do is to give the sigh ten minutes of uninterrupted presentation for the appalachian which i believe is the part and you can reserve whatever time for us all neither side is under any obligation to use all of your ten minutes we always appreciate brevity and after each attorney argues their presentation uninterrupted the justices will be identified and recognized individually for questions that's about the as an attorney general here on behalf of the defendant appellants the issue in this case is whether the board's decision that the plaintiff was not exempt from the illinois unemployment insurance program under the statutory exemption for certain religious related organizations was not clearly erroneous and reaching its decision the board determined that the plane was not operated primarily for religious purposes within the meaning of the statu where although it engaged in some religious activities its main activities were to provide homework help reading assistant kneels and access to medical services which activities had objective  court's decision providing that organizations that are primarily engaged in secular activities are not operated primarily for religious purposes although their motive for providing the services may be of religious recognizing the risks of harm due to involuntary unemployment illinois and claim an insurance act was enacted to alleviate these peril by providing economic rel who become in voluntarily unemployed therefore it is intended to be liberally construed in favor of coverage and any party claiming that it is exempt from the x coverage has the burden of proving that it needs only did it have the burden of proof but the board's decision is entitled to deference the department is the agency charged with administer in the act and therefore it has the experience and expertise and forcing its provisions as a result an exemption as a religious rule related organization is governed by section two hundred and eleven point three a of the act which provides that employment for purposes of the act does not include services performed for an organization that among other rip other requirements is operated primarily for religious purposes and in determining the purposes for which an organization is operated the courts will look to the activities that it is engaged in and in a those activities looks to the purpose to which the activities are directed and that the motive for performing of course as a threshold matter the organization must believe that its activities have a religious purpose but its intentions alone well necessary are not sufficient rather whether activities are religious under the statute is then determined by the objective function of the activity that this court has founded an organization that primarily provides secular services is not operated by nearly for religious purposes even if those services are offered for religious reasons for example in s offered religious services and stated that its purpose was to help native american families achieve a better life morally spiritually and physically and ten to twelve hours who we spent in the program the children spent only two and a half to three hours attending a bible study or chapel and the remainder of their time attending academic rotations and being that for example on monday tuesday and wednesday the children spent thirty minutes attending bible study or chapel services and the rest of their time having a meal and attending three academic rotations which consisted of one rotation for doing homework with someone for thursdays was a little different the children still had dinner but then spent thirty minutes on homework and then an hour to an hour and a half on their bible study or chapel evidence also show that in addition to the act academic programs  the plight of also provided the children access to medical care getting them examined if needed and sending them to the eye doctor or dentist in addition it staff would meet with the children's teachers at their schools to discuss their reading you would you agree that the decision of the board has to be based on the evidence that's presented yes would you also agree that this particular afterschool program  was free yes everything's free and would you also agree that the all of the employees were actually mandated to be of the christian face there were certain requirements for them to to be involved in the process yes even in the after school program participants were you know young children up to high school but they were also mandated to participate in religious class participation every single day that they were there well i mean they did attend the yes of class is there anything in the record that would suggest that they were mandated to participate in bible study now was there any testimony from anyone that would suggest that the giving the fluid and providing tutoring service and you know everything was actually without any cost including their health  mean there are afterschool programs where you have to pay to participate right track ok but and all of the battle to your participants you know had to actually profess their face and they couldn't be a you know any way involved in this program unless they were going to be actively engaged in proselytizing to the children but they haven't just simply said i mean they have to be able meet bible study required to do that you know that there were other requirements to they had to agree that they were church going people but in any event is it up to the board to decide whether you know the provision of all these things was something other than charity and that charity can also be synonymous with a religious purpose well i tell whether or not charity could be synonymous with a religious purpose the question here is if there are a religious purpose here with the meaning of the statue and what the courts have looked at is they look at the objective function of the activities that are being formed there and not the d access to medical services in these activities the function of these activity effect your well is it secular when they're being provided for free yes well certainly i mean yes  the again it is the activity itself the objective function of their activity that you're what and here the function of these activities is to help them with their homework to give them a meal to provide access with house care and to provide you know reading assistants sure but wasn't one of the whole purpose of this was to provide this religious  to everything they were doing mind body and spirit at that i mean that's not what's determinative of whether or not they are whether or not there are primarily operated for religious purpose within the meaning of this statue you know like in the st augustine case again they were providing social services to these families although they stated you know that the reason was to help them achieve a better life spiritually and morally and ethically and they were providing religious services onsite or that it still was not operating primarily for what it was in the st augustine case there was no requirement that anyone that worked there had to be christian there