We have a second — and much better — lawsuit against the Ten Commandments in Texas

And this one is a much better vehicle than the first one, for this reason right here:

“As a rabbi and public school parent, I am deeply concerned that S.B. 10 will impose another faith’s scripture on students for nearly every hour of the school day,” said plaintiff Rabbi Mara Nathan (she/her). “While our Jewish faith treats the Ten Commandments as sacred, the version mandated under this law does not match the text followed by our family, and the school displays will conflict with the religious beliefs and values we seek to instill in our child.”

As I noted when the first suit was filed, it was primarily about personal aggrievement. This one expresses the universal First Amendment problem. (Surely, in either the House or the Senate, there's a Catholic wingnut or two, even if Catholic wingnut Drew Springer has retired, who could have reminded Protestant wingnuts that Catholics disagree with Calvinist and Anabaptist Protestants on what commandments are in those "Ten" Commandments. But, assuming I'm right, they're that chicken-shit to not argue over WHOSE Ten Commandments.)

If that doesn't do it, having someone from a non-Abrahamic religion will add to it:

“S.B. 10 imposes a specific, rules-based set of norms that is at odds with my Hindu faith,” said plaintiff Arvind Chandrakantan (he/him). “Displaying the Ten Commandments in my children’s classrooms sends the message that certain aspects of Hinduism — like believing in multiple paths to God (pluralism) or venerating murthis (statues) as the living, breathing, physical representations of God — are wrong. Public schools — and the state of Texas — have no place pushing their preferred religious beliefs on my children, let alone denigrating my faith, which is about as un-American and un-Texan as one can be.”

For good measure, a secularist, or at least a "none" of some sort, is part of the suit:

“We are nonreligious and don’t follow the explicitly religious commandments, such as ‘remember the Sabbath.’ Every day that the posters are up in classrooms will signal to my children that they are violating school rules,” said plaintiff Allison Fitzpatrick (she/her).

So, yes, this is "the vehicle."

That said, this secularist doesn't even fully accept the "second table" of the commandments.

Is an "open marriage" non-adulterous if everybody is in full disclosure? Wingnuts will call abortion murder — and a few are targeting pregnant women, not just doctors. Will people who oppose covetousness oppose the capitalism behind it? And, will they speak out against the ancient language that considered women property, as well as the slaves who are more than "manservants" and "maidservants"?