focused mission statement. And, given the holding in Agostini, a court should not presume that state sponsored religious indoctrination or a symbolic union between the church and state occurs by virtue of the payments made to parents under the program because it is the parents who choose religion, not the State. Agostini, 117 S.Ct. at 2010. That is not to say that there may not be certain participating schools that are so infused with religious messages that even attendance at a mathematics class would constitute religious instruction, but this record is insufficient to determine how the instructions in secular classes are conducted. Furthermore, individual challenges to the constitutionality of the statute are not before this court. See Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 682 (1971) (<HOLDING>). The majority concludes that the benefit
holding that in deciding on a facial constitutional challenge it is improper to consider only limited hypothetical applications recognizing that the district court is not limited to only convictions when deciding whether to depart it may consider uncharged misconduct provided that there is sufficient proof of the misconduct recognizing that courts should exercise judicial restraint in a facial challenge holding that exhaustion of arbitration procedure is not necessary before the district court could consider a facial constitutional challenge recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal