British religion writing is superior

Jon, it's certainly a matter of opinion and semantics, whether you think of them as heretics or as nutcases. The English saw them as not worthy of being taken seriously as theology. They took them seriously as a social and political threat, however, which is why they suppressed and sent them to America. It's true, some Puritans did try to establish an intellectually rigorous system, but it collapsed in the process, suggesting it just couldn't hold anything like that together except by authoritarianism, which led to its downfall and end. In either case, no Puritans remain in the US, and if you like to call secularist New England, where I grew up, some kind of modern Puritan society, I can only say I can't even begin to take that notion seriously, which returns us to the problem at hand - the lack of serious intellectual conversation about religion in America, because you get all kinds of just plain kooky notions wanting to be taken seriously, when they simply don't merit serious consideration. Serious intellectual discussion is rather hard-assed, and does not treat foolishness lightly, even when it comes to matters of religion. But religion in this country wants almost everything to be taken seriously, put on the same level, as if intellectual discussion is some kind of democracy where all ideas are equal, and all religious views carry the same weight. It's why it never gets off the ground in the larger public arena.

Rod,
I'm with Extollager. Have you actually read a decent sampling of religious journalism in the UK? It's pretty shameful. In the Catholic world, the Tablet sets new lows on a regular basis. Ruth Gledhill is erratic at best, even when she's not parroting BBC tripe. Then, when you mix in the tabloids (Nazi to Papa Ratzi, etc.) and the Beeb, you have a religious reporting scene that's abysmal.
That said, I think Geoff G. is on to something in his initial post (though it's somewhat off-topic) in that the lack of secular interest in religion and the weakness of religion generally in the UK means that a lot of the polarities that US people experience (e.g., o you're a religious believer, then you must be some sort of young-earth creationist, etc.) aren't there. I dealt with historians of religion in Britain on a regular basis and coming from the US it was very refreshing to encounter them.

Rod, I agree “up to a point,” as the foreign editor in Evelyn Waugh’s novel Scoop used to say…

When they’re good, British papers can be very good on religion. The ones that take faith seriously look at its many facets. They’re as ready to write about biblical archeology as clerical sex abuse scandals with the same interest in discovering and explaining the issue and saying why it’s important. These media treat religion with respect but without taboos. Maybe the fact that religion plays almost no part in British politics, in contrast to its more prominent role in U.S. public life, opens up a space for intelligent discussion about it.

But when they’re bad, British papers can be very bad on religion. The ones that don’t take faith seriously simply hold up its excesses for ridicule. Minor points can be trumped up and major issues played down to feed their stereotypes about a particular religion. There are no taboos, for sure, but no respect either. The fact that there are about a dozen papers on London newsstands every day competing for readers may mean that some that don’t go upmarket (like those mentioned above) feel there’s no place to go but down.

While this range of quality stands out in religion coverage, it reflects a wider trend that differentiates the U.K. from the U.S. press. Most British papers take a clear stand both on their editorial pages and in their coverage. This colors what they cover and how they cover it. So reporting on politics, economics, culture and anything else can vary widely depending on the paper. Just take a look at their coverage of the European Union, which can range from pragmatically positive to hysterically negative.

It would be convenient to say the quality papers cover religion well and the tabloids don’t, but it’s not that easy (especially since some quality papers now come out in tabloid format). There are some trends, but there can also be good and bad coverage side by side. The same paper can print a well-researched and informative article right next to one simply whipped up by copying dodgy material from other sources.