In Part 1 on this topic, I explained how the Hays County Commissioners Court established religious worship as an integral part of its meetings one year ago. In Part 2, I described the content of its religious practice. In this third and final column, I address the constitutionality of the Court’s religious practices and explain how they deny equal protection to those in Hays County who are not religious. While I am indebted to both the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) for their analysis of Establishment Clause jurisprude
In Part 1 on this topic, I explained how the Hays County Commissioners Court established religious worship as an integral part of its meetings. In this column, I will explain some of the details of that religious worship as the Court’s Policy has been implemented.
Some strange events occurred in Hays County a year ago, on October 16, 2012, when its Commissioners Court adopted a resolution and a policy and procedures relating to invocations held at the beginning of its regular meetings. The policy and procedure established religion as a bona fide part of Hays County government and excluded participation in its invocations by the non-religious. How the Court took this action is as strange as what it did.