Prince Charles has occasionally voiced wishes to delete 'the faith' from his coronation oath. He will simply defend 'faith'.

America, on the other hand, thinks of itself as a young country. To some thinking it is founded on hospitality where Britain is based on exclusivity. The result is a country with young institutions, often less than a few decades old. Liberal values prosper. The country is free of the stifling and seemingly eternal British system of monarchy. An elected President comes and goes every four or eight years, yet in Britain the Windsor monarchy seem almost eternal.

Bodies like the Commission on International Religious Freedom spread the word overseas that America stands for religious freedom in a way that the evangelising British never did. American land ownership is more widely spread (or so it is thought) than Britain. The whole American project is glued together by the unique spirit of liberalism and equality of the American Constitution.

So goes much of the traditional thinking anyway. In short: Britain is the one to be taking lessons from America in modernism in generalism and secularism in perticular. But as with much of British-American relations, shared DNA doesn't mean shared personality. A few examples that suggest Britain is more secular than America. 

Defender of Faith. In the UK, Prince Charles continues to speculate that he will become 'Defender of Faith' on his coronation. By tradition he should become defender of THE faith because he becomes head of the Church of England. Like all monarchs, and heirs, he is a practising member of the Church of England.

Under God. Despite the Californian Circuit Court ruling that the phrase 'under God' in America's Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, in June 2004 the case was dismissed when the (Republican) Supreme Court elected to preserve 'one nation, under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Significantly the case was ruled on a technicality. The plaintiff was ineligible to challenge the patriotic oath, rather than on a fundamental rejection of the constitution. 

'In God We Trust' continues to appear on some American currency. This reflects an Act of Congress that dates back to the 19th century, allowing the Mint Director to 'place the motto on all gold and silver coins that shall admit the inscription thereon...' This is clearly not a passing phase. As late as the 1950s America declared that 'In God we Trust' is the national motto. They exploit that neither the US Constitution nor the amendments fully provide for the separation of Church and State. The First amendment only states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It's not quite the same as separating church from state. 

Embryonic cloning. President W Bush supported a UN resolution banning "all forms" of human cloning. No surprise, of course. It's another symptom of his black & white world. In 2001 Mr Bush also banned federal funding for research using new stem cell lines (existing ones, in fairness, were exempt). Firmness in belief can be good, sometimes. It served the President well over Iraq in my view. But black & white thinking can also be bad, sometimes, and this is a ticklish case-in-point. 

Thankfully the UK thinks differently. They are supporting an alternative UN resolution. This allows therapeutic cloning but banning reproductive cloning this is already UK law, in fact. If only Mr Bush would follow the British lead, he would avoid another counter-productive mess.

God and morals. Question: "Is it necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values?" Answer: It depends. If you’re an American, then close to 6-in-10 (58%) agree. In Britain it’s more like 4-in-10 (24%). So that means several million more Brits, in fact as much as one-fifth of the population (20%) feel believing God does not determine morality.