New York City is laced with churches. That is a fact, but that fact can not be used to signify that that City has a meaningful spiritual life. Certainly there are faithful people who attend them, but those faithful people are in no way influential in the city's political life, which like San Francisco's has caved to the basest human instincts. The Red States elected Bush largely because they thought of him as a moral leader. I dare say no one could ever get elected in New York City on that basis.
The people who attend church or temple regularly in NYC would take extreme issue with your comment as to whether the city -- and by extension, they -- have a meaningful spiritual life. You have to really be careful when you say something like that, but I assume you didn't mean it as an insult.
That said, NYC has a tradition of not letting religion enter public debate. There are notable exceptions to this rule, such as the sporadic activism of the orthodox jews in brooklyn, the out-spoken ministers in Harlem, and comments made from the pulpit at St. Pats. But by and large, religion in NYC is a personal affair and not part of the public discourse.
This is something that is not easily debated, since neither you, nor anyone else, can or should tell someone how to practice their religion -- whether it should be private or public.