Many critics divided over attendance at the celebration

Associated Press

WASHINGTON

It’s typically an unquestioned honor to participate in the inauguration of an American president. Who wouldn’t want to be part of such a historic event? This time, though, it’s different.

The sharp divisions over Donald Trump’s election have politicians, celebrities and even high-school students debating whether taking part in the inauguration is a political act that demonstrates support for the new president and his agenda or a nonpartisan tribute to democratic traditions and the peaceful transfer of power.

Among critics of the president-elect, everyone from Hillary Clinton and Hollywood A-listers to the band director at tiny Madawaska Middle/High School in northern Maine and singers in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is wrestling with this issue – and reaching different conclusions.

Bill and Hillary Clinton served belated notice this past week that they’ll be on the inaugural podium when Trump takes the oath of office Jan. 20. At least two legislators have said they’ll boycott the ceremony.

In Utah, singer Jan Chamberlin was so dismayed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir’s decision to perform at the swearing-in that she decided not only to sit out the event but to resign from the choir she dearly loves.She said she’s concerned participation in the inauguration will tarnish the choir by creating a false impression that the church supports Trump.

A fellow choir member, Cristi Brazao, who also didn’t support Trump, posted on her Facebook page that she’ll be singing at the inauguration because “my mission as a singer has always been to soften hearts, to bridge gaps, to make connections and also to make friends.”

Participation in an inaugural is always a personal decision, and no doubt people have opted to sit out past inaugurations due to differences with the president-elect.

But historians and others say this year’s public angst over whether to be associated with the inauguration is unusual.