was no requirement at all that air that any of the participants had to attend bible studies every single day so i don't know how you can compare that case but where was the testimony that that the board relied on to come to this conclusion what testimony well with all the testimony with regards to the activities that they were engaged in a x you know explained that the program consisted  twelve hours per week and i'm three of those days it would spend only thirty minutes of the two and a half to three hours there on chapel or a bible study and the remainder of that time they were involved in academic rotation but no one can actually said that that was a decision that the board made based upon its review of the testimony even though all the witnesses said that everything they did was basically for religious purpose again what constitutes a religious purpose is not is the objective function of the activities and not the motivations for performing so would you say there's a significant then between all of these christian schools and parochial schools that are all considered functioning in a religious purpose even though they all teach secular subjects that well in illinois i don't know you know cases that are holding that other than the unity christian well that's the only case really that delved into a school the cemetery cases would you really think that they have anything to do with this system i mean there is no end of that have to be a christian working at the cemetery even though they were owned by a particular faith and you and you had to be a member of their family to be buried there and they consider not operated primarily for witches purposes because which because the primary activity was child care which is not a religious this was that was they have free travel care they're provided free no now and you don't think that this eight million dollars that they spend in their annual budget i mean if you're yours you're sort of divorcing the whole idea that charity can be part of religion aren't you know i mean it well well charity can be part of religion the issue here is whether or not this is a religious purpose under this statute but who makes that decision and i mean the evidence is not something that the board decides to they don't even discuss today in their decision in fact that these these services providing food  tutoring and the education and those health that all of this is provided free to those that are are you know willing to participate but again the issue if the activities that they are engaged and that's what determines whether or not they are operated primarily forwards it's here and again the activities that they 're primarily engaged in were the you know the providing of the reading assistance the writing of amir the providing of health care service which had objective word to use is the recruitment based on the evidence in the record ever to offer to know up religious or christian beliefs or if there  faith to participate in the program and that it does give priority to children who do have reading so the the program the afterschool program all the activities offered free to the children is there a an exemption in the sporting charity happy charitable organizations are covered under the statutes has the the board ever made a distinction or is there a case that distinguishes charity fund religion or that the fines either on votes well no but again under the statute is not the nonprofit organizations are and the statute specifically says that they are covered by the statute and then it car is there any case that you can cite that divines primarily but i think that's the operative term i understand related to i understand offers in addition to is there anything that you can cite to that a case that the fines primary operating primarily primarily operating for that has other just and fame that it would be a matter of so i imagine that there are lots of charitable programs that offer a full range of activities and if it's a program that operates without cost to just then straps like by the hand all of the services all of the benefits offered is there ever a time where a program can operate primarily for pro religious purposes and also offer what might be perceived secular acts and what would that case i mean the issue would be whether or not they are predominantly primarily  operated for religious purposes so you would just look at all of the activities that they're providing and look to the objective function of those activities and that's the purpose for providing the record shows that by the hands primary purpose is the same as it has always been to the children by the hand to the abundant and eternal life that comes through a personal relationship with jesus christ nd the specific activities th department relies on to reclassify by the hand of secular or in fact an exercise a by the hand religion providing free food free education and free medical care to meet each other and support the conclusion that by the hand is operated primarily for religious purposes by concluding otherwise the department wrongly rejected by the hands good faith characterization of its religious beliefs and substituted its own view of religion the view so narrow that it could be used to withhold a religious exemption from any religious organization that ministers to the poor and needy in fact under the department's view even mother theresa ministry could be labeled secular because it feeds because it feeds the hungry and because it provides medical treatment to the poor that cannot be turning st to my my friend on the other side statement that the department's decision here is entitled to de while it is true the clearly erroneous standard applies here in the a f m messenger case a large supreme court has made clear that courts need not blindly defer to an agency's determination and if like the circuit court it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made it is proper to overturn and that's exactly what we have here when looking at the record as properly construed evidence of by the hands religious purpose absolutely saturates the record  found not only in by the hands articles of incorporation by laws and other governing documents but it is also present and by the hand they the operation and activity in other words by the hands of religious intent its religious and founding matches up with its religious activity in looking to its religious purpose in founding we should start really with the founding itself which is a ministry of the moody church and the need to travis the executive director and founder by the hand neighborhoods this purpose this religious purpose continues to this day can be found all throughout the record for example in the employee handbook page eight hundred and ninety four dollars of the record it states that by the hand students are mentored spiritually with a goal of each child developing a personal and saving relationship with jesus christ that's why by the hand measure success by whether students have accepted and professed faith in jesus christ and whether they go to church and just question about how the program is marketed and by the