were under the act unconstitutional here the district court erred in analyzing all three prongs to hold that statements that promote the religion of his law do not violate the constitution this  exacerbated by the fact then the requirement for courts to be particularly vigilant in ensuring that public schools comply with the establishment clause due to their compulsory nature first the curriculum at issue violated the sense that it wires to ensure something that either promotes one of the or it so you explain plaintiffs have never contended that religion needs to be completely absent from schools that two to phrase that as such i still believe dead would violate and go more towards the instep excessive entanglement clause because then they are looking and trying to determine what is the heart of a rep what is the ha of a religion but here i don't even think we need to go into it how are you supposed to teach about religion if you're not allowed to i don't understand what does it mean that all the times the supreme court has ensured teaching our religion are supposed to do that there are certain facts that are you know related to religion so for example for christianity is the fact that christians believe jesus is the son of god that is a fact whatever now you're trying to out excessive entanglement and that's and that's not what we have here either i know but i guess what i'm trying to figure out on the one hand your brief acknowledges this rule that it is ok for public schools to teach about religion but on the other you suggest that it made all sad finalization of schools say something about various religions not so how how does that work not if they say something i've said if it's if they cross the line from a fact about a religion to a subjective statement for instance here we have the statement that most muslims face the stronger than the average christian and you look at that that is true i mean it's where clique throughout the record criticisms of this statement it's called our fault lacking in tact wanting an accurate accuracy that is not a statement of fact about right chris first the first prong of lemon when you're talking about secular purpose you have to say that the end there is no secular purpose in other words that by  having discourse on world religion specifically on the islamic faith that the purpose was entirely to promote is wrong don't you and so how can you say that based on what we have here we have what you' referring to is the comparative basis statement but when you look at everything that is being talked about islam how can you say that the school was entirely motivated by a purpose to advance islam i think that it boils down to this statement is that there needs to be a secular purpose to this data is that you and though because this is very important just kind of has as a matter of judicial manageability it is your view that if the school teaches about religion literally every sentence every sentence on powerpoint every sentence on the test every sentence and comes out of the teacher's mouth must individually be analyzed under all three prongs of women because that's a formidable look at every statement every i mean every challenge statement if there's something that promotes otherwise a teacher in the scope of world history class could say all students should convert to christianity all students should convert to islam and but it's and if it's in the context of the world history class well let's look to the other context of the you know that the context of the class that whole white rather than the purpose of the out that manageable to use the word jew by just parrot for us to micro manage schools when they start teaching a subject on religion we're going to start analyzing every first i think your emphasis that this is not just an offhand statement by a teacher who maybe made a mistake in the moment this is a slide that is developed and put forward for the students so second with that i don't think it we do not so we have to take the statements as they are and see how that was set forth that at another point is that it's not just a blatant promotion and lynch the supreme court said that some subtle government advocacy is also prohibited and so even if sorry with respect to that the teacher was a christian and that does not matter the teacher in  unwitting person or teacher who pull things off the internet internet we don't know who created the slideshow so i don't think that that goes to this the purpose of the slide the purpose of the teaching of this statement i think the statement have the churches have been saying in their questions we have to look at what was presented as a whole and how can you say he has no secular purpose to learn about what other people in the world think one statement regarding muslim faith being stronger does the success of your case as to the establishment clause claim rise and fall on whether we look at the whole lesson or just one sentence it does not follow with just that once with ok why not because i have always been hearing is having you tell us why that one statement is objectionable and so if if you're saying that qur'an is the is set forth from allah whereas christians and jews merely believed that the bible is on the side it is on one of the sites yes is  permitted just as much as blatant government advocacy and in the school context when we're dealing with the involuntary involuntary teachings and when the students are required they're required to be there and they're young again i don't i don't think that you're going to see a lot of statements that are as i believe i believe blatantly promotional one religion over another tell me was that blatant in most christians faith stronger than  and then setting one above the other that is that