Texas Democrat exposes GOP hypocrisy in bill forcing Ten Commandments in classrooms

State Rep. James Talarico asked simple, effective questions to highlight how Republicans don't care about actually following the Commandments

This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!

---

The Texas legislature is on the verge of passing a bill that would require all public schools to place the Ten Commandments—King James’ Version only—on the walls of every classroom.

SB 10—ha, get it?—passed in the State Senate months ago on a 20-11 vote. Over the weekend, the State House passed the bill on an 82-46 vote (with an amendment), putting it on track to reach Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk very soon, where he’ll almost certainly sign the bill into law.

Despite the inevitability of all this, one Democratic lawmaker did his best to highlight the hypocrisy of the people voting for the bill as well as the possible backlash it might receive.

Like so many other iterations of these bills, this one says every classroom would have to display a durable or framed 16” x 20” poster of the Ten Commandments. They could be privately donated or bought “using district funds.” All of the posters would have to read as follows:

The Ten Commandments

I AM the LORD thy God.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.

Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor ’s house.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor ’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

Before the House passed the bill over the weekend, an amendment was added to it that would require the attorney general of the state to defend districts that got sued over this. If they were to lose the case, the state would then be “liable for the expenses, costs, judgments, or settlements of the claims arising out of the representation.” Which is to say if this ends up backfiring on Christian Nationalists, don’t worry, because taxpayers will foot the bill for their ignorance.

When they tried a similar gambit two years ago, the bill didn’t make it to a final vote in the State House. That wasn’t a problem this time around. The Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) just ignored all the opposition, including a letter signed by over 150 Christian and Jewish leaders who said the bill “undermines the faith and freedom we cherish.”

Louisiana already passed an identical law last year, but a federal judge struck it down as unconstitutional and that case remains in legal limbo. Arkansas passed its own version of the bill last month. Texas is now aiming to be the largest and most influential state to get this one on the books.

The problems with the Commandments have been discussed ad nauseam, but just to rehash some common arguments, the same people who don’t want high schoolers learning about sex, systemic racism, or LGBTQ people seem to have very specific things they want kindergartners to know about about adultery and their neighbor’s maidservants. (Kids may wonder: What’s adultery? Unfortunately for them, sex education is not required in Texas.)

The list also wouldn’t solve any real problems. No potential school shooter has ever plotted out a path of destruction only to reconsider after realizing the Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt NOT kill.” If students need a sign to remind them not to murder others, they have bigger issues. It would be great if they could see a mental health professional, but the same Texas lawmakers want to replace those experts with Christian chaplains.

And, of course, several of the Commandments are flat-out useless since they include mandates against believing in false gods, not making “graven images,” taking God’s name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath day holy.

When this bill was first discussed in 2023, one of the most prominent voices against the bill was Democratic Rep. James Talarico, a former middle school teacher, who spent his time during a hearing in the House Public Education Committee to ask pointed questions of the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Candy Noble. He did the same thing this time around, too.

State Rep. James Talarico questions the Ten Commandments bill (screenshot via Texas Legislature Online)

Last month, Talarico directly confronted Noble about her bill and (correctly) argued this was a bill to shove Christianity into the schools while Noble (falsely) argued that this was about promoting history.

I’ve tried to condense about 25 minutes of back-and-forth—that took place at 4:00 a.m., no less—into a shorter exchange:

TALARICO: … Is there a separation of church and state in this country?

NOBLE: That's an interesting question that has been debated a great deal, but…

…

TALARICO: … Do you think the… Constitution is foundational to our country?

NOBLE: I do. I believe all of those [documents] are foundational… and I've loved visiting them in the archives in Washington, D.C.

TALARICO: I guess, what I'm trying to figure out, if that's the most foundational document, why doesn't your bill mandate that the Constitution be posted in every classroom?

NOBLE: Well, if you want to carry that bill, you can. I'm carrying the bill that I chose to carry.

