Why Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is Bad for Liberty — And Bad for Texas

 


By: Texas Liberty Defender 

The Texas Legislature recently passed S.B. No. 10, a law requiring every public school classroom in the state to display a specific version of the Ten Commandments. At first glance, this might seem like a victory for traditional values. But when you examine the bill carefully, it's clear: S.B. 10 is a serious threat to liberty, religious freedom, and even the integrity of Scripture itself.

Here’s why this law is a bad idea for Texas.

🔹 1. S.B. 10 Mandates a Faulty Translation

The bill uses the word “kill” in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”—but the Hebrew word in Exodus 20:13 is רָצַח (ratsach), which means “murder,” not “kill.” The distinction matters. The Bible never forbids all killing (e.g., in self-defense, war, or capital punishment), but it does forbid murder. By mistranslating this verse, S.B. 10 misrepresents the original meaning of the commandment and misleads students.

🔹 2. Inconsistent Use of the Divine Name

The bill inconsistently renders the sacred name of God (YHWH). At the top of the display, it correctly uses the traditional rendering: “I AM the LORD thy God”, with “LORD” in all small caps to represent YHWH.

But in two other places—including:

  • “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”

  • “the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee”

…it uses only “Lord”, without small caps. This is theologically incorrect, inconsistent with the King James tradition, and misleading to anyone familiar with biblical conventions.

🔹 3. It Deletes a Critical Line of Scripture

S.B. 10 omits the historical prologue found in both Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 5:6:

“I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

This line is not optional. It is a core part of the covenant and the very foundation upon which the commandments are given. Its removal violates Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, which warn against adding to or taking away from the commandments of God.

It also amounts to cultural and religious appropriation. This foundational line roots the Ten Commandments in Jewish identity and history. By deleting it, Texas is stripping the commandments from their original context and misappropriating them as a generic moral code.

🔹 4. It Pretends to Be King James—but Isn’t

S.B. 10 is written in 17th-century English, as if it were the King James Version (KJV)—but it isn’t. It uses modernized grammar in some places, changes KJV words in others, and introduces inconsistencies throughout:

  • "unto thee" is replaced by "to thyself"

  • “LORD” is not used where the KJV would

  • “Ox” and “ass” are changed to “cattle”

  • “Neighbour” becomes “neighbor”

  • "Honour" is Americanized to "Honor"

It’s a pseudo-KJV: archaic in style but inaccurate in content. If this bill were about respecting Scripture, it would use the actual King James Version.

🔹 5. It Takes Sides in a Religious Debate

There’s a centuries-old debate between Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and other Christians about how to structure and number the Ten Commandments. S.B. 10 takes a side by adopting the Reformed Protestant division:

  • It splits the “no other gods” and “no graven images” commands into two.

  • It combines coveting wife and property into a single commandment.

  • It omits the Jewish tradition of treating “I am the LORD thy God...” as the first saying.

  • It rejects the Catholic/Lutheran tradition that combines the first two and splits coveting into two.

In doing so, the State of Texas is acting as a theological referee—something it has no business doing under the First Amendment.

🔹 6. It Criminalizes Religious Expression in Public Schools

This law effectively makes it illegal for a school classroom to display:

  • The actual King James Version of the Ten Commandments

  • The full biblical text, including “out of the land of Egypt...”

  • A Catholic or Lutheran version with a different division of the commandments

  • A Jewish version honoring the covenantal context

  • A correctly translated version that uses “murder” instead of “kill”

That’s not promoting religion. That’s the government picking a sect, enforcing a translation, and silencing all others.

🔹 7. The State Should Not Be in the Theology Business

Translation and interpretation of Scripture are sacred matters of conscience, tradition, and religious identity. The government should not be deciding:

  • Which translation is “correct”

  • Which verses should be included or omitted

  • How to divide or number the commandments

Those are theological questions—and no legislature has the competence or authority to answer them. Doing so violates the spirit of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty by keeping the state out of religion.

🔚 Conclusion: S.B. 10 Undermines Liberty

True religious liberty means the government cannot and should not dictate theology—even under the guise of promoting morality. If Texas truly values liberty, it should protect every citizen’s right to read, interpret, and honor Scripture according to their own conscience, not impose one state-approved version in every classroom.

S.B. 10 violates religious freedom, distorts Scripture, and opens the door to future abuses of government power over matters of faith.

That’s not liberty.

That’s the opposite of it.

It is also indeed ironic that the Texas Legislature passed SB 10 while violating the Sabbath meeting on a Saturday.

  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introducing: Texas Liberty Defender

Image
  I have a core political philosophy from which all meaningful policy positions naturally arise. It's simple, powerful, and distinctly American: More freedom, less government. Personal responsibility. I am the Texas Liberty Defender . If you truly believe in these ideals, they lead—without contradiction—to a consistent worldview. That worldview doesn’t pick and choose when to favor freedom. It doesn’t embrace government expansion when it happens to serve your pet issue. It means standing for liberty even when it's uncomfortable or inconvenient. Historically, this is what set us apart from big-government Democrats. They may not have agreed on much—environmentalists and union loggers often found themselves at odds—but they were united by one thing: a belief in an ever-growing state powerful enough to enforce their respective agendas. They didn’t need to be ideologically consistent. All they needed was a big enough government to get their way. Unfortunately, many in the Repub...
Read more

The Party of Freedom—or the New Nanny State?

Image
    Once upon a time, the Republican Party stood as the final barricade against government overreach. It was the party of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul. It championed limited government, personal responsibility, and individual freedom —not as talking points, but as sacred principles. But something is changing. The party that once railed against the nanny state is now flirting with becoming one. And it must stop. In her monumental book  The Discovery of Freedom (1943), Rose Wilder Lane—daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder and one of the great thinkers of liberty—traces the long, tragic arc of human history through the lens of one central question: Why have people been poor, hungry, and oppressed for six thousand years, and why did that suddenly begin to change in America? Her answer is profound: Freedom works. Control kills. "The plain fact is that human energy operates more effectively in these United States than it has ever operated before... Because it ...
Read more