A look at the USFSP student's abstracts from their research findings:
The Romanian and American students worked collaboratively in groups; however, the research papers were written individually.
Group 1: The Place of Religion in the Public Life. Freedom of Religion.
Michael Fieramosca:
This paper
presents a comparison between the treatment of the Jehovah’s Witness faith both
in the United States and abroad. There is a focus on comparing the first
Amendment, specifically the Free Exercise clause found in the First Amendment,
and Article 9 sections 1 and 2 of the European Court of Human rights treaty.
Historical information: the history of both the United States Constitution and
the European Court of Human Rights will be presented. In addition, a summary of
the dogma that added to the persecution in both the United States and abroad
will be provided. These topics, such as an aversion to forced conscription,
receiving of blood transfusions or organ donation will be discussed. However,
the primary focus will relate to proselytism and its treatment. Various cases
will be compared and contrasted in hopes of formulating an objective critique
of each political system.
Jane Lemon:
Persecution
has many faces in the United States and overseas. When working to provide help
to those who have been persecuted, the U.S. and the European Court of Human
Rights have different ways of viewing persecution and dealing with it. One of
the main differences between the U.S. and Europe has been the amount of ill
treatment towards a specific religious group. This paper will examine the
similarities and differences between how the Supreme Court and the European
Court of Human Rights rule cases and the comparisons between the U.S.
Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights. This paper will
primarily look at the treatment of Jehovah’s Witness cases in the United States
Supreme Court versus the European Court of Human Rights.
Group 2: The Place of Religion in Public Life. Special State-Church Relations.
Victoria Pierce:
Special
church-state relations are determined by the balance of a state’s interference
in religion and religious freedom. The mutual burden must be weighed against
each other, determining when religious freedom is being encroached upon
balanced with the burden of religion on state interest. Drawing the line of
what is constitutionally permitted under two different charters that protect
religious freedom, is where the balance is found in church-state relations. The
issue of registration of churches by a legal action is questioned in two
different democracies, the European Union and the United States, to test the
balance between state interest and freedom from and of religion.
Jasmine Kaplani:
The place
of religion in the public sphere is often debated on. The United States and the
European Union endeavor to protect their citizen’s religious freedom. This
paper will delve into the Constitution, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. The objective is to
analyze case law from both continents, in order to understand how religious
freedom is interpreted. The focus will be narrowed down to state-based
discrimination of religion. The cases of Lukumi
Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah and
O’Donoghue and Others v. The United Kingdom. The cases presented do not mirror
the exact same situation, but highlight key issues of State-based discrimination
that infringed upon the religious rights of their subjects.
Group 3: Children and
Religion
Melvin Johnson:
The purpose
of this paper is to provide an in depth look into an important civil liberties
issue: freedom of religion. It is also a comparative legal research project
which compares the principles in deciding outcomes dealing with child custody
and religion between the European Court of Justice and the United States
Supreme Court. More will be learnt about European mandates and a better
understanding of the United States Supreme Court and its role in American
constitutional democracy will be understood. Primary and secondary source
material was used exclusively throughout this research project to provide
examples of cases pertaining to this issue of children and religion. The main
purpose of the research paper is to focus on child custody and religion and
provide examples of the differences and similarities between the EU and the
U.S. and its legal standards on this matter.
Christopher John Smith:
The
curriculum the state teaches its youth is a constant source of legal dispute,
especially when the curriculum is contradicting the beliefs of the child’s
guardians. The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Human
Rights takes into account the interest of state when deciding whether a policy
infringes on the rights of the child. This paper will compare Grzelak v. Poland Application no 7710/01 (2010)
of the European Court of Human Rights and Parker
v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87 Court of
Appeals, 1st Circuit (2008) of the United states Court of
Appeals. The reason for selecting a U.S. Court of Appeals case and not a
Supreme Court case is because the decision of the case draws from numerous
Supreme Court cases (such as School Dist.
Of Abington Tp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S.
203 (1963), Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 2015 (1972), Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) that shows
how the Supreme Court weighs the interest of the state and the child and its
proximity to this current date. Grzelak v.
Poland (2010) and Parker v. Hurley (2008) are both cases that weigh the interest of state and
the children right to an education when it counters their belief structure.
Siarra Rogers:
The acting
judicial system in any free state holds one of the greatest democratic
responsibilities, that is the preservation of individual rights and liberties.
This paper, with a comparative lens, focuses on the fundamental right of
religious freedom in the United States as well as the European Union. Explicitly,
the research in this paper concerns itself with the religious rights of
children to freedom-of and from religion with an emphasis on religious symbols
in high traffic areas for children, mainly schools.
