Court Opinion

ID: 9714333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:35:19.188667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:25.292394
License: Public Domain

SAND, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the Chief Justice’s opinion but deem it advisable to make additional comments.
I concur in the opinion primarily on the basis that every law is presumed to be valid and the burden of establishing to the contrary rests upon the challenger. In this instance no adequate showing was made by either the parents or their spokesman that compliance with state law impermissibly interfered, or would impermissibly interfere, with the religion of the parents and their children. Whatever effort was made was weakened by the unfortunate use of the expression, “I feel” or “we feel” which connotes emotions or sensations rather than intellectual concepts. This expression was used by both the State’s Attorney and the parents.
“Q. So you feel that it — would it be strongly against your religious convictions—
“A. Absolutely.
“Q. —to seek approval of the school, even if approval could be granted?
“A. I feel if — I feel that the supreme power is God, and I feel if he approves the church, that is the arm of the church, he approves the school.
“Q. Okay. I guess I’ll just repeat the question. It would be against your religious convictions to seek state approval of the school which Todd is currently attending; is that correct?
“A. Yes, sir.”
The responses using the term “feel” in all probability resulted from the State’s Attorney’s use of the term “feel” in asking the question.
The pastor of the church, in his testimony, stated:
*901“[We] don’t want approval, because we feel it’s a matter of state control. Jesus said to Matthew, Chapter 16, T will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’ We believe the head of the Church is Jesus Christ, and if I let the State become head of the Church, then I will be removing the Lord from His position, and this Church is definitely built on the Lord, Jesus Christ.”
I can appreciate that contemporarily the term “I feel” is being used frequently by a good number of people for “I think,” “I believe,” “It’s my judgment,” etc. but nevertheless the expression “I feel,” unless otherwise defined by the user, has emotional rather than intellectual connotations. In my opinion a constitutional challenge of a state law in order to be successful must rest on something more substantial than emotions or sensations.
In my opinion, this Court has high regard and respect for religion — which I share— and recognizes the constitutional guarantees of the free exercise of religion. First Amendment, United States Constitution, and Sections 4 and 203, North Dakota Constitution. This constitutional right, as well as the others, need to be balanced with the State’s interests and rights in the education of persons under a certain age.
My concurrence rests not only on the inadvisable use of the term “I feel” in the foregoing testimony but primarily on the failure of the defendants in this case to illustrate or establish in what manner and by what means the state law impermissibly interferes with the religious convictions of the parents and their children.