is setting that the muslims are practicing their faith engaging in their faith more thoroughly and better than christians are which would indicate to context i remember you don't want to contact his context makes us look at the whole thing you want to look at just this so you don't context to you i do i believe even in the context of the curriculum statement i think the more ready meaning from reading the statement is that they're talking about christians faith and christianity i don't i don't think i faith if that's true we don't look at context so when we look at the statement and it says most muslims face no description of what kind of faith which i guess you could just say that i believe in believing in this long all those issues rather than the average christian period and what do you read from that other then people who believe in them  even with the whole curriculum i do believe that that statement on top of the way the qur'an verses the bible was phrased on top of the four saying the students to write out the islamic conversion prayer that morning may please the court andrew scott on behalf of everyone arlen shannon morris before i get in my arguments i'd like to address the questions that the court spent most of last twenty minutes asking my colleague and that is that context is crucial the supreme court says it is and lynch versus donnelly in fact back to court and that case said to focus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to his invalidation under the establishment clause and i agree with judge lance comment if the course gave credence to any one individual's objection and in fact look at that state i'm i'm just trying to make sense out of this if it is true that most muslims hate were not here it just it seems i don't i don't know what faith is i don't know what i don't know what is promoted tell me tell me well from your perspective i'm trying to understand is that  fasting the four day four times a day prayer and that that was the point of this but that's how i read it but you tell me what the point well i would agree i would agree first of all the testimony was that this unit was  was taught as a means of exploring islam has influence on the rise of middle eastern political entities in history have to the current day and we would contend that without exploring the basic tenets of  islam really that's all that the the powerpoint slide it five ninety in the appendix and the film the black work she did six ninety nine do they basically just require the students to regurgitate or parrot back the basic tenets of islam so as to understand how that religion had an effect on the various political entities that they were studying at the time and i think it's important to take a quick step back because i take it from the course of questions about context that versus donnelly the court there says that in our modern complex society whose traditions and constitutional underpinnings rest on ending curves that versity employer lism in all areas and absolute best approach in applying the establishment clause is simplistic and has been uniformly rejected by the court rather than mechanically invalidating all governmental conduct that confers benefits or gives special recognition to religion in general or to one state  donnelly made clear that the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between a real threat and mere shadow and we would submit that in this case at most what we have is mere shadow as the district court worded a little different i don't understand it and keep it as it is and push it as though well i'm tired teach well it was a one time incident and so even after the parents objected to it never happened again the fact that the school system took the position that it and for the record there is nothing in the record that shows where this power point came from there was some speculation that perhaps a substitute teacher pulled off the internet that was a dispute or fact in real or just seems to be a personality i mean i'm i'm i'm the exact details of that meeting were not are not really clear in the record to be honest and to be clear during that time mr wood was banned from the school based on his language and his behavior which is not part of this appeal but i think to the extent the court is raising what happened on those days very shortly after this issue arose as clearly relevant mr wood called the assistant principal ms morris made tress use profanity the quotes are in the opinion from the court below grade that's not really relevant to whether they were indorsing religion it's not i only raise it to the extent that the courts asking why didn't the school system take a more conciliatory approach i would argue that they did take a conciliatory approach the proof is in the putting in that regard in the sense that there's been no subsequent lawsuits against the school system relating to this critical and to my knowledge there's to not have been any complaints about it but because it made for purposes of this appeal there's nothing on the record that shows that there was any allegation of any establishment cause problem other than this day or two in october of two thousand and fourteen when mr ware saw this powerpoint slide allegedly on his kitchen table and his daughter looking at it  so i think it's crucial because the court has emphasized that context matters and so even if we take i would concede that this comparative faith statement as judge hazel  is somewhat subjective it's not necessarily fact based but we have to consider it in context in the court has made clear and brown versus gilmore that the first prong of the lemon test is a low hurdle that is as long as there is some secular purpose and it's only violated if the action of the curriculum or instruction as it is in this case was entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion here we don't have this was clearly an academic exercise  moving on to the last promise we haven't discussed yet this the excessive entanglement the court below found i think correctly that there was not any entanglement much less excessive entanglement the court in l says that the factors to be considered are the institutions that are benefited the nature of the aid provided and the resulting relationship between government and religious authority here we have no direct benefit to muslims no aid to muslims no relationship between the school system and any islamic organization no clergy involvement no clergy instruction unlike in the column versus board of education the supreme court case from one nine hundred forty eight we don't have like this court's opinion and bark out cited in our brief where the court struck down a daily prayer during dinner time of the m i in the alternative i want to raise the issue of qualified immunity we raise that issue below both the motion to dismiss stage and at the summary judgment stage the district court on summary judgment did not address that issue at all because he didn't need to in light of his ruling on the merits we would and would argue that in the alternative to the extent th tangle has made clear that clearly established law must be particularized to the facts of the case so as to avoid transforming qualified immunity into a rule of virtually unqualified liability and so the standard here would be whether it was clearly douche that's the allegation but i would contend that a reasonable informed observer which is what we have to it which is the perspective from which we have to analyze it mirrors well we have to be a review this from the perspective of but again when you take a step back and look at the context of the entire unit and even of the documents themselves the power point slide in the film the white work sheet it's clear this was an academic works exercise not a religious one and to hold otherwise would be to encourage an incredible number of cases to come to this court because and frankly it would it would it would require teachers to engage and determin docs there there are lessons are which the courts have said it would be actually a violation of the establishment clause in fact i don't think it would take well because you're dealing with religious postings you can teach controversial things about you go one w as i said earlier in the record isn't clear that ever it ever was talk we don't know what the teacher said to supplement the materials that were provided all the court has before are these two documents which on their face from a reasonable perspective from our perspective do not constitute endorsement so you are you a clear that this statement has been removed from or it is not no longer being tall i cannot say that as a matter of fact honor now so we could be taught again injunctive keep you from doing it i believe so no i thought the injunctive claim was i don't understand i thought the procedural posture of this case is that in just the claim was dismissed because the case is mean for luminary injunction claim was was well if this court were to reverse the result would be an order entered by the district court stating that the school system improperly endorsed by the establishment class use that call it close but i would that's what i understand account to do you see what i mean that then you would not use them anymore that's what i understand our congress to be set and we certainly wouldn't raise our damages no money enough to correct just don't use those states that's my understanding of the complainer yes this i thought this was a case about it damages claim nominal damages your honor but but but the primary claiming a palace council can correct me if i miss something or complaint is to seek it that i know she was in the complaint but i thought that i  conduct i believe that's correct with the exception of the remedy sought of a prior violation but so you believe that there is a claim for declaratory relief still in this case yes ok the worksheet and then the comparative religions those were discussed most fully in our brief but the others the other statement the qur'an of this record was wrong you think it should have gone on to reach other things it they incorrect i would have to review the brief to see exactly what we put forth in their summary judgment motion but when looking at those two statements and i mean that others like is that the other forcing students to write the conversion prayer of the islamic faith promotes the religion both the religion of islam and that's something we would like to stop in the schools i don't think it's unreasonable to ask teachers to look at their curriculum and make sure that they're not promoting they're not promoting a religion and they're teaching religion as fact and the supreme promotes religion biassed just simply say that what in the all the students were being asked to do was simply recite what most limbs believe and this is what they believe it's not saying that you shouldn't believe or that by filling in th work she you're signing up for the religion it doesn't fit anything it just says that these people believe it it is not just a statement of their belief so it's the conversion prayer and it forced miss wood to violate her religious beliefs were there anything here the call to the conversion prayer i don't believe so but if it was true and you don't have a free exercise clause claim it compelled her to express beliefs that were not her own yes our so yours is a compelling yours is a there's a compelled speech claim still alive but i mean ok thank you ok thank you very much i was the clerk to adjourn court and