Does cultural terminology effect Vegetarianism?!

I will be honest, when I first came on here, I believed that there was only one meaning for vegetarianism. (yes, very culturally self centered). I have since learned, and come to believe that you are right, there are different cultural meanings of it. We westerns seem to believe that our way is the only way, and this is one of those examples of that.

Not really.

The definition of "vegetarianism" is not dependent on religion-
it denotes a lifestyle absent of meat, which is animal flesh.

A Catholic calling himself "vegetarian" while he regularly consumes fish (I'm assuming this would be the modus operandi you're referring to) doesn't in fact mean he's vegetarian.

Kaper, it's hardly western prejudice to be knowledgable of what words actually mean.
All the groups the asker named and more are not in any way indicted by observance of denotations-
all it means is that they are not, in fact, vegetarian.

Words are useless unless they have agreed-upon meanings.

I would say no. Vegetarian, by most accepted definitions, is to abstain from eating animal flesh - poultry, meat, fish etc.

If someone tells you that they are vegetarian but they eat chicken, or they eat fish - then with all due respect I would say that does not constitue true vegetarianism.

I suppose differences may arise if the reasons for the diet are considered - but the definition remains the same across the board.

Yes. Most Chinese Buddhists who say in English that they are "vegetarian" also mean they do not eat garlic or onions. Back when Catholics were not supposed to eat meat on Fridays, they could still eat fish.