Group 4: Women and Religion
Kayla Hall:
This paper
will compare and contrast the high Courts of the European Union and the United
States and the similarities and differences in interpreting law. Then, there
will be a comparison between two similar cases concerning women’s rights
relating to abortion and contraceptives weighed against religious rights.
Karen Rodriguez:
In recent
history the United States and Europe have extended the right of privacy to
women obtaining abortion. The issues continue to be controversial. In many
cases the right of privacy, the right to life, and State rights have been
recognized by both Courts. In the United States, several cases such as Beal v. Doe (1977), Maher v. Roe (1977), and Harris v. McRae (1980), Roe v. Wade (1973), and Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) have clarified the meaning of Constitutional rights.
However, it is important to compare the United States Supreme Court ruling to
the European Supreme Court. In Europe many countries do not approve of
abortion. However the case P. and S. v.
Poland (2013) consists of a
substantially similar dilemma compared to the cases in the United States.
Ivey Workman:
This paper
will compare and contrast cases dealing with women’s religious clothing
reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, the European Court of Human
Rights, and the European Court of Justice. We will examine some of the
different courts’ religious clothing jurisprudence to include the facts of the
cases, relevant laws, justices’ reasoning, and of course, the rule of the case.
In particular, we will focus on an analysis and comparison of S.A.S. v. France (No. 43835/11 ECHR 2014) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc (135 S. Ct. 44 2015), a case
still pending the Supreme Court’s ruling. The focus of this paper will not only
be the specific issues presented, but the background of those issues as it
pertains to the laws.
Group 5: Work without Discrimination and Religion.
Wayne Nealy:
This
research project examines jurisprudence of religious liberty by the Supreme
Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) in the context of discrimination in the workplace. It looks particularly
at cases in which the courts have been required to balance basic legal rights
to religious free exercise with other conceptions of civil structure and
histories of SCOTUS and ECHR, and compares how each court has responded to
religious liberty and discrimination in work environments through case law. A
modern social context for this tension is underscored in the U.S., where
religious and cultural forces frequently clash over conscientious objection and
public accommodation. This is becoming increasingly apparent as the SCOTUS has
yet to rule on whether sexual orientation has the same legal protections from
employment discrimination that apply to gender, race, and religion nationwide.
States have so far been left to craft their own legal protections for
homosexuals and this has created a diverse spectrum of laws, many of which have
been discriminatory, and sometimes on the grounds of religious free exercise.
This paper discusses several of the tests that SCOTUS has employed to determine
the burden placed on religion and how their legal precedent has evolved over
time. The ECHR’s manner of ruling in religious liberty cases is compared to
these methods. The legal basis for ECHR jurisprudence regarding religious
liberty and the principle of non-discrimination is then contrasted with how the
SCOTUS uses these tests to balance religious freedom tensions and this essay
concludes that the U.S. must “narrow” its conception of religious free exercise
in order to clarify a more secure expression of our civil liberties altogether.
Krista Price:
Discrimination
in the workplace based on religion is an issue both in the United States and
within the European Union. The structures of the court systems in both the
United States and the European Union lend to the establishment and maintenance
of a religiously free society. Through studying case law in both the United
States and the European Union, one can understand the similarities of religious
liberty and security of religious freedom.
Emily Tanner:
Religious
discrimination in the workplace is prevalent in both the United States and
Europe. The U.S. Constitution contains a Free Exercise Clause in the First
Amendment that guarantees its people the right to refrain from or practice any
chosen religion. The European Convention of Human Rights Ninth Article, like
the Constitution, attempts to guard its people from religious based
discrimination. These articles were put into practice for one purpose, to help
secure the rights and liberties of the populous. Unfortunately, many cases
involving religion and work place discrimination did not favor the people. No
religion is exempt from the possibility of unjust ruling whether it be
Christian, Native American, or the Islamic faith. This research will compare
and contrast court rulings found in The United States and Europe in regards to
religiously based work discrimination with a focus on attire.
Group 6: Freedom of Religion and Restricted/Institutional Settings & Freedoms and Rights within Religious Organizations.
Alexander Sanford:
In regards
to freedom of religions, both the European Court of Human Rights and the United
States Supreme Court have similar concepts requiring a separation of church and
state. In this regard, there is no involvement of the government in the
furthering or inhibiting of any religious organization whether through special
funding or persecution, respectively. The United States bases such a separation
on a concept of a “wall of separation,” which is based in the First Amendment
of the Bill of Rights. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause
form the bulk of this concept. Additionally, the Freedom of Association allows
the unhindered organization of religious members into communities, protecting
autonomy of churches and other such groups. This separation results in churches
and religious organizations as autonomous organizations, protected by the
Constitution.
