sought by virtually every Republican presidential candidate of our times. To pass this kind of muster is very disquieting.

Depressing that Senator McCain is more worried about shoring up his right flank than he is about the great unwashed middle, like moi, that can’t stomach the religious right.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama did just the opposite today.  At the risk of alienating his left flank, he spoke about his plans to expand government funding of faith-based initiatives, saying the nation’s problems are too big to be solved by government alone: 

“I believe that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques,” he said, during a visit to Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio.  

Now that’s the kind of ”faith-based” conversation we need to be having.