Since the second half of the twentieth-century, the Western human rights system has been shaped by liberal principles aimed at maximising individual autonomy while minimising state authority. As an essential component of this framework, freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is thus conventionally understood as centring on individuals and personal choice - even when this entails protecting subjects whose beliefs are alien from established religious traditions. However, a recent challenge to this liberal standard-bearer for human rights generally, and FoRB in particular, has emerged in the form of so-called "common good constitutionalism". For its leading proponent, Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, the purpose of "liberty" within the human rights system should not be the advancement of self-interested, individual free choice, but rather the promotion of the collective "common good". This term serves as an umbrella concept encompassing values - such as the protection of health, safety, family life and morals - which, in Vermeule's view, should be read in light of principles deriving directly from the "classical legal tradition", including canon law. Despite Vermeule's interest in divine law, the author has yet to provide an account of how "common good constitutionalism"could impact religious freedom in the US or beyond. In this connection, this paper explores how advancing Vermeule's religiously-inspired understanding of the common good implies the promotion of a robust institutional, church-related dimension of FoRB that might fall in tension with its individual component, along with other fundamental freedoms. Recent developments at the level of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) - and particularly its endorsement of a strong "church autonomy" doctrine in employment litigation - will help provide context for assessing the relevance of Vermeule "common good constitutionalism" as applied to FoRB also in Europe.