What are the requirements that some cultural phenonemon has to meet to be labeled “religion”?
This resembles closely another question: what is the definition of a religion?
In reply to the question, I would say that there must be some experience of or some desire for a higher plane of reality, whether it be union with God, merging into the Absolute, or Nirvana. It is not too far from the truth to hold that religions rest, at least in part, upon a denial of this world.
Consequently, there must be in the teachings of the religion some path to salvation, sometimes associated with an ontology.
There is usually some people in the religion who are closer to the source of the religion than “ordinary” people. They may be Muhammad, Jesus, Bouddha, buddhist monks, vedic seers, jivanmukti, bodhisattvas, arhats, etc.
Rituals - repetitive behaviors not necessary for the sustaining of life
Emotions - non-linguistic responses to experience
Myths - stories developed to explain the purpose of ritual-emotional cycle
Beliefs - complex set of claims arising from the myth cycle
Function: self- or group-rectification, justification, harmony (salvation, redemption, enlightenment, etc.)
What are the requirements for being a hamburger? Now you may suggest that it is not just the ingredients but in their qualitiative blend.
A hamburger can be a hamburger by definition but its quality can only be judged by a person’s ability to distinguish between hamburgers from appearance, nutrition, mixture of ingredients etc. in relation to its aim.
The trick then is to learn how to objectively taste a hamburger.
I have to agree that the basis of a religion must be the experience of or desire for a higher plane of reality–a religous experience. The trouble is that “it takes one to know one.” Such an experience is so different than the ordinary experience that it is not possible to describe it to a person, who has not had it. However, Blake give the best description of that I have heard:
“To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wildflower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.”
The trouble is that relaltively few people have had a religous experience, and many of those who have, may not associate it with religion. Therefore, most people who “belong” to religions are unaware of this, and thus, their “religion” consists in only four of the traits specified by easymoney.
Taoism comes to mind (It rarely leaves my mind). There have been Toist sects with pleanty of ritual, but Lau Tzu and Chuang Tzu had nothing to do with ritual, other than to disavow it, and there have been, and still are, a lot of Taoists, who practice no ritual.
