I believe the parent is using the word “religion” in a different way than you seem to realize, and in a much more general way, similar to how this concept is for example used in archaeological histories of human kind, i.e. the Sapiens book. Religion, in this sense, is not specifically referring to some specific practice of spiritual beliefs, but rather a more general shared abstract perspective among a group of people. Similar with the word “omnipotent“. Though I think this metaphor or definition may be lost on some readers.
I am not sure I get the proper perspective after it, but it is still nice to have a feedback like that.
To my mind religion on a broad view includes practices like animism, for sure. So I would tend to believe I get your point.
On the other hand, a statement like "The old religions you were at least judged by an omnipotent being who could see the whole picture" seems to precise to match a broad sense of religions. Animism for example doesn’t imply that such a powerful entity exists and judges everything you do.
Actually, apart from Abrahamic ones, which religion out there would fit such a restrictive set of beliefs where there is an omniscient omnipotent being so concerned of judging human individuals?
I interpreted it differently, as the "religion of the justice system" where a single "judge" oversees the whole picture, hearing from both sides, to make a proper judgement that is ideally objective and based in the "religion" of law. "Omnipotent" doesn't mean a God, necessarily; indeed one of its main definitions is "having great power and influence", which applies to a court justice.
