Religious Freedom in the EU and the US: Student Research Paper topics and abstracts

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, 1^st 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.