As to definitions, religion is defined by Merriam-Webster as " the service and worship of God or the supernatural", "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
In this conversation I think definitions from anthropology of religion would be more appropriate, or sociology of religion. The reason I think so is that the English dictionary definitions are a little ethnocentric, as you might expect ("worship of God..." and "faith") or else a little tautological ("system of
religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", but what is
religious?). The former is a problem since we're trying to understand the role of religion as a cultural universal, and neither the first nor third definitions fit confucianism very well at all, while the second definition fits fine but is vacuous.
Ironically though, the second is probably closest to an anthropological definition, except an anthropologist like Geertz will try to flesh out more what is meant by
religious (e.g. the development of and relationship between ethos and worldview), while keeping the elements of attitude, belief, practice, and especially the idea of institutionalized systems. Anyway, the point that I'm trying to work my way towards is this: if you allow a definition of religion broad enough to encompass both Confucianism and Catholicism, then this statement also becomes something of a tautology:
My point was, and is, that Western Civilization derives its moral structure from its Judeo-Christian foundations, and that non-Judeo Christian cultures certainly have moral teachings, but they derived them from their own primary religious foundations.
(or, to generalize: "the moral structure of a culture derives from it's religious foundations")
It becomes tautological because we end up
defining religion as that aspect of culture which is concerned with morality and how moral structure is derived from a worldview. So whatever serves that role within a culture we will end up referring to as
religious, although the religion of one culture will vary tremendously from that of another. I think this is relevant to both the religious and the anti-religious participants in this thread. It is both why the anti-religious should be skeptical about the idea of eliminating religion, but also why the defense of specific western religious institutions that ding wants to make fails, IMO.
Confucianism would qualify, I should think. I suppose it's also the primary religious foundation in at least some areas, although I don't know a great deal about Asian history or culture. My mother-in-law was Chinese, from Taiwan, and her culture's primary religious foundation was apparently Buddhist. She later converted to Catholicism after marrying my father-in-law, but her philosophical worldview was still very Buddhist.
I'm not an expert either, but my understanding is that the three primary religio-philosophical systems in Chinese history are Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Confucianism is the oldest, and I think traditionally probably the most important. But it's also the least "religious" (by western standards) of the three. For my purposes, it serves as an example of an ideology that fills that "moral structure" role in a culture without being theistic or concerned with worship and faith.
