The so-called Bible bill which Georgia Republican Congressman, Paul Broun is trying to make into law, is a wonderful idea…in theory. What’s wrong with a law which would declare 2010 the “year of the Bible”? Given that we already have days for secretaries, months for reading and have parsed the calendar for just about every other purpose and cause from artichokes to zebras, it’s almost silly that we have not already done this.
Would it really be so wrong to honor the most influential book, for better or worse, in America? Comfortable or not with that reality, that is the way it is. And for that reason alone, the year of the Bible should be a good idea.

Let’s face it, the bible is the 800 pound gorilla in American political, literary and cultural life and it needs to be addressed in ways that re-take the conversation from both the rabid secularists and the coercive religionists. And a year honoring the good book could do just that.
Enacting the Bible bill has the potential to move us from the two ways in which the Bible most often functions in public life now: either ignoring the Bible’s influence or using the bible as a club by some people, to beat up on those who read it differently than they do.
In fact, the year of the Bible should be a no-brainer, but because we are so divided as a nation and so stupid in our approach to religion, we can not even have an intelligent conversation about the bill itself, let alone about how to acknowledge the importance of the Bible in our culture and in our politics.
The language being used by politicians taking sides in this debate, demonstrates both why this idea should move forward and why it can not. Witness the language used by Rep. Barney Frank and Gerald Nadler who oppose the bill, and Rep. Broun who is leading the charge for its passage into law.

Congressman Frank commented, “Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible? What is 2012 the year of? The Quran?” And what if it was Congressman? Would that be so bad? And if so, why? Do you have a problem with Islam in particular or is it all religion? Either way, Frank’s hostility violates not only his usual commitment to government protecting and endorsing the free exchange of all ideas, but marks him as remarkably foolish.
Given the place of Islam in the world today, I think that a serious engagement with its most sacred text is pretty important. It’s one of the reasons I am especially proud of my 15 year old daughter whose Arabic is now better than mine, thanks to both her hard work and the Orthodox Jewish high school she attends.
And Gerry Nadler, just doesn’t get it at all. He actually hates the idea of any religious expression by public officials, which is why he does not place a mezuzah on his office door even though he has one at home.
Congressman Nadler fails to realize that however much he bases his conclusion on the laudable fear of “making anyone uncomfortable”, his approach actually contributes to a culture in which people are ashamed of self-expression. He needs to figure out how to have a mezuzah on his door and still make people comfortable, whether they are mezuzah-hangers or not..
Then there is Congressman Broun. “This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with Politico. Rather, he says, “it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs.” It’s the words beginning with Muslims, and continuing to the end of the sentence that worry me.
The first half of his statement is true and it’s why his bill is a good idea. But the second half, which indicates that those other groups (ital. mine) and “even atheists” should be free to express their beliefs, unmasks Broun as one who really does believe that there are two religious tracks in this country: legitimate faith (as a Jew, I probably make it in this world but not in the next) and tolerated beliefs. That’s so wrong, it’s not even wrong.
So rather than focus on whether or not this bill makes it into law, I would like to see us raise the bar on how we have the conversation about whether or not it should. Let’s see if the true believers on both sides of this issue can transcend their own triumphalist tendencies, and actually welcome the ideas and texts which shape our nation and its culture – all of them in all of their wonderful permutations.
I know that won’t help as many people get elected, but it’s better than beating each other up in the name of ideas that are supposed to serve all people, isn’t it?