
Why the Ten Commandments in Texas classrooms could become a dozen
The Texas legislature has passed a bill requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom in the state. With Gov. Greg Abbott (R) poised to sign it, the law's Republican backers are ecstatic.
'Nothing is more deep-rooted in the fabric of our American tradition of education than the Ten Commandments,' said State Rep. Candy Noble (R), a lead sponsor of the bill.
She should have devoted more attention to arithmetic.
Although titled 'An Act relating to the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms,' the law's mandatory language, with no changes or additions permitted, actually includes 11 commandments (or even 12, depending on what counts), without numbering them.
I believe I know why.
The Ten Commandments are found twice in the Bible, first in Exodus and later in Deuteronomy. Both describe Moses's receipt of the covenant at Mt. Sinai. The Exodus version comprises 17 verses; it is a bit shorter in Deuteronomy, at 16 verses.
Neither iteration provides directions for organizing the text into 10 laws, abridged to fit on a 16' by 20' poster, as commanded by the Texas statute.
There is no universally accepted set of Ten Commandments, because different religious traditions use different renderings. The Texas legislature evidently attempted to avoid this difficulty by expanding the Ten Commandments to please everyone.
The result is 11 imperatives, plus an ambiguous additional line.
They still ended up with an essentially Protestant version, different from those of most Catholics and Jews, which excludes Texas's many Hindus, Buddhists and others. Islam's holy books, in which Moses is revered as a prophet, do not include the Ten Commandments in the texts.
For Jews, the first commandment is 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' This passage is not found in Christian versions, perhaps because it is not phrased as a command. The Hebrew scripture speaks of 10 devarim, meaning words or statements, rather than commandments.
The Texas law finesses the discrepancy by adding 'I AM the LORD thy God' at the top of the plaque, immediately under the title, apparently intended as either an introduction or an additional commandment.
In either case, the capitalization, which is required by the statute itself, makes it obvious that the Texas law imposes a religious display in every classroom. It is not, as proponents have claimed, a historical document reflecting the origin of American law.
'You shall have no other gods before me' is the second commandment for Jews, but it is the first commandment for Christians. That is also where Texas begins, lifting the Protestant King James Bible's antiquarian 'thou' and 'shalt,' which would never appear in a synagogue or Catholic church.
After that, the Christian versions quickly diverge. The second commandment for Protestants, and for Texas, is 'Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image.'
That prohibition, however, is not a separate commandment by Catholics' reckoning, but part of the first. Thus, the Protestant third commandment is the Catholic second commandment and so forth. The inconsistent numbering continues until the end, where Protestants combine into one commandment what Catholics render as two separate ones against coveting the wife and then the goods of one's neighbor.
The differences are not trivial. The omission of the prohibition on graven images as its own commandment has inspired generations of bigots to level accusations of idolatry against Catholicism, often using vulgarisms and smears that I will not link to or repeat.
Thus, the merger of distinctively Jewish, Protestant and Catholic texts led to a required plaque with at least 11 commandments. They are un-numbered, which obscures the unorthodox total.
Although that may seem ecumenical, it again underscores the religiously restrictive nature of the display. Favored faiths are included, even at the cost of innumeracy; all others are not.
As Catholic theologian Richard Clifford explained, in his objection to schoolroom posting, 'the Ten Commandments lay the foundation for the relationship of Jews and Christians to their Lord, but not for adherents of other religions or of no religion.'
The framers of the Bill of Rights recognized that entanglement of government and religion can disrupt communities and alienate minorities. That is why the First Amendment provides there shall be 'no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The purpose was not to diminish religion, but rather to insulate it from temptations of government power.
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against a nearly identical Louisiana statute, ruling that it violates the First Amendment. Telling schoolchildren 'to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate' the Ten Commandments, the court held, 'is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.' That decision is on appeal.
The ACLU is ready to file a similar lawsuit against the Texas law.
Texas State Rep. James Talarico (D), who is a seminary student, put it succinctly. 'Once the government can start dictating something like the true text of the Ten Commandments,' he asked, 'what is to stop the government from dictating the true meaning of the gospel or the true meaning of the sacraments?'
Everything might be bigger in Texas, but that does not justify legislating an unmistakably religious schoolroom display of 11 or 12 commandments.
Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Trump cancels U.S.-Canadian trade talks over tech taxes
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6. Trump on Friday suspended trade talks due to Canada's new Digital Services Tax. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 28 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump cited potential Canadian taxes on U.S. tech companies as his reason for ending trade talks with Canada on Friday. The tech taxes on Amazon, Google, Meta and other U.S. tech firms are due on Monday, and Trump said it is a deal-breaker. "We have just been informed that Canada ... has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American technology companies," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Friday. He called the tax a "direct and blatant attack on our country" and accused Canada of "copying the European Union, which has done the same thing." "We are hereby terminating all discussions on trade with Canada, effective immediately," Trump said. His administration in the coming week will notify Canadian officials of the tariff that it will have to pay to do business in the United States, Trump added. Trump last week attended the G7 economic trade summit hosted by Canada and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and sought common ground on trade talks, The Washington Post reported. Officials at U.S. tech firms oppose the Canadian tax, the amount of which is based on the revenues generated by Canadians' use of e-commerce sites, social media and the sales of data. All tech companies that generate more than $14.59 million from such services would be subject to the new 3% Digital Services Tax. The tax is retroactive to 2022 and could cost U.S.-based tech firms up to $3 billion, NBC News reported. Upon learning of Trump halting trade talks, Canadian officials on Friday limited U.S. steel imports and placed a 50% surcharge on steel imports that surpass the quota. Canadian Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said the surcharge will help to protect Canadian steel against what he called "unjust U.S. tariffs." He said the Canadian government is prepared to take additional actions, if necessary.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Updated Senate bill slashes wind and solar incentives – and adds a new tax
An updated draft of the Senate's megabill text slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy – and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. The initial draft released by Senate Republicans earlier this month cut the credit for any wind and solar projects that did not 'begin construction' by certain dates, while the latest version bases incentives on when projects actually begin producing electricity — a much higher bar to clear. The first draft gave any project that began construction this year full credit, any project that began construction next year 60 percent credit and any project that began construction in 2027 20 percent of the credit, before they were phased out thereafter. The new legislation instead says that the credits will only apply to facilities that begin producing electricity before the end of 2027. In addition, it imposes a new tax on some wind and solar projects that are placed in service after 2027. The projects that will be taxed if a certain percentage of the value of their components come from China. The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources, including renewable energy. These subsidies were expected to massively reduce the U.S.' planet warming emissions. The GOP's cuts to the credits are expected to severely curtail those gains. If they pass, the cuts represent a win for the party's right flank, which has pushed for major cuts to the credits, and a loss for it's more moderate wing which has called for a slower phaseout. The renewables lobby slammed the changes as hampering the sector. 'In what can only be described as 'midnight dumping,' the Senate has proposed a punitive tax hike targeting the fastest-growing sectors of our energy industry. It is astounding that the Senate would intentionally raise prices on consumers rather than encouraging economic growth and addressing the affordability crisis facing American households,' Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said in a written statement. 'These new taxes will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments, threaten energy security, and undermine growth in domestic manufacturing and land hardest on rural communities who would have been the greatest beneficiaries of clean energy investment,' he added.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
John Bolton writes off US strikes in Iran as Trump ‘campaigning‘ for Nobel Peace Prize
Former U.S. national security adviser John Bolton sharply criticized President Trump's Iran strategy and expressed broad skepticism about the prospect of making peace with Tehran in a Friday appearance on the Financial Times podcast Swamp Notes. Bolton made clear that he supported the American airstrikes last week that targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities but also suggested that Trump had personal motivations. 'I think what he's doing is campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he thought he'd get it in the Ukraine-Russia war. That didn't happen,' Bolton said in a response to a question about Trump's claims of victory in the aftermath of the strikes. 'But I think he's looking at the possibility that maybe he can get it here.' Several GOP lawmakers have made moves in recent days to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The government of Pakistan also nominated him last week. Trump griped last week before the strikes that he would never get a Nobel Peace Prize, arguing that he deserved one for American peace efforts in Ukraine, Rwanda and a number of other conflicts. Bolton, a noted Iran hawk, was sharply critical of Trump's proposed tactics toward achieving peace in the country, referencing a CNN report that the United States was exploring helping Tehran access as much as $30 billion in funding for a civilian nuclear program. Trump has denied such reports. 'This is madness,' the former national security advisor said. 'I don't expect this to go anywhere, because to be truly satisfied that a country the size of Iran was really only engaged in peaceful nuclear activity requires an intrusive presence, whether it's the IAEA or foreign intelligence services, that the ayatollahs simply will never permit.' After first maintaining that the strikes were a one-time, targeted measure to disable key Iranian nuclear sites and help negotiate a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Trump's rhetoric on Iran has heated up in recent days. He said Friday that he would consider bombing the country again if concerns about its nuclear program mounted. Bolton, a longtime skeptic of peace efforts with Iran, including the Obama-era nuclear deal, questioned whether Trump could effectively negotiate with the regime. 'When you're dealing with that kind of ideology, it's not like a Manhattan real estate deal,' he said. Even prior to the onset of strikes between Israel and Iran earlier this month, Bolton insisted that planned nuclear talks with the United States were 'fruitless.' He repeated similar lines on the FT podcast Friday, calling the Iranian government 'a group of medieval religious fanatics.'