[Y]ou rarely have to look far to be reminded of the indispensability of God and religion .
I shall be quick (I hope; we all know what happens when I get on a roll . . .). Very simply put, "religion" as a social phenomenon covers such a wide variety of practices - one can look at AA as a religion, as has been done for two decades by social scientists; we can analyze certain civic practices (saluting the flag, moments of silence on days of national remembrance, the ceremonies of our public life) as part of what is known as "civil religion' - that it is less a noun than an adjective, a term empty until filled in by the description of certain specifics that one or another analyst deems necessary to flesh out his or her idea of what constitutes "religion". In short, the word "religion" has come to mean nothing except what we want it to mean; the word itself is a cypher, and the constant conflation of it with certain specific practices such as "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", etc., is misleading at best, and intellectual dishonesty and obscurantism at worst.
Second, to say that "God" is indispensable is to do to the word "God" what we have done to the word "religion". It becomes a cypher, a blank to be filled in by whatever qualities, affectations, and descriptions we feel best fit the word. Rather than deal with the specifics of Christian practice, Jewish practice, Buddhist practice (OK, that's not a good example, because Buddhism doesn't have gods, but you get my point), we posit something-we-know-not-what and call it, for lack of a better word, "God", and demand that others recognize this as supposed universal idea as representative of divinity.
I would wish that such talk were replaced by discussions of very specific faith traditions, what they offer us, how they restrict us, and their effects both good and ill on us as individuals and as a society. By discussing the topic this way, we avoid the kind of nonsense Jacoby is offering - I am not an apologetic thinker when it comes to questions of faith, so I do not believe it necessary to defend the Christian faith from the onslaughts of critics - and get down where people live. Indeed, I would insist that Jacoby's piece is more harmful than good, because it distracts us from discussing religion as a social phenomenon is some kind of intelligent, thoughtful way.
Finally, for many individuals, God and faith, religious practice and professions of faith are not only optional, they are easily discarded as so much detritus. Why should we dismiss these people, their lives, their lack of belief, and their cheery apathy toward these questions and issues in such a demeaning, presumptive tone? I really am tired of people of faith who demand that others not only practice as they do, but believe as they do, and (by way of implication) that by not so doing, they are somehow wrong on some very fundamental level. Give me a cheery atheist over a demanding Christian any day of the week.
I say and write all this as a Christian who believes deeply in the transformative power of faith; in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and the inauguration of the New Creation, within which we live; in the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to lead us all to new life, to the kind of life God desired for us when we were created in the divine image. Having said all that, I do not believe for one moment that such statements need to be defended from assault, or that they are "necessary" for social cohesion. Social cohesion, especially in a land as diverse and multi-faceted as ours has no need of divine support, nor should it.
That isn't any religion's business.
