a.    The majority refers to erecting a wall between religion and
the state, but in their holding they knock down this wall.
b.    The Act does not reimburse those who choose any alternative
to public school except Catholic Church schools (because all the kids
who go to parochial schools got to Catholic schools).  Part of the
Catholic Church school is religious indoctrination.  Jackson
concludes, “Catholic education is the rock on which the whole
structure rests, and to render tax aid to its Church school is
indistinguishable to me from rendering the same aid to the Church
itself.”
1.  Given the plain language of the Act, Jackson’s conclusion here
seems unjustified.
c.    “The prohibition against establishment of religion cannot be
circumvented by a subsidy, bonus or reimbursement of expense to
individuals for receiving religious instruction and indoctrination.
d.    The majority’s analogy between cops and the reimbursement is
false.  When a cop or fireman renders aid, he does not ask, “Is this
man or building identified with the Catholic church?”  He protects
the man or building—not because it is associated with the Catholic
church—but because he is a member of society and the building is
property.  But before the state reimburses parents of parochial
children for bus fares, it has time to reflect (unlike the cop and
fireman) and should ask: Is this reimbursement being given because of
religion?
Dave says this is intuitively true.