New Texas law requires 10 Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas will require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments under a new law that will make the state the nation's largest to attempt to impose such a mandate.
Gov. Greg Abbott announced Saturday that he signed the bill, which is expected to draw a legal challenge from critics who consider it an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
A similar law in Louisiana was blocked when a federal appeals court ruled Friday that it was unconstitutional. Arkansas also has a similar law that has been challenged in federal court.
The Texas measure easily passed in the Republican-controlled state House and Senate in the legislative session that ended June 2.
'The focus of this bill is to look at what is historically important to our nation educationally and judicially,' Republican state representative Candy Noble, a co-sponsor of the bill, said when it passed the House.
Abbott also signed a bill that allows school districts to provide students and staff a daily voluntary period of prayer or time to read a religious text during school hours.
The Ten Commandments laws are among efforts, mainly in conservative-led states, to insert religion into public schools.
Texas' law requires public schools to post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship.
Supporters say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States' judicial and educational systems and should be displayed.
Opponents, including some Christian and other faith leaders, say the Ten Commandments and prayer measures infringe on others' religious freedom.
A letter signed this year by dozens of Christian and Jewish faith leaders opposing the bill noted that Texas has thousands of students of other faiths who might have no connection to the Ten Commandments. Texas has nearly 6 million students in about 9,100 public schools.
In 2005, Abbott, who was state attorney general at the time, successfully argued before the Supreme Court that Texas could keep a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of its Capitol.
Louisiana's law has twice been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, first by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles and then again by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also considers cases from Texas.
State Attorney General Liz Murrell said she would appeal and pledged to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
23 minutes ago
- CBS News
Keller: Rep. Katherine Clark shares her thoughts on Trump's "big beautiful bill"
The opinions expressed below are Jon Keller's, not those of WBZ, CBS News or Paramount Global. Voters don't always expect their political leaders to act benignly. They are often called on to "fight" for various things, "get tough" on crime or other issues, and so on. But you rarely hear folks clamoring for cruelty from their elected officials. Yet that's exactly what House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Fifth District) said her Republican counterparts are up to with their so-called "big beautiful bill" cutting taxes and budgets. In an interview with WBZ-TV, Clark said "it was very obvious from early on in the President's term that this was the play, huge cuts, historic cuts to health care, especially the Medicaid program. And then they were going to go after food programs, school lunches, Meals on Wheels, Women and Infants food programs, all to pay for tax breaks for the 900 billionaires in this country. And then on top of it, what we've seen is they also are adding almost $3 trillion to our deficit." The bill drew fire from some House GOP members before passing with near-unanimous partisan support and being shipped to the Senate, where a similar process is now underway. But Clark said she finds criticisms from Republican representatives and senators hollow. "We have different members of the House Republican Party saying, 'I can't go along with how big these Medicaid cuts are,' right? Then they vote for it. We have different members who say the cuts aren't large enough, I can't expand the deficit like this, but they fall in line. And this is an established pattern that is so harmful to the American people." Clark said she believes many of her Republican colleagues believe they are vulnerable to political backlash. "I think they are ducking for cover in a lot of these situations. I think the object here is to not focus on the cruelty and not level with the American people. We've seen members of the House write letters to the speaker saying, 'I could never support these cuts to Medicaid,' and now what we're seeing is that's expanded. They're cutting Medicare by half a trillion dollars, Medicaid by $800 billion. That's 16 million people when you add up the cuts to Medicaid, the ACA program, the children's insurance program, 16 million Americans they are kicking off of health care and for what? Not for some common good. But when people are telling us that they're not making it, 60% of American households are struggling to meet the basic needs for their family, how do we create jobs by taking away health care and taking away food programs?" And the second-ranking House Democrat said she believes the Republicans will pay a political price after promising during the campaign to focus on improving the economic status of voters. "They have gone a 180, the exact opposite," said Clark. "They have betrayed their own voters. They said cost of living is what we're going to address on day one. And between this horrendous bill and what we're seeing with tariffs, we are going to see a marked increase in cost of living for the American people. I don't know what their political view of this is, but it is an incredibly cruel bill, and it's saying to the American people that the Republican Party doesn't value them and is not going to work for them." Clark also discussed the state of play on issues of housing and child care, and the ability of her office to engage with the executive branch in the interview. Keller @ Large Part 2: Keller at Large airs every Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on WBZ-TV.
