This blog post was written graduate assistant Yeshi Lhamo, a master’s student at Truett Seminary.
Figure 1. A political button in opposition to the Religious Freedom Amendment and Rep. Ernest Istook
When I first encountered the political slogan “Istook is Mistook,” I became intrigued. It is fascinating how deeply religion and government have been intertwined in debates over policy. One of the most memorable debates of recent years came in 1998 when Representative Ernest Istook introduced the Religious Freedom Amendment (RFA). Supporters saw the amendment as a way to “restore religious liberty,” while critics viewed it as a threat to the First Amendment and the freedom of religion. Though the amendment ultimately failed to pass, the debate it sparked proved insightful.
What Was It Really About?
The Religious Freedom Amendment would have changed the Constitution to allow:
- school-sponsored prayer (not just voluntary but officially sanctioned prayer in public schools)
- government money to fund religious activities
- public religious symbols and ceremonies (i.e. The Ten Commandments to be displayed in public places such as courthouses).
The amendment failed in the House of Representatives, falling short of the necessary two-thirds majority (224-203). However, the debates posed a deeper question – should religion and government ever mix?
The Misunderstood Letter: Thomas Jefferson’s Wall of Separation
Figure 2. A letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut from President Thomas Jefferson
A key talking point in the debates that surrounded the RFA was President Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. In this letter, Jefferson discussed a “wall of separation between Church and State,” a phrase that has influenced the United States’ views on religious freedom for centuries. During the RFA debates, however, some individuals distorted Jefferson’s original intentions. They argued that Jefferson only aimed to stop the government from limiting religion, not to exclude religion from governmental affairs entirely.[1] In an article from the Christian Coalition, the author challenges the “Wall of Separation Myth” writing, “Many incorrectly assume this phrase originates from the U.S. Constitution, implying that the mixing of religion and politics is forbidden. This misconception has led to a serious misinterpretation of the First Amendment and undermined our valuable religious freedoms.”
In reality, when considering the historical context, Jefferson’s letter intended to reassure the Danbury Baptists who were concerned about government interference in their beliefs. Jefferson’s point was that religion would thrive best if the government remained neutral rather than promoting one faith over others. Ironically, he argued, permitting the government to favor a particular religion leads to its own type of control. When the government endorses a specific religion, the church loses its independence, making faith a tool of political power rather than a personal conviction. This often leads to the suppression of other religions, violating the First Amendment’s principle of religious freedom. According to Jefferson, by favoring one faith, the government undermines both religious autonomy and the constitutional commitment to neutrality in matters of belief.
Figure 3. Article on the “Wall of Separation” Myth by Christian Coalition
Representative Chet Edwards
One of the most vocal opponents of the RFA was Representative Chet Edwards of Texas. A devout Christian himself, Edwards believed faith should be personal, not political. His opposition was not directed against religion but against the government playing favorites with faith. Like Jefferson, his perspective posited that when politicians start legislating religion, both government and religion suffer.
On June 3, 1998, a CNN debate program called Crossfire aired with the topic “Is there too much religion in schools?” The episode featured Republican Rep. Ernest Istook and Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards. Rep. Edwards criticized the RFA, arguing that keeping the government out of religion is fundamental and that this is one reason why so many people came to the United States in the first place: to escape the religious persecution that resulted from government involvement. Edwards stated that the biggest myth surrounding the Istook Amendment was that schools lack prayer, but students were already allowed to pray voluntarily in schools if it was not disruptive and not school sponsored. Ultimately, Chet Edwards emphasized that Istook’s Amendment was unnecessary as the First Amendment was sufficient and warned that government involvement in religion will not protect religious freedom but harm it.
It is intriguing to witness how passionately Americans value religious freedom yet frequently have differing interpretations of its significance. Some consider government-sponsored prayer a right, whereas others view it as a danger to genuine religious liberty.
One argument often made in favor of government-sponsored prayer involves Congress itself. Congress opens their sessions each day with prayer from a chaplain, so why not public schools? But there is a key difference:
- Students are a captive audience, legally required to be there; members of Congress are not.
- Children are more impressionable and vulnerable to state-sponsored coercion.
That is why the U.S. Supreme Court has always been more careful about religion in schools. Looking back, the debates from 1998 have not faded; they have evolved. The question remains: Is government involvement in religion protecting faith or putting it at risk?
Figure 5. Article from Baptist Joint Committee discussing Congress and opening prayers
Works Cited
Thomas Chester “Chet” Edwards U.S. House of Representatives papers, Accession #8A, Box 153, Folder 6, Baylor Collections of Political Materials, W. R. Poage Legislative Library, Baylor University.
CQ Almanac 1998, “Religious Freedom Amendment Falls Short in House,” Congressional Quarterly, 1998, https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac//document.php?id=cqal98-0000191096.
First Liberty Institute, “No Better Letter: Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists,” First Liberty, accessed March 19, 2025, https://firstliberty.org/no-better-letter/.
Thomas Chester “Chet” Edwards U.S. House of Representatives papers, Accession #8A, Box 153, Folder 2, Baylor Collections of Political Materials, W. R. Poage Legislative Library, Baylor University.
National Guard Association Event, 2010, Baylor University, Poage Legislative Library – Thomas Chester ‘Chet’ Edwards Digital Archive.
Thomas Chester “Chet” Edwards U.S. House of Representatives papers, Accession #8A, Box 153, Folder 2, Baylor Collections of Political Materials, W. R. Poage Legislative Library, Baylor University.