TALARICO: Yeah, and I'm not interested in micromanaging what posters are put up in classrooms, which is why I would never carry a bill like this. But I'm asking why, since you are in the business of deciding what posters are up in a classroom and which ones aren't, why is the Constitution not taking that prime spot because it's the most foundational document?

NOBLE: [Long pause] I'm so tired. I'm just in a brain fog...

…

TALARICO: How do you think it makes a Hindu student feel to have a poster in every classroom that says, “Thou shalt not worship any God before me”?

NOBLE: I don't know. I haven't asked one. Have you?

TALARICO: I have, actually…

NOBLE: But again, they're here and they're Americans. I assume they're Americans now. And I think that they would find it interesting to see what was important and foundational to our forefathers, that made this nation a place that they wanted to come and live and raise a family and be part of it. And I really think that you're taking offense that someone wouldn't take from a historical perspective.

TALARICO: Well, again, we’ve established that our Founding Fathers wanted a separation of church and state.

NOBLE: I did not establish that. I absolutely did not establish that.

TALARICO: Sorry. Yes. Historical fact established that…

NOBLE: I disagree with that…

…

NOBLE: … I do want to point out one thing to you, though, that I just learned about. Did you know that we have faith-based prisons that prisoners can choose, here in Texas? And did you know that the recidivism rate in a regular prison is 68%, but the recidivism rate in a faith-based prison is 8%?

TALARICO: … Based on that analogy, this is a faith-based proposal for schools?

NOBLE: No, not at all! I just wanted to explain…

TALARICO: … I think Representative Noble… there's a switching back and forth of saying this is historical. But then, through your comments, the religion comes through, right?

…

TALARICO: … I do want to close out what I was saying, which is that I hear from young people, Gen Z, my fellow Millennials, all the time who really do long for genuine faith communities, but they see modern religion as performative. They see religious leaders who are all about power, all about being better than others. And my worry is that by leveraging our power as legislators to elevate one religion over the rest, especially in front of our children, that that's the stuff that gives religion a bad name. And in this country, it's what gives Christianity a bad name.

… But I think for those whose goal is, with this bill, to create a new generation of Christians, I think it will actually have the opposite effect. And I worry that these kinds of bills will actually create a new generation of atheists who think our religion is more about power than love. And that's my primary concern with this bill.

Not bad for a Christian politician in the dead of night who is defending church/state separation against a colleague who, along with her entire party, firmly denies the historical record.

He was polite yet forceful, respectful yet firm. He didn’t go in there with an axe to grind, but he wanted to point out how bad this bill was in doing precisely the things Republicans say it would do. In the process, he highlighted all the ways this was promoting religion over non-religion, and Christianity over non-Christianity, and a specific brand of Christianity over all the other kinds of Christianity (including his own).

No matter how much Noble insisted this wasn’t about religion, her own comments said otherwise.

She wasn’t alone either. When asked about this bill yesterday, Lt. Gov. Daniel Patrick told Christian hate-group leader Tony Perkins, “In every classroom in Texas, they are going to see the Ten Commandments. And they are going to know about God.”

That last part is obviously the primary motivation for this bill. They sure as hell aren’t going to know anything about the Founding Fathers or America’s legal history by looking at the Decalogue.

Anyway. Back to Talarico and Noble.

On Saturday, just before the final vote on this bill, Talarico had another chance to ask Noble about it, and he stumped her with his first question: What’s the Fourth Commandment?

That was followed by this incredible exchange:

TALARICO: What is the Fourth Commandment?

NOBLE: Are you referring to… the way it's written in the bill?

TALARICO: Yes.

NOBLE: [Long pause while she searches] Keep the Sabbath... It's about us being here on Saturday? [Laughs] Is that ironic or what?

TALARICO: So what does it mean to keep the Sabbath holy?

NOBLE: Well, I think it's... You want to get into theology here? I'd love to, if you'd like to. I think it's really important that we take a day of rest… I think God, who founded the world, didn't need rest, and yet he took a day of rest after He did creation, and I think He was a good example to us to take a day of rest. That is enshrined in our rules and our Constitution, where it says “excepting Sunday” in our very early documents as a nation.