hand markets this and its annual reports it e mails it these items a call to its donors and those who are supporters of the ministry and who might want to send their a religious activity that's a religious purpose the entire ministry was founded on a scripture verse john one thousand and ten and that talks about jesus coming and giving life and life abundantly and the testimony from by the hand was that in by the hands you abundant life is encompasses the entire trout holistic body mind and soul so it's an exercise of its religious right and if you look at the activities that are just set forth in the record by hand as a statement of religious doctrine and belief it had bible studies in chapel services on a daily basis children are required to attend handout bibles and the gospel presentation the very st day of programming it sets a time set aside time for staff to pray with the children in their family it has an evangelism curriculum that it uses so that it ensures that children are being taught about jesus and what a relationship with him looks like it has been christ like as a core value they had a spiritual development specialist at each of their locations to ensure that this religious purpose is remaining consistent throughout all the location and as justice mcbride noted they have how requirements where every employee must be a christian attend a bible believing church follow a christian code of conduct and be willing to lead children and prayer bible study and chapel services those are hallmarks of two a religious organization not a secular one secular afterschool programs do none of those things the only way the department reached a different conclusion was to determine that by the hands provision of free food free education and free medical care are in fact strictly secular and can never be religious but i indicated at the outset of my presentation here those activities are in fact compelled by the hands religious belief by the hand believe that the abundant life that jesus came to provide as a reference in john one thousand and ten means caring for the whole child and that means taking care  physical needs mental need and spiritual me by the hands good faith characterization of those activities is entitled to deference the department in provided any deference and that's a violation of the st amendment  states supreme court has said time and time again that a secular court or secular agency cannot use its own subjective standards to define what is and is not religious and i just point this court to the cathedral cademy case which we reference in our which i think encapsulates this idea well and what the u s supreme court said there was the prospect of church and state litigating in court about what does or does not have religious meaning such as the very core of the constitutional that's why in calvary baptist the court said that in looking at whether an activity is religious the courts should be limited to two inquiries st does the entity assert that its activity is religious and nd is that assertion there's no question here by the hands of surgeon of those activities of being religious and exercise of its religious faith is in fact bonafide and this good faith deference for a row isn't just rooted in constitutional principles it's rooted in common sense and practical ones as well as a circuit court recognize in overturning the department conclusion that said the context matters context is important so you cannot enter determine what one's purposes are and activities purpose without understanding the why behind it and just a few examples to illustrate the point bible reading for and people can read the bible for a variety of reasons they can read the bible to learn about history they can learn read the bible to learn about different literary forms they can read the bible just to practice their reading but they can also read the bible but when they are reading the bible to learn about god and to learn about what he says about how one should conduct his life that becomes a religious activity the same with drinking wine or eating bread that can be a nice snack for some or can be holy communion or sacrament for others depending on why they're doing it the same with singing one can sing amazing grace or god bless america and it could be an entirely secular activity but if they're doing it as a as a song the state to contend that motivation or intent doesn't matter in determining what the purpose says that's just belied i think by the common definition of the term and also common sense and just one last point which i touched on the department approach if accepted and endorsed by this court creates constitutional problems there are of course limits on how far the government can go and at heart at the heart of this case is who gets to decide whether an activity is or is not religious in the department unilateral determination which they set forth no criteria no guidelines by which they're determining providing free food and free medical care and free education are always  ar activities are no guidelines which they go by that places a burden on religious organizations religious beliefs in violation of the free exercise clause of the federal constitution state constitution as well as illinois i read the religious freedom restoration act and in the amos case the united states supreme court said that forcing a religious organization to predict which of its activities a secular court or agency will consider religious would impose a significant burden and might affect the way an organization carried out what it understood to be its religious mission so in other words what the department is doing here is putting by the hand to a choice that can give up its religious activities it can give up its belief that if feels as though to care for the whole child they need to  that can be made to help understand how provino fits in with this case the st is recognizing that proving it was a property tax case not an exemption case under the unemployment act so under the property tax exemption the courts are asked to look at the actual use of the property versus here it's the whole emphasis is on the purpose and so the intent i say matters is put more up front in this context and as a property  there's also a couple factual differences with protein as in in this case that i think are important the st is that the illinois supreme court noted intervene that the hospitals there were providing medical services for a  and so that's not what we have here by hand is providing its services for free not for a fee and in addition to that there are supreme court noted that the hospitals there were not making any claim that providing services or were somehow necessary or part of its religious exercise so there's a couple distinctions there and then if i understand your honour's question it may be the reason it's being asked and certainly some of the concern state seems to be raising and it's free is the question of ok well where's the limit how do we how do we define where there where the boundaries are and there's two rule limiting principles here that i think this court should be aware of in