I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the exact words government officials use to respond to catastrophes, but Art makes a very legitimate point here. It's not hard to come up with language that is inclusive. When we face disasters as a people, and feel the need to speak as a people, and recognize the need to work together to overcome the adversity we face, shouldn't our leaders try to speak in ways that work for everybody. Even if Scalia is right that only 2.3% of us will be left out of a non-denominational, monotheistic message (and I don't think he is), why shouldn't officials try to use language that reaches out to those people as well.
Alan Brownstein UC Davis Art wrote,
As to the proclamation, I do wish it had said something more like "My family and I are praying, and I call upon those who wish to do so to join us, and I call upon others to work and hope for relief from this disaster in the way that's meaningful to them." That wouldn't have been so hard to say, would it?
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