TALARICO: And so part of keeping the Sabbath holy is not working on the Sabbath?

NOBLE: That is… That is… uh… yeah, a day of rest.

TALARICO: And what is the… The Ten Commandments come from Judaism. What day is the Jewish Sabbath?

NOBLE: It is on Saturday.

TALARICO: And what day is it today?

NOBLE: It is Saturday. Here we are...

TALARICO: The Christian Sabbath is what day?

NOBLE: Sunday, in honor of the day that Jesus rose from the dead.

TALARICO: And we're scheduled to give this bill a final vote on what day of the week?

NOBLE: It’s ironic, isn't it?

It’s not “ironic.” It’s deeply hypocritical. Republicans don’t give a shit about obeying the Commandments. They just want to shove Christianity down everyone’s throat. And that point was made again just minutes later by Talarico.

TALARICO: The Ninth Commandment is “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Are you aware of any legislators who have lied about anything?.

NOBLE: [Long pause]… You know, there might be one coming up in a minute if you keep talking, we'll see.

TALARICO: The Seventh Commandment is “Thou shalt not commit adultery”?

NOBLE: Yes.

TALARICO: Do you think that members of the legislature should focus more on trying to follow the Ten Commandments rather than telling others to follow them?

NOBLE: You know, it is incumbent on all of us to follow God's law, and I think that we would be better off if we did.

I don’t know if those were subtle digs at Attorney General Ken Paxton (a liar and an adulterer) or other Republican members of the legislature, but the point was obvious: The very people voting for this bill include plenty of Republicans who don’t care if their own party leaders break the Commandments. Just ask anyone who voted for Donald Trump.

(Congressman Jamie Raskin sarcastically suggested Texas lawmakers vote on each Commandment individually, and that they couldn’t vote for anything they’ve personally violated. Better yet, he added, they could “respect the Establishment Clause & get back to work.”)

It’s not the first time Talarico brought up these points, though. Let me remind you of how this exchange went two years ago when he first challenged her on this bill. At the time, he focused far more on the hypocrisy angle than he did this time around, but many of the points were the same. Given how poorly she answered the questions this week, it’s almost amusing to watch her struggle with them in the video below only because she failed the test and still didn’t study for the makeup exam!

TALARICO: … I have lots of questions about this bill. One, I want to first acknowledge that the Ten Commandments are important to me—personally important to my faith. I'm sure they're important to many people here on the dais. And, in fact, I think the Ten commandments are hard to obey, and they're meant to be hard to obey. And I don't always think that the legislature obeys the Ten Commandments. So I just want to walk through a couple.

“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.”

Are you aware the legislature is scheduled to meet this Saturday?

NOBLE: I am aware of that.

TALARICO: So that would be violating the Ten Commandments.

NOBLE: I contend that that is a hard… you're right.

TALARICO: “Thou shalt not kill.” Are you aware the legislature has refused to outlaw the death penalty?

NOBLE: Again… we're using the words that are on the monument [outside the Texas Capitol] because it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. But we're talking about murder here and not justice and certainly not war.

Quick note: The Ten Commandments monument outside the Texas Capitol was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005, on a 5-4 vote, only because it was not in isolation. The Court said it was part of a larger display (including 17 monuments and 21 historical markers) showcasing “history” and moral ideals. Whether or not you agree with their assessment, the point is that the Christian monument wasn’t the only game in town. The same day that decision came down, the Court ruled in a different 5-4 split that a stand-alone Ten Commandments display was illegal in Kentucky precisely because it was not placed in any context and was therefore a violation of the Establishment Clause.

These posters in Texas would not be placed in any secular context. For Noble to argue that the Supreme Court has already deemed these posters legal is a complete misreading of what they said two decades ago.

Talarico then made the argument that few people take these Commandments seriously, including Republican members of the state legislature:

TALARICO: The translation that I'm looking at in your bill is “Thou shalt not kill.”

