I can present some unwelcome suggestions. Your essay makes assumptions about freedom of religion. It is not a universal value. Western thought, influenced by our particular history and culture, places a very high premium on individual rights, esp. those involving religion. Eastern Europeans and some Northern European countries had a different experience and place their emphais on securing social freedoms. Social cohesion is not viewed as a normative American value. It is in other countries. Both Russia and China have histories of collectivism. An academic must expose her/his own bias. Freedom, a stirring word, is not viewed the same way by every person on earth. It is a shifting, amorphous concept with no universal definition.
Acknowledging one's own bias is important to academic work. As a Westerner, I value individual religious freedom. My life has been dedicated to it. My values are not sui generis. My parents gave me values and school reinforced those values. I am Christian, and therefore, I have faith in the Trinity, a concept which is neither ratified or denied by the Bible. My faith is based on my background. Would I still believe in Jesus if I were raised in China by Taoist parents? I doubt it. My belief is relative to my culture. Once I acknowledge my bias, I can affirm that this is a major value of my life. Others who do not share it are not wrong.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause is my area of expertise. It bars establishments of religion by the federal government, which was also extended to the states after the Civil War Amendments. Separation of church and state does not appear in the text of the Constitution. The phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a nonlegally binding letter to Danbury, Ct. Baptists threatened by the dominance of the Congregationalist Church. The Founders did not view religious freedom as we do. The records indicate that Catholics and Jews were considered beyond the pale. Hardly anyone envisioned their voting or holding public office. The Clause was added b/c of the prominence of Episcoplians in the constl' convention in Philadelphia. Their culture enabled them to be adept wheelers and dealers. Our forefathers arrived here not to practice religious freedom as we conceive today. They came here to impose their denominations on nonbelievers. Rather than risk not becoming THE religion, they compromised on no religion. Several states had established religions long after the const'n was ratified.
Any casual reader of European history knows the religious conflict from which people sought haven in the wilderness. Europe today has greater religious freedom than the United States in many ways. There is strict separation of church and state by const;l edict in most Western European countries. When 9/11 happened and Geo. Bush mentioned God when consoling the country, he would have been booted out of office in Europe. My focus has been on the American example. Contrasting how Europeans deal with the same tensions as Americans that yields a different result will help me more fully understand the American example.
This discussion shows that relgious freedom has many different aspects. It is not as simple as either the left wing or the right wing nuts would have it. Indeed, there is no such thing as religious freedom in the abtract but a continuum of religious freedom issue. A simple tick for every provision will not show who wins and is the most free.
The US Supreme Court, comprised of the most brilliant legal minds in a very large country, is presently deeply divided on this area of religious freedom. All the recent decisions have been 5-4, along party lines. It is a mess. Lower courts must rule on the many cases that come before them based on Supreme Court rulings. It is universally acknowledged that the law is so messy there is no guidance. Since no consensus emerges, the chaos continues. If the Court cannot decide what is a highly cherished American value, I submit religious freedom in other countires is not simple.