Indianapolis Star
28 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Mike Pence, other Indiana politicians praise Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites
Indiana's top Republican leaders applauded U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to attack three Iranian nuclear sites, saying the strikes potentially dismantling Iran's nuclear program are a step toward peace. Gov. Mike Braun and most of the Republican caucus have voiced their support for the president's move. Even Mike Pence, Trump's former vice president who ran against him in 2024, praised the move. However, U.S. Rep. Andre Carson and Democrats are condemning the strikes, specifically criticizing Trump for not first seeking congressional approval. After the attacks on June 21, the United States is now intertwined with Israel's war with Iran. In an address to the nation later Sunday evening, Trump said there could be further and larger attacks if peace isn't maintained.
Atlantic
29 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Americans Deserve a Congressional Vote on War With Iran
Before Donald Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, he was warned that, to quote Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the Constitution does not permit the president 'to unilaterally commit an act of war' against a nation that hasn't first struck America. After the attack, Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland declared Trump's actions 'a clear violation of our Constitution—ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.' Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York stated, 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' The judgment that neither the Constitution; nor the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law meant to clarify and limit when the president can wage war; nor any bygone authorization to use military force, such as the one passed after 9/11, permitted the attack is one I share. But I don't just lament the dearth of a congressional vote out of concern for constitutional law. I also fear that bypassing Congress weakens American democracy. Recall the last time that the United States began a war this consequential: George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Prior to invading, on October 10, 2002, Bush secured an authorization to use military force from Congress by wide margins in both chambers. Even though the Iraq invasion was a mistake—something I have long believed—American democracy was better off for those votes, and not just because the Constitution assigns the war power to Congress. Debating the matter in the House and Senate helped to educate lawmakers and the public about the arguments for and against the war and left a record of who made claims that later proved incorrect. Prior to the vote, citizens could lobby their representatives, allowing for more participation in the process. And afterward, citizens could hold members of Congress accountable for their choices, not only in the next election, but for the rest of the careers of everyone who cast a vote. Government by the people demands opportunities to mete out such consequences. And as voters soured on Iraq, the ability to vote out members of Congress who approved the war provided a civic outlet for dissent. Just prior to the 2006 midterms, the Pew Research Center reported that 'Iraq has become the central issue of the midterm elections. There is more dismay about how the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going than at any point since the war began more than three years ago. And the war is the dominant concern among the majority of voters who say they will be thinking about national issues, rather than local issues, when they cast their ballot for Congress this fall.' Pro–Iraq War senators including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and George Allen of Virginia lost races to anti–Iraq War challengers. In 2008, Hillary Clinton likely would have defeated Barack Obama, who spoke out against the invasion as an Illinois state senator, in the Democratic presidential primary but for her Senate vote for the Iraq War. And John McCain's vote for the war hung over him in that general election. Later, Senator Bernie Sanders's star would rise in part because he could point back to the vote he cast against the war. All told, voters in hundreds of electoral contests spanning years, if not decades, cast ballots in part based on information gleaned from that 2002 vote. Yesterday, in contrast, a lame-duck president, who will never again be accountable at the ballot box, went to war with Iran. There was no deliberation and no ability for voters to lobby their congressional representatives, and voters will be unable to credit or blame members of Congress for the outcome, or at least not as fully as if all were on the record voting yea or nay. Despite the early majorities that supported the Iraq War, its long-term effect on American politics includes growing popular aversion to wars of choice and foreign interventions. Even so, though Obama and Trump aligned themselves with popular opinion and campaigned on promises to avoid such engagements, they have now both unilaterally launched wars of choice, in Libya and Iran respectively, once they were in office. Their unilateral actions deprived Americans of representation and the ability to hold their representatives accountable after the fact. And the trend of denying the public democratic channels to oppose war isn't merely anathema to a self-governing republic; it is dangerous. In the long run, removing official channels for citizens to effect change can be radicalizing. Perhaps it won't prove so in this case, if all goes well. But if a large cohort of Americans comes to regard the attack on Iran as a blunder, how will that popular anger be channeled? The ideal answer would be, the next election. Trump has made that less possible.
