You may have heard about Representative Paul Broun's (R-GA) bill that would establish 2010 as the "Year of the Bible" in an official resolution by the Congress. In today's Wall Street Journal, Steven Waldman discusses the complications in such an effort. For one thing, he says, Congress can't be in the business of recognizing one religion's sacred text above another. If the Bible enjoys a year, we should be prepared for others to receive the same recognition, and that raises some questions.
Ironically, by pushing this notion, its advocates run the risk of diminishing the stature of the Bible.
…
If your goal is to give Christianity greater status, does having a national resolution in praise of the Quran really advance your goals? By pushing resolutions like this, advocates will end up drawing other religions into the fray.
Waldman notes that actually 1983 was also the Year of the Bible. We'll see if the last 26 years have made our congressional representatives any wiser, and this time smartly leave the praise of Scripture to houses of worship, homes, and the private beliefs of a free people.
[UPDATE: For an argument on the other side, you could do worse than Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, who makes the case, at his WaPo/On Faith blog, that we should all stop being so uptight and recognize the Bible's continuing significance, the same way congressional resolutions regularly recognize things of cultural import. He does take what I consider to be a cheap shot at Congressman Jerrold Nadler, as if the Representative's own church-state principles raise questions about his commitment to his faith. Still, an interesting and impassioned essay, even if I don't come to the same conclusion.
An Associated Baptist Press report from Bob Allen indicates that Rep. Broun's interest is less about recognizing an influential book and more about "returning to biblical principles (that) would solve the nation's education, crime and drug problems."]