NOBLE: Absolutely. The reason we are using that language, again, is because that is the language that has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

TALARICO: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

NOBLE: Be true to the one you love!

TALARICO: And the Second Commandment, which I think is the most important, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image,” meant to prevent idolatry, the creation of idols. The idea that some people would try to make an object, maybe two tablets to worship, rather than worshipping the God behind those two tablets. Are you worried that this bill is idolatrous?

NOBLE: I do not.

TALARICO: Why not?

NOBLE: This bill is reflective of the principles that we need in our classrooms. And as a former school teacher—I know you are, too—what do we need more than the reasons why we are doing the things that we're doing? Why do we not celebrate the need to respect others, to respect authority? I contend that this is absolutely needed, and I get where you're going with that particular Commandment, but it's there, and it is historical, and it is foundational.

TALARICO: Would you be open to an amendment to the bill saying that if a member of the legislature violates these commandments, that we can no longer mandate public school teachers put it in classrooms?

NOBLE: It is my intention to keep this bill clean as it came over from the Senate.

Talarico noted four Commandments that are regularly broken by Republican members of government. But none of that mattered to Noble, and she didn’t even bother justifying the hypocrisy. How could she? There was no way to make it make sense. But Christian Nationalists have a habit of saying one thing and doing another; the rules never apply to them.

Noble didn’t care if Republicans broke the Commandments. She just wanted to shove her supposed morality in the faces of children while remaining silent every time her own colleagues turn their backs on them.

Talarico wasn’t done noting the hypocrisy.

TALARICO: I want to talk about religious inclusion. The Supreme Court case that you [cited, Bremerton v.] Kennedy, was about a football coach who prayed on the football field. And the Supreme Court said that the Establishment Clause—the First Amendment in our Constitution, which prohibits the state, a government, like all of us, from establishing a state religion—doesn't apply to that because it's his personal faith, a personal expression of his faith.

Your bill doesn't do that, though. It mandates that every single teacher put the Ten Commandments in their classroom. Is there a difference between…

NOBLE: Yes, there's—

TALARICO: … prohibiting an individual school employee or teacher from practicing or expressing their faith versus the state now mandating that one particular faith be expressed in a classroom?

NOBLE: So are you referring to the faith of Judaism? Because that's where this comes from.

TALARICO: Sure. Yes.

NOBLE: Is that what you're referring to? I contend that the historic and foundational reference of the Ten Commandments in our nation's history is what we're looking at here, and not the bunny path that I think you've taken us on. I am not an attorney, and I do not play one on TV, but I do have an attorney here that can speak to that better than I can. And so I would like to defer to let them answer that, if that's okay with you.

TALARICO: That's fine. And I can ask the attorney these questions too. But as the bill author, I want to drill down. Would you be open to an amendment that would allow schools to post the five precepts of Taoism?

NOBLE: Again, that is not foundational to our American judicial and educational system. That does not fit into that criteria which the Supreme Court has set forth.

TALARICO: There are many, many documents that have influenced the American Constitution, including the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta. Would you be open to a teacher posting one of those instead of the Ten Commandments?

NOBLE: I am… Today? That is not my bill.

TALARICO: And so the major world religions, in addition to Judaism and Christianity—Buddhism, Hinduism—which are represented at our schools, you're not willing to allow one of those Commandments or one of those religious doctrines to be posted in the classroom?

NOBLE: Again, we are talking about something that has historically been in our education system. In our earliest textbooks in America were these Ten Commandments. And, actually, lots of Bible references were our earliest American textbooks. That's what we're talking about here.

I'm not familiar with what you're talking… I am familiar with the Magna Carta, but the others, I'm not familiar with, and so I can't speak to those.

TALARICO: But do you see why if our First Amendment is forbidding the state from establishing a state religion, that mandating that one tradition be elevated above the rest would be a violation of that First Amendment?

