In our politicized age, leaders (and leaders-elect) endure the constant scrutiny of the world, and every choice is deconstructed for its nuance and shades of meaning.  Every actual leads to the question "what message did he mean to send by that?"  Some are real; others are imagined, or pretended.  Real or not, public office has become a matter of full-time image management.

None of these choices have stirred up a hornet's nest of public opinion than Barack Obama's selection of invitees to pray publicly at tomorrow's inauguration.

In recent memory, newly-elected Presidents have each tapped several persons from a range of faiths; going back over the last seventy-five years, inaugurals included varied sets of officiants.  Famously, Truman, Nixon and Reagan all selected prayer leaders through a spectrum of faith traditions.  This year is no exception - but this year, the selections have taken an ominous new tenor.


Instead of selecting "safe" choices, innocuous men of their respective faiths, this inaugural will feature choices who have been lightning rods for controversy - polarizing household names.  First, Southern Baptist pastor Rick Warren of "purpose-driven" fame, whose stance against homosexual marriage has made him a target of the ire of the anti-Proposition 8 crowd; second, episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson, whose openly homosexual life prompted catastrophic division within the American denomination.  It doesn't help matters any that new announcements add Ingrid Mattson, head of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to the slate.  The ISNA, with documented ties to HAMAS, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Muslim Brotherhood, is a Wahhabist disinformation group, and Mattson's addition can only add further fuel to a fire.


These choices represent a radical departure from past practice.  In prior inaugurations, the selections served to unite the nation.  The leaders selected for the prayers had a universal character, in a way that though not everyone in the audience came from the same faith tradition, all could pray along in a generic way with the understanding that each was a sincere and heartfelt appeal to God on behalf of a united nation.  Theological differences and ecumenicism aside, it was understood that each individual prayer was offered on behalf of all of America, and not merely those of the same faith or denomination.


This time, it's nearly impossible to reject the notion that the selections were made to appease groups of constituents.  Nearly every commentator I have read has reacted with cynicism, and rightly so.  The choice of Warren is viewed as a bone thrown to theological conservatives to win them over; the subsequent choice of Robinson is then seen as a bone thrown to the theological liberals to appease them after the offense of the Warren choice.  Ultimately, the discerning viewers of every stripe are left to consider the preacher they like as a cynical choice, and the one they don't as offensive.


This is the balkanization that results from the ascendancy of identity politics.  Instead of a group of unifiers, this panel of prayer leaders is a collection of affirmative-action choices where every segment of society is supposed to be satisfied that "one of theirs" made the cut.  The only difference is that instead of being done along racial lines, it is done along theological ones.  

Edward Gibbon famously wrote "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful."  It certainly smacks as true in this instance.  One is left with the notion that Obama believes in none of these faith traditions, but all is for show.

The Mattson choice adds fuel to the fire of those who continue to see Obama as a closet Muslim.  Frankly, I doubt it.  I don't believe Obama is a secret Muslim.  Honestly, this whole chain of events substantiates the conclusion I drew at the end of the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco.  Many people wondered about how Obama, after years in Wright's church, could claim that he didn't ever see Wright's race hatred.

It becomes easier to believe when you realize that Obama is no more of a follower of Wright than he is of Robinson or Warren.  His consistent pattern of behavior gives us good reason to believe that his religion is opportunism.  I can accept that Obama joined Wright's church for no greater reason that for the credibility with and access to the parishoners of the community he hoped to organize, and what would become the political base for his entry into the world of politics.

Obama has given us no reason to believe he holds to any specific religious doctrine.  What's most likely is that he sees all religions as... equally useful.