Istook mistook.

It's not every day that a member of the House of Representatives reads a prayer to Satan at a congressional hearing. But that's just what U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) did July 22.

"I'm a born Satanist," said Edwards. "I'm a happy little blob of custard and you can't nail me to any wall; in fact, I'd pull those nails out and aim them at you. Tell me how negative I am; tell me how I'm filled with hate. You're not just stupid, you're wrong...."

Edwards isn't a Satanist, of course; he's a United Methodist. But by reading this "prayer" -- and shocking most of the House Constitution Subcommittee members -- the Texas representative was making the point that a constitutional amendment being considered in Congress opens the door to all kinds of devotions in public schools, not just Christian prayers.

"I absolutely do not want my two young sons some day exposed to witchcraft, or Satanic, or Branch Davidian prayer in the public schools of Waco, Texas," Edwards observed. "Therein lies the unanswered dilemma of the Istook amendment that allows student-initiated prayer. History has taught us the best way to ruin religion is to politicize it."

U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook's (R-Okla.) so-called "Religious Freedom Amendment" (RFA) may be intended to allow for government promotion of Christianity, but as Edwards' dramatic testimony highlighted, the proposal's broad language could lead to a variety of unintended consequences.

Edwards' Satanic prayer was one of many interesting developments at a hearing of the House Constitution Subcommittee on Istook's proposal. The session on H.J. Res. 78, stacked mostly with Istook supporters, was clearly intended to push the amendment forward in the legislative process.

Arguing that the United States must alter the First Amendment, Istook, the amendment's driving force, told the committee, "We seek a constitutional amendment because the courts have left us no other choice."

His proposed amendment seeks to add 69 words to the Constitution to secure the people's "right to acknowledge God." It ensures "the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools." The measure would also open the door to public funding of religion by guaranteeing "equal access" to government benefits.

Critics of H.J. Res. 78 charge that it represents the single biggest threat to church-state separation in decades. The proposal has 140 cosponsors in the House and top-priority backing from TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, radio counselor James Dobson's Focus on the Family, the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and other powerful Religious Right groups.

Istook, in his testimony, claimed that his amendment has wide-ranging support from a variety of religious groups and the public at large. "Throughout the last 25 years, public opinion polls typically have shown 75 percent of the American public want a constitutional amendment supporting prayer in public schools," he argued.

The Oklahoma representative insisted that since 45 of the 50 state constitutions mention God, and the U.S. Constitution doesn't, his amendment should be ratified. He went on to explain that the right to pray on "public property" would allow students to engage in worship, as well as permit government entities to put religious emblems on official seals.

Interestingly, Istook argued that his Religious Freedom Amendment would not interfere with the church-state provisions already guaranteed by the Constitution. "The RFA does not repeal the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but interacts with it, restoring the former balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause," he said. "The RFA would correct the trend of using the Establishment Clause to run roughshod over the Free Exercise Clause .... (Our courts have) halted voluntary religious expressions by citizens, individually and collectively, whenever government has some connection."

Istook announced at the hearing what he described as a slight revision to the language of his proposal, forbidding government to "prescribe" school prayers instead of "initiate or designate" them.

With this change, H.J. Res. 78 now reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people's fight to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property including schools, shall not be infringed. The government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

Istook ended his remarks by telling the committee the RFA could not only serve as a school prayer amendment, but also as a constitutional remedy overturning the Supreme Court's City of BoeDAT v. Flores decision, which struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in June.

Istook said a "brief additional section to the amendment" could be added to his proposal to restore free exercise rights endangered by the high court.

But critics of Istook's crusade said his amendment in any form would dangerously jeopardize religious freedom in America. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, analyzed for the committee the "most obvious problems" with Istook's amendment.

The first of these major concerns focused on official recognition of majority religions.

"The provision allowing `the people' to `recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property' is designed to allow majorities of citizens and government officials to endorse religion, a practice that could make millions of Americans outsiders in their own communities," Lynn said. "This provision would effectively authorize official public declarations and acknowledgements that favor one religion."

