The trouble with the notion of phrasing it as “setting our differences aside” is that a theist-based speech does not do so; rather, it requires the atheist to set aside his atheism, while the religious take solace in social validation of their theism’s assurances. It is like suggesting “seeking common ground on my territory”. This seems not an especially big deal in this particular case. However, it could justly have well been… if one of the parents was both irreligious and offended.
Considering the relatively red-leaning area of New England involved, and the likely generational cohort of elementary school parents, and that (obviously) they were parents, the GSS suggests demographic chances of any particular child’s parents being a “none” seems on the order of 5-10%; the chance of an atheist, nearer 1%. Given there’s 20 sets of bereaved parents, that could fall on either side of an even bet for having at least one unaffiliated — though geographic clustering likely lowers the odds a bit from independent probabilities. A random source on the web (city-data.com, with
back-citation missing) gives Newtown as only 70.14% religiously
affiliated; though that may refer to formal church membership rather
than self-identification, it would suggest slightly better odds. Thus, it may well be that there actually was one, who also felt that the coming together was more immediately important than that any offense given by the insensitivity.
It did not happen this time, but it could well have been that one of the bereaved young parental couples might have been a sufficiently PZ-style firm atheist to be deeply offended to the point of expressing their frustration to the press and castigating the President’s insensitivity to the tragedy’s diversity — and in such event, I see no possible better time for them to do so than at the point of their failure to be consoled. That the political land mine was avoided seems a matter of luck; PZ’s plaint, a pale shadow warning of the consequences had it not been missed. The numbers of self-identified Atheists in the country has now risen to par with the number of self-identified Jews. (Suggestive of the odds, press reports suggest one of the children was Jewish.) It would seem cautious for politicians who wish to maintain the aspiration to e pluribus unum to begin using more inclusive language as insurance against accidental alienation of Atheists just as they (mostly) seem to for the Jewish community.
Of course, I may be underestimating the savvy of the President’s political staff; they may well have checked the exact sectarian affiliation of each of the parents, and vetted the speech accordingly. If so, I see little harm in maximizing the consolation to those most directly bereaved.