It should not be the role of a principal or a teacher to say we are going to have prayer at school or prayer to start the school day or football game or whatever. But if the students are saying, and it could be individually, it could be collectively, are saying we want to have that, then the government is in the position of accommodating that. So we have here the language that says the people have a right to pray. The government does not prescribe it. It does not prescribe it. It does not say you must have the school prayer. It does not say what the content has got to be. So the government does not prescribe it. But if the people exercising their right say we want to be able to have a prayer, we are required by law to be here at school all day, why should we be isolated from what is normal just because we are required by law to be at school. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote about that in some of these cases. He stated in a society that so structures a child's life where attendance at public school is compulsory, if the child is required to be isolated from normal everyday religious influences, then religion has been placed in an artificial and State-created disadvantage. I think Justice Stewart had it right.
Ernest Istook: “It should not be the role of a principal or a teacher to say we are going to have prayer at school or prayer to start…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the role of prayer in public schools during a floor speech.
Share
More from Ernest Istook
the gentleman is certainly correct. Reclaiming my time, this Committee on Appropriations is doing its work, whether the rest of Congress is able to for whatever reason fulfill their work or not. I regret that this is going to be a messy…
although I have, frankly, a great amount of sympathy for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and I think there is a need for us to do something regarding the accounts of former Presidents, I do not believe…
I feel the need to speak a little bit in greater length because of the consequences of this point of order. This point of order would strike the final two provisos in section 218 but leave intact the remainder of that section. Those…
I support the shifting of funds, and I appreciate the cooperation of Members toward this effort, knowing that it is all part of that interrelated Bay Area system as well.





