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
invocation (nonsectarian and sectarian)
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.