I'll really have to disagree with you on this.

Western countries are, generally speaking, Christian (I'm being intentionally vague to include all sub-cults of Christianity). We all pretty much eat the same, i.e. animal meat is the main source of protein and potatoes one of the main veggies. All the western languages stem from basically the same roots and are all interlinked at some point, even the Scandinavian languages.
You are mixing elements of the past and present and oversimplifying the diversity of Europe.

@religion
You are right about Christianity, but I am not Christian and most younger Europeans cannot really claim being "real" Christians anymore (the situation is very different in the US, except for 5% of Atheist, a few Muslim, Buddhist, etc.). If Westerness starts with Ancient Greece and Rome, than Christianity is not important. It's maybe more the systematical use "reason" (in philosophy, sciences, theology, etc.) that caracterise best Western civilization. In any case, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Celts, till Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and a lot of modern Europeans aren't/weren't Christian, but surely were Western.

@food
Food has evolved a lot over the centuries. Actually, the potatoes that your are citing first came from America. There were no potatoes, tomatoes or tobacco (the 3 "o" words) in Europe before the 16th century and potatoes took a long time to take off and be included in everyday diet. At first, people fed farm animals with them but didn't consume any. Not unitil the 18th century did it become an important nutriment.
Pre-Renaissance Italians couldn't have eaten tomato-sauce pasta, as there were neither tomatoes, nor pasta (originally from China) at that time.

Nowadays Europeans's diet is even more varied than that of Asians from Japan to India. I have been about everywhere in Europe and have lived in England, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Spain (and now France very well as a French speaker) and I can tell you that not only each country's but each region's food is amazingly diverse, especially when compared to Japan or India, where the food is pretty much the same everywhere (well, you could divide India in North, South and East, but compared to its size, it's amazingly homogeneous by European standard).

You also claim that European diet is richer in meat. In the middle ages and modern times till as late as the 18-19th century (depending where) most ordinary people could only afford to eat meat on special occassions, then more recently on Sundays, then several times a week and eventually everyday. Africans have probably been more of meat-eaters than Europeans thoughout the history. Chinese people have always been famous for eating anything that moves (even scorpions, jellyfish, dogs...). Lot's of native North-American tribes were (bison-)hunters and some didn't do any farming at all, so relying also heavily on animal matter.
In Europe, people living near the sea naturally eat more fish than meat (in Scandinavia, Celtic regions, etc). Rice is grown in Italy. Modern Mediterranean cuisine (olive oil, seafood, vegetables...) is radically different of the German one (a lot of pork, potatoes...).

@languages
It is true that European languages share common roots, but there are notable exceptions. You couldn't descredit Basques, Hungarians or Finns for not being Westerners because their language is not part of the Indo-European group at all. Then, I don't know if you've had the opportunity to read or hear Celtic languages (Welsh, Irish, Sottish or Breton Gaelic...), but not a single word seem to be similar to Latin or Germanic languages (not even country names or basic expression ; England is "Loegr" in Welsh, "hello" is "sut mae" !).

Shall we include Iranians (Persians) and Northern Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi in the Western group because their language is more related to English, French or German than Hungarian, Estonian or Basque are ? BTW, Hungarian (Magyar) and Finnish (Suomi) are part of the same group of language as Turkish, Mongol, Korean and Japanese (Ural-Altaic group) ! They are also Central Asian in origin. So I don't think language is determinant to Westerness either. It's not because Singaporian speak English and 20 million Indian (in India, not abroad) have English as their mother tongue that it makes them more or less Western than other Asians or Indians. Or does it ?