NOBLE: I disagree with that because, again, our judicial system and our educational system, this is foundational to them…

TALARICO: I've listed other things that are foundational as well…

NOBLE: If we don't know where we've been, how do we know where we're going? I love history, and this is very foundational to the history of our nation.

TALARICO: But I've just listed other documents that are also foundational, and you're not willing to include those in the bill. It's only…

NOBLE: I am not… in this bill. It is my intention to keep this bill clean.

TALARICO: So it's only the Ten commitments.

NOBLE: Absolutely.

As John Adams famously noted, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” Anything that’s worth respecting in the Ten Commandments is echoed by countless other religions, and anything unique to the Ten Commandments is, to put it bluntly, sectarian nonsense that doesn’t belong in public schools.

Even though Noble couldn’t defend the individual Commandments, she still claimed the full list needed to go up in public schools while everyone else’s beliefs needed to be kept out. Why? Because her preferred list was “foundational” to our history. Who said that? Nobody… except perhaps Christian pseudo-historian David Barton and his gullible followers. Certainly not experts in American history.

Noble was lying about the reason the Commandments needed to go up in classrooms. Her entire premise was a falsehood. Nothing in her religion apparently ever taught her that lying is a sin.

That’s when Talarico went for the kill. He called out the fact that Texas Republicans have constantly demanded that parents be allowed to override whatever educators believe is best for kids. If a subject could violate someone’s religious beliefs—sex education, for example—then ”parental rights” must triumph no matter what.

So why, Talarico wondered, shouldn’t parents get to override literal religious propaganda in the classroom?

TALARICO: And tell me about—because every time on this committee that we try to teach students values like empathy or kindness, we're told we can't because that's the parents role. Every time on this committee that we try to teach basic sex education to keep our kids safe, we're told that's the parents role.

But now you're putting religious commandments—literal Commandments—in our classrooms, and you're saying that's the state's role. Why is that not the parents role?

NOBLE: [Long pause] That's really an interesting rabbit trail that you've gone on with that. Because, really, what we're talking about here is a historical, foundational document to our nation's education history and our judicial history. Those other things are great and interesting, but they're not foundational to us, educationally and judicially.

TALARICO: Would you be comfortable with adding language to receive parental consent from all the parents of students in the classroom before putting it up?

NOBLE: I would not. I am, again, gonna keep it clean as it came over.

TALARICO: So you don't want parental consent when it comes to students receiving religious commandments?

NOBLE: I don’t believe that… Again, I think that these are foundational to being a good citizen and being a good member of a classroom. I know that our teachers are more and more and more having to fight for classroom management over the behavior of students. And I don't think that these Commandments would, in any way… I think these Commandments would help with that classroom management need.

This is where Noble gave away the game. She pretended this wasn’t really about forcing Christianity on kids; it was all about classroom management.

How would having these Commandments in the classroom help teachers? No clue. You’re not going to find a single teacher in the country whose rowdy students start behaving just because they see a sign that says they need to keep the Sabbath holy or not commit adultery. (If kids listened to whatever the motivational posters in their classrooms said, everything would be glorious. That’s not how reality works.)

Those were the best arguments Noble had, which is to say she had nothing. There was no rational, secular argument for putting Christian Commandments in the classroom. Noble was grasping at paper straws.

Talarico finished his comments by alluding to his own Christian faith. He implied that he was no less Christian than Noble, but he was still strongly opposed to this forced religion bill: “A religion that has to force people to put up a poster to prove its legitimacy is a dead religion,” he claimed.

He added that if they really cared about pushing Christianity on kids, there were more pressing issues.

TALARICO: I want to make a comment and thank you for answering my questions. I'll probably have more later. And I say this to you as a fellow Christian, representative, I know you're a devout Christian and so am I.

This bill to me is not only unconstitutional, it's not only un-American, I think it is also deeply unchristian.

And I say that because I believe this bill is idolatrous. I believe it is exclusionary. And I believe it is arrogant. And those three things in my reading of the Gospel are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus.

