Everson and "Neutrality"

“Neutrality” is often used in E.C. opinions. In Everson, for example, the Court says that the First Amendment "requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of believers and non-believers." 

What do you think? Was this law neutral in terms of its impact on religion or does it favor religious students.

If children attending religious schools were excluded from a bus subsidy program available to all other schoolchildren, would the program be neutral?

What do you think “neutrality” means?

Prof. Douglas Laycock’s definition: A law is neutral with respect to religion if it neither “encourages or discourages religious belief or disbelief, practice or non-practice, observance or non-observance.” (39 DePaul L. Rev. at 1001).

Suppose the City of Lincoln developed a special bus service for disabled residents - disabled citizens could call and a special minivan would come out and take you, free of charge, anywhere you want to go. If you want to go shopping at Gateway, they’ll take you. If you want to go to Sheldon to view the Mapplethorpe exhibit, they’ll take you. If you want to go to church, they’ll take you.

Should the Establishment Clause be interpreted to prevent the bus service from being used by church-goers?

Suppose a city decides to subsidize bus and subway fares to encourage people to leave their cars at home and take public transportation. Does this subsidy program violate strict separation under the Establishment Clause, because religious persons may take advantage of subsidized bus fares when going to church or to another religious activity?

Should the Food Stamp Program include or exclude Kosher and other "religious" foods? Which approach would be neutral? Which would be non-neutral?