Religion & American Law

The types of 19^th and 20^th century cases concerning religious classes we are discussing in class, are currently making their way through Canadian courts. A school in Drummondsville, Quebec decided to replace former Catholic and Protestant religious courses with an Ethics and Religions class in their curriculum. The course teaches several world religions and ethics tied to the faiths. A case was filed by a couple from central Quebec who wanted to remove their child from the required Religion and Ethics course. “They claimed the class violated their freedom of religion by forcing their child to be exposed to religious beliefs that were different from the family's.” A unanimous Supreme Court verdict upheld the lower court decisions to refuse the parents from exempting their child out of the class because they were unable to prove that their religious rights were infringed. The mother, known by her initials S.L., said  such classes shouldn’t be required at such a young age because it really weakens the foundation parents try to build in order to indoctrinate their children in their own faith. About 1,600 requests for exemptions were filed when this course was first introduced, and the number has decreased to 50 since then. The parents who filed this suit and their lawyer have clearly expressed that although they have lost this case due to the lack of evidence, this ruling leaves the door open for future challenges against the course.

Because this in an international case, to discuss the salient issue in this case, we must know how Canadian law considers religion. Canadian law in general, and Quebec law specifically, have moved to a more neutral existence of religion in government regulated places, like schools. Quebec in 1997, was constitutionally exempted from providing funding to religious based schools. In 2000, Catholic and Protestant religious education classes along with nonreligious moral education classes continued to be part of the curriculum in public schools. The main public schools network offers the choice between moral or religious education. Since 2008, The ERC(ethics and religious culture) course  eliminated the choice in moral or religious education in public and private schools. The ERC has become compulsory and several cases have been raised due to its controversial nature, this one being one of them.

Seeing the history of the Quebec law, it is only natural that this ERC course would cause controversy. This change is so recent that these types of cases will challenge this installation. Since most schools had the choice between moral and religion education, most schools operated with a curriculum with protestant and catholic religion education courses along with traditional education. The ethics and religious culture teaches about religion rather than teaching religion, which was prevalent prior to the ERC course. Christian majority took for granted the presence of Christian religious classes offered in school, but after the change, it has become clearly unconstitutional to allow such classes in the school. Quite frankly, I agree with court that the parents have been unable to prove how this ERC course is an infringement on their religious rights. In fact, this ERC course has allowed free exercise for students of all faiths. Allowing religious education in school infringes upon the rights of those students who don’t follow that same faith. To allow all students a fair opportunity for free exercise, religion should exist in public places in a strictly academic form. If this case was being decided in the US Supreme Court, they would definitely refer back to the Schempp case which sets up the 3 basic principles to govern religion in public schools. The ERC course isn’t promoting religion in schools, instead the former Christian classes was guilty of this principle. I don’t think the ERC course has any influence on the students as to keep them from initiating religious practices on their own. The ERC course allows schools to satisfy the third principle which states that they can teach about religion but not religion itself. Therefore, the US Supreme Court would rule the same way the Canadian courts did on this matter.