making a decision the st is found in the statute itself the nd is found in the case law like proving a covenant some of the some of the other cases that were referenced here today so the st and an entity a religious ministry or organization is not eligible for this exemption under the unemployment act unless it is also operated controlled supervisor per or principally supported by a church or association of churches so that really limits the field as to who's even eligible for that and of course here by the hand is controlled by the moody church so the concerned that just anybody can start any business and say hey i'm doing this for religious reasons and therefore they have alum celso the convention that's just not supported by the plain text of the statute the other limiting princip is comes from the case law and this is in provino that's a property tax case but if we look at the cemetery cases which are under the unemployment act in all of those cases they talk about the commercial and business like nature of the organization and so you have situation there where the commercial transactions that were taking place overcame whatever religious intent or religious  purpose may have been there from the from now co it turned into a commercial endeavor and ever the franciscan communities case i think is a good example there was a retirement village that was started by an order none but they were marketing that retirement village selling property there for hundreds of thousands of dollars and the court there said you're selling care to the out early you're not giving it to them here by the hand is giving care to needy children it's not selling it and that's a distinguishing i think an important you know there was some testimony about that at the hearing so it is on the record by the head was founded in two thousand and one as i under the moody church in two thousand and five it separately incorporated and the explanation given for that was it was separately incorporated for liability purposes of course when you have a an afterschool program with hundreds of children there are certain live bill it is that could be there that otherwise want to and the goes specifically to by the hand and not necessarily the other activities of the church it's easier to solicit that way but the act allows for separate incorporation it's very clear that separate incorporation why that puts them under different test separately incorporated entities that are church controlled as by the hand is can still be entitled to the religious exemption so long as they're operated primarily for religious purposes which the record amply supports here i understand the liability  cleaner and clearer that we're operating religious purposes if which are gin again i still rampal with is there an organization that can do both that would fit within the parameters of operating primarily for rea religious worship religious instruction so the statute but the statute to answer your question your honor would have been cleaner yes it would have been clear because under a wan which is if your church if you're an entity under the church or not separately or paraded you're automatically entitled to the exemption the court doesn't even look at whether it's operated for primarily for that purpose so you could have a church doing the same thing with an afterschool program and they get the exemption separate incorporation just says ok we're going to separate incorporate we're going to look a little closer to see if you are in fact operated primarily for religious purposes which when you look closer here that's exactly what the hand is doing nothing's changed if you look at its activities from two thousand and one when it was initially founded under the moody church so what it's doing here today it's the same thing the activities are exactly the same the mission the goal the purpose has always been the same and i think that highlights the subjective nature of the department test or standard that they're plying is that nothing's changed in the law nothing's changed by the hand back to these or operation but yet all the sudden a department comes in and says what you're doing is no longer religious it's secular and that's the only reason that's true in the departments use because there's been presumably a change in staff there and that we saw that from the l j or the hearing officers comments when he said well that's when things were run a little differently about round here statutory exemption cannot depend on the whims of government officials i would agree with that now you made a comment that made me think about the two hundred million eight hundred and twenty thousand and nine letter but when you read those concepts even conflated it appears to recognize that there is a difference between the two and i'm clear that there is a one c three status which requires the charitable and probably the religious could get you there but not necessarily one or the other you square that it's lit it's exclusively organized for bowls not primarily for one or the other well i i would square in saying that acts of charity  central and have been for millennia for all sorts of paper oops christe christians included that that they're not mutually exclusive they can be both and that's where i point this court to you know the effect of the department you on that i think you would look at mother teresa's ministry and say well what are you doing oh you're providing free priesthood oh you're providing free medical care you're educating children that seem secular to mate and that just that ignores reality that fact that religious people do accept charity as an exercise of their religious right not just that they're motivated to do it by faith but the act itself is a religious act thank you  religious purposes the courts have looked to the activities that they are engaged in and they have repeatedly stated that their intentions are not what control you have to look at the activity and while they haven't provided an all inclusive definition of what constitutes religious purposes under the statute they have said that it has a definite purpose and it would be those types of activities that would be similar to religious instruction the activities were predominantly providing housing needs care for the elderly which is not which is a secular activity and again with the child support cases that you know they had stated that although  their goal was to educate the children with religious instruction and to evangelize that again that the extra baby of providing childcare is still a secular activity  you know they're saying that they had to get the board had to accept their character that the board failed to accept their characterization of their religious beliefs and that they must accept their paratroopers basin of the actual use of property and that the courts must still look to the property to determine with whether it is being used for religious purposes as that term is understood under the statute you know in here the board did accept their characterization of the religious beliefs but then simply determined that the objective function of the activities was secular