This is what Justice Wiley Rutledge argues in his dissenting opinion against the Supreme Court's ruling for the case. The clause served as a precise outline for religious freedom. The main goal was not to "to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies" (Rutledge) but rather alienate those associations. There needed to be a "complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion" (Rutledge) to keep the language of the clause coherent. In the First Amendment itself, the idea that is being discussed, religion, is simply written once, but serves as two different exclusions. There is the "narrow, to forbid 'an establishment,' and another much broader, for securing 'the free exercise thereof'" (Rutledge) which is why there needs to be a strict interpretation when the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are being compared. Also, during this time period not having the ability of free exercise of religion was not restricted because it was not illegal to simply practice you own religion. In America, all citizens were protected by "all forms of religious expression, creedal, sectarian or nonsectarian, wherever and however taking place, except conduct which trenches upon the like freedoms of others or clearly and presently endangers the community's good order and security" (Rutledge). So, by not reimbursing the parochial school children's parents, no rights are violated because by not giving them money neither establishes religion nor does not allow people to practice their religion. However, since the Supreme Court did give the reimbursement, religion was established, even though it could have been avoided.
