Derek;

This was not Heidegger's point.  His issue was general.  Allow me to elucidate:

*Each person arises in terms of a given culture, which itself plays out in terms of encompassing myths (a deeply Platonic theme that Heidegger - as a genuine and authentic Philosopher - expropriates).
*Heidegger's point is that each must first take up this tradition, myths and all, understand it, myths and all
(subjectively, as a person experiencing life so determined, and objectively, as one framework for the living of life amongst other possibilities, existing as possibilities on a field of potential for still undetermined other possibilities - distinction per Aristotle informed by early quantum theory)
*and then transform the tradition into something worth living in terms thereof, that being something that encourages each person to live a life worth living in the genuine Philosophical sense.
*This Philosophic life spent in the care of others through the lifelong exercise of the human highest potential, understanding (per Aristotle) he calls (in English) genuine authenticity.
*In short, Heidegger's philosophy is essentially moral, and this is (the main reason) why he didn't branch off and focus on ethics, as if it could be isolated from all the rest that makes up a life worth living and a world worth living it in... (think Allegory of the Cave here.  An often forgotten aspect of this metaphor is that, upon reaching understanding, one must return to the cave and share it.)

Now, for the religion thing:
*For Westerners, Judeo-Xstian myths bear special significance because they lay out the terms that one must break with (think cave chains, here) in doing the right thing, seeking one's highest potential (think escape the cave only to return), and this is why Heidegger, in the end, equates Philosophy with conscience (my specialization).
*For example, when people who take up the Judeo-Xstian heritage and report that the Bible commands Xstians and Jews to do certain things and to live certain ways of life so that the Jews, 'God's chosen,' can rule the world (lord over the 'cattle' that are non-Jews) from Jerusalem - for instance to support the Zionist enterprise at least until the mythical temple is rebuilt, so that the 'Messiah' can return, even if that means giving white phosphorous to the Zionists so that they can murder innocent Palestinians (read 'Philistines') and printing Biblical slogans on sniper rifle scopes and various other wargear and propaganda -

*insofar as one seeks to live a life of conscience (on Heidegger's account, the Philosophic life, genuinely authentic, moral... I picture Socrates meets Habermas meets the young Hegel, here) one must reject the tradition as given (this is the thrown-ness that one must overcome per cave chains), not conform with the immoral program (courage to take responsibility for one's life of actions per conscience), lay out something better (through understanding) and - most importantly - to provide the living example of that something better in action. (Kant ends up dying with this picture on the tip of his literary tongue, Heidegger actually develops it, with Socrates the exemplar or, in general terms of myth, "hero.")

In any event, one can see three things:
1) What Heidegger might have to say about Analytic philosophy of religion, and
2) Why Heidegger might not be any Analytic's favorite, especially not an Analytic philosopher of religion.
3) And, that I had to do something similar - reject the Analytic political shallow-end that had corrupted my own Philosophy Department as a student - in order to ever come to the understanding that I have, per Philosophic duty, just shared with you...  If I had followed their (easy) way, I would not understand, not reached out for my highest potential, and most importantly be of no help whatsoever, being unable to live a genuine and authentic, Philosophic, life.

Frankly, with the background, the desire, the hard work and the intelligence, one can easily understand Heidegger's Philosophy.  He is not obscure.  But, he does force a person to come to some - perhaps - uncomfortable conclusions about the way he or she may be living his or her life...  Especially if posing as a Philosopher (note my consistent use of a capital "P").

And, as persons (especially philosophers) are generally lazy, and prone to avoid uncomfortable situations, Heidegger gets attacked, discounted, and conveniently misunderstood.

In the final analysis, this is the essential difference between Analytics and Continentals, as at least amongst Continentals there remains the potential for the Philosophic life.