Critics mount attack on prayer bill.

Byline: David Steves The Register-Guard

SALEM - It started out as a union-backed bill to let workers opt out of what would otherwise be mandatory prayer breakfasts and on-the-job political pep rallies.

But House Bill 2893 is now being described as an assault on Christians in the workplace.

The bill, which passed the House on Thursday and now goes to the Senate, has prompted a flurry of critical e-mails by a religious conservative group called "Restore America" and requests from lawmakers for legal advice into whether the bill would ban opening prayers by the House, Senate or other public body.

Rep. Bruce Hanna, R-Roseburg, is among those sounding the alarm, distributing an "action alert" flier warning that HB 2893 "specifically targets Christians in the workplace, whether they are employers or employees."

The flier also warns that the bill "will prevent employers and employees from praying or worshiping together - even if it's their own choice!"

Restore America, based in Lake Oswego, urged recipients of its e-mail to contact lawmakers to voice their opposition.

The bill was introduced on behalf of the Oregon AFL-CIO. Its spokeswoman, Jennifer Sargent, called opponents' interpretations of the bill "unfortunate and misguided."

"This is all about whether workers should be forced on the job to listen to things they don't believe in," she said. "It's about their freedom to get back to work without fear of being fired. It's pretty simple."

The bill says an employer cannot require an employee to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or to participate in any communication with the employer if the purpose is to "communicate the employer's opinion about religious or political matters." The bill also prohibits employers from firing or otherwise penalizing workers to force their participation.

Hanna said he reads the bill as having more far-reaching effects than those described by supporters. He said the bill wouldn't just exempt employees from participating in religious or political events at work; it would force employers to end such activities. That's because of the risk that willingly participatory workers could decide later to sue their employer, alleging they were forced or coerced into attending a political or religious event, he said.

Both Hanna and Rep. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, submitted letters to the legislative counsel's office, requesting clarification on whether the bill would ban prayers by a public body such as the Legislature. The House and Senate customarily open each daily floor session with a prayer or moment of silent meditation.

Boquist's letter said the mandatory presence of the House clerk, staff, pages, security workers and other personnel during those prayers would result in a violation of the proposed law, effectively banning prayers. The same would be the case with employees of local governments when their boards, councils and com- missions open meetings with a prayer, Boquist said.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Mike Schaufler, D-Happy Valley, disputed that inter- pretation.

"This is not true. It does not ban opening prayers," he said.