You probably know Matthew 6:5, when Jesus says, ‘Don't be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners. When you pray, go into your room and shut the door, and pray to your Father who is in secret.”

A religion that has to force people to put up a poster to prove its legitimacy is a dead religion. And it's not one that I want to be a part of. It's not one that I think I am a part of.

You know that in Scripture it says faith without works is what? Is dead. My concern is instead of bringing a bill that will feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, we're instead mandating that people put up a poster.

And we both follow a teacher, a rabbi, who said, “Don't let the law get in the way of loving your neighbor.” Loving your neighbor is the most important law. It is the summation of all the law and all the prophets.

I would submit to you that our neighbor also includes the Hindu student who sits in a classroom, the Buddhist student who sits in a classroom, and an atheist student who sits in a classroom. And my question to you is: Does this bill truly love those students?

NOBLE: I'm going to go a different direction than I think you're trying to lead me, and that is that a very great wrong was done in our classrooms with that 1980 decision, because this document was in classrooms prior to that. In fact, I think that this bill actually rights a wrong that was done all those years ago based on what has now been considered a failed decision by the Supreme Court. So I contend that we are righting a wrong, not causing one.

TALARICO: Last thing I'll say, and I know we have other questions of the witnesses, is I just worry this is what gives us religious people a bad name. That instead of living out the way of Jesus, we're instead imposing our beliefs on other people. Instead of leading by example, we're leading by mandates. And so I'm very offended by this legislation. I know you and I have worked together, and I'm not casting aspersions on you, and I would love to work with you, but as it is currently written, I find this to be a deeply offensive bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Noble was referring to a 1980 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a similar bill in Kentucky placing the Ten Commandments in classrooms because they said it lacked a secular purpose. That was the right move. No legal scholar says that’s a “failed decision.” There’s nothing to “right” because that decision wasn’t wrong.

But Talarico was correct that this sort of bill gives Christians a bad name. When Christianity becomes synonymous with conservative Christianity and Christian Nationalism, it’s a branding problem for the entire faith. Talarico was genuinely upset that his colleagues weren’t just ruining public education, but dragging his own religion through the mud in the process. This bill won’t lead kids to Christianity. It’ll do far more to turn kids away from organized religion altogether.

Talarico couldn’t stop that bill on his own. What he could do is make sure people knew how idiotic this legislation was. It won’t help any educators in the classroom. It’s bound to be challenged in court. And it’s embarrassing for his faith. It would be easy to simply vote against it. Instead, he used his time to show the public—and his colleagues—how many legitimate problems existed with this bill and why there was nothing anti-Christian about voting against it.

That’s what he did two years ago, and it’s what he did last month, and it’s what he did again over the weekend. The bill passed despite his objections, but that’s obviously not due to a lack of effort on his part. If the Republican majority was capable of being honest with themselves, they would acknowledge his points. But they’re far too power hungry—and far too afraid of backlash from the Christian Right—to stop now.

The question is what happens after this bill becomes law. Will there be another lawsuit like in Louisiana? Will the Supreme Court eventually take this issue up?

And what happens when people push for malicious compliance?

Activist Chaz Stevens is already planning to print up to 25,000 posters for schools across the state, much like he did for Louisiana, for people to purchase for their own districts. They are in different languages, including Arabic (“For Texas officials uncomfortable with religious diversity”)…

… and some just highlight certain words.

(That poster would be modified to follow the precise wording stated in the Texas bill.)

Most of these mockups technically follow the Texas rules. They’re legible and include the necessary language. (There’s nothing in the bill saying the words must be written in English or that the font size must be the same for all the words.)

That said, just because you send these posters to schools doesn’t mean they have to accept them. As far as I can tell, in other states where Stevens has tried this, it hasn’t worked. But one interesting thing about the Texas bill is that it says schools that don’t put up their own Ten Commandments posters “must… accept any offer” of a donated poster that meets the rules. And these meet the rules.

This could be fun. At the very least, Stevens is about to make a useful point about bad legislation.

---