To highlight the problems posed by this prospect, Lynn displayed a large map of the United States that showed religious majorities and pluralities by county. "Do we really want Dane County, Wisconsin, declaring itself a Catholic county, while the town next door in Dodge County declares itself a Lutheran community?" asked Lynn. "In Utah, the `people' could vote to declare the state officially Mormon. And in Alabama, the `people' could have a referendum to declare the state to be a Christian state."

The AU executive director also told the committee that passage of the RFA would directly lead to taxpayer funding of religious institutions, a practice outlawed since the founding of the nation.

"H.J. Res 78 prohibits any government from denying `equal access to a benefit on account of religion,'" Lynn said. "This section is obviously intended to deal primarily with money. The language creates a fight for religious groups or individuals to demand a `benefit' that other groups receive. In other words, so long as the government is funding an organization or an activity, religious individuals would be entitled to the same benefits."

According to Lynn, the ramifications of this provision would be enormous. For example, he suggested that since public schools receive public funds, an entitlement could be created for religious schools to receive the same subsidies. Under the Istook language, Lynn argued, government wouldn't be able to discriminate or "deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

As a result, he said, religious school vouchers could not only become a legal option, they could become a legal requirement.

"Any religion, all religions, and anyone who wants to call his organization a religion could set up child care centers, schools and prisons with public grants," charged Lynn. "The organizations could then use taxpayer funds for the their religious exercises and worship. This is either an unfunded mandate of biblical proportions, or an invitation to interreligious strife on an unprecedented level.

"The prohibition under current law against houses of worship receiving public funds does not exist to be hostile to religion," continued Lynn, who is both an attorney and a United Church of Christ minister. "It exists to protect the beneficiaries of government-funded services from unwanted proselytization, to protect the religious institutions from government intrusion and to protect taxpayers from funding a religious viewpoint with which they may disagree. It is a protection that should be maintained."

On the issue of prayer in public school, Lynn joined many witnesses to explain that students' right to pray voluntarily in school is already fully protected. He ridiculed Religious Right claims that even personal religious expression has been banned in the classroom.

"Imagine my surprise a few months ago when I picked up my newspaper and, right there, on the front page of The New York Times, a third-grade public school student in New York City was praying in full view of his classmates, his teacher and a New York Times photographer," Lynn said. "I was, of course, alarmed so I had a member of my staff call the city to see how this student was punished for praying in the school. It turned out, he wasn't disciplined at all. In fact, the city official said that the only call they have ever received on this matter was the call from my the member of my staff. I wasn't surprised. Students already enjoy many opportunities for robust religious expression within the structured school environment."

Lynn also raised the specter of "coercive" religious worship. The Istook amendment, he said, would open the door to organized prayers that pressure students or other citizens to engage in an activity that they would otherwise not wish to participate in.

Explained Lynn, "If a public school teacher can lead her students in a prayer before a test, that's coercion. If a football player feels pressure to join in a team prayer in order to play, that's coercion. If a judge can lead a courtroom of defendants in prayer before sentencing, that's coercion. Yet all of these activities are authorized by this amendment.

"Thus," Lynn concluded, "this amendment authorizes the very coercive practices it disclaims. It also fails the stated purpose of clarifying current law and collapses under the weight of its own inconsistencies."

Several others testified before the committee, although the witness list was skewed to favor the Istook proposal. Those speaking for the RFA were Jim Henderson of Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, Craig Parshall of Concerned Women for America, William Murray (Madalyn Murray O'Hair's Christian convert son), Pepperdine Law School professor Mark Scarberry, Rabbi Aryeh Spero and U.S. Reps. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.) and Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.).

Opposition witnesses were U.S. Rep. Walter Capps (D-Calif.), Derek Davis of Baylor University's J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies and the Rev. Timothy McDonald, pastor of the Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta, Ga.

With the July 22 hearing out of the way, the Istook amendment is now ready for the mark-up phase in the House Constitution Subcommittee. The timetable is uncertain. Some observers expect action by the full House Judiciary Committee as early as this fall, with a vote on the House floor by winter.

However, some insiders suggest that the showdown on the RFA may be delayed until 1998 for political reasons. Christian Coalition leaders are already on record as saying that they plan to use members' votes on the amendment as a focal point on CC voter guides in the 1998 congressional elections. Thus floor action could be delayed until the year of the elections, so the issue will still be fresh in Americans' minds when they go to the polls in November.