What did the court decide in Syndicat Northwest v Amselem regarding freedom of religion?

In Syndicat Northwest v Amselem, the court established a subjective test for assessing religious practices. This decision emphasized the importance of individual beliefs and interpretations of religious tenets. The court recognized that freedom of religion is not solely defined by an external or objective standard but must consider how individuals personally understand and practice their faith.

By applying this subjective approach, the ruling acknowledged that individuals might have deeply held beliefs that shape their understanding of religious obligations, even when these beliefs differ from mainstream interpretations. This signifies a broad protection for religious expression, recognizing the diverse and personal nature of faith. The decision effectively reinforced the idea that individuals should be free to determine what their religious practices entail without being constrained by an institutional or objective standard.

The other options do not accurately reflect the court’s ruling. The court did not trivialize religious matters nor impose an outright restriction on religious freedoms. Additionally, it did not confine religious practices solely to private settings, as the court recognized the implications of religious beliefs on broader social contexts. Instead, the emphasis was on the subjective interpretation of belief and practice, which underpins the significance of personal faith in the legal understanding of freedom of religion.