Steven Waldman has some helpful observations about a congressional resolution submitted by Paul Broun intended to designate 2010 as the “Year of the Bible.” Here are a couple especially good quotes:
The problem is not praising the Bible, it’s giving official recognition to it and not other sacred texts. Ironically, by pushing this notion, its advocates run the risk of diminishing the stature of the Bible.
Why? Because when it comes to religion in the public sphere, you usually have two choices. You can have religion completely stripped from the public sphere. Or, you can have religion in the public sphere — and also pluralism. You want a creche on the city hall lawn? You’ll have to accept a Menorah, too. Congress allows Christian ministers to give benedictions in the name of Christ — but it also invites Muslims, Jews and Hindus to open legislative sessions.
If you as a private individual say, “The Bible is the most important religious book in American history,” you’re not likely to get a whole lot of argument. But if we make that an official governmental pronouncement, then we really must look at doing Year of the Quran and the Year of the Sutras.
Personally, I don’t necessarily oppose a multi-faith, pluralistic approach. If Congress wants to pass a resolution praising a wide variety of sacred texts and their importance in American history, I could live with that.
But…
a) we’re better off having government just stay out of the business of passing judgment on religious texts and
b) Christians should know that they’re taking us down a path that will not lead where they want to go.
I accidentally deleted a comment in which someone took issue with this article–it went into my spam section and I pressed the wrong key. If you’d like to post it again I’ll try not to delete it this time
I rather like the idea of a year of the Bible. Perhaps we can follow it with the year of the Karma Sutra. Now that could be fun.
I’d like to have a front row seat in the Rose Garden when President Obama announces that.
If you as a private individual say, “The Bible is the most important religious book in American history,” you’re not likely to get a whole lot of argument. But if we make that an official governmental pronouncement, then we really must look at doing Year of the Quran and the Year of the Sutras.
This is indicative of shallow thinking. If the intent of The Year of the Bible is to highlight it as inarguably “the most important religious book in American history,” then it is merely a recognition of its status, based in reality. His bringing up the other religious texts is a non sequitur, in that sense. The only reason to require a Year of the Quran, etc, would be multicultural-correctness, not a recognition of meritoriousness on the part of the literature based in the history of the United States.