Friedrich Schleiermacher, a contemporary of Hegel, bought into Kant's views on ethics and the division between scientific and religious realms, but didn't like Kant's ultimate view of religion, i.e. that its only support is an indirect (and really pretty flimsy) appeal to what we have to as a practical matter believe for ethics to really make sense to us.
Instead, for Schleiermacher (a Lutheran preacher), religion is grounded on the emotion of piety, which each one of us can experientially (phenomenologically) confirm the existence of, if we're not too poor in spirit to do so. This reflection on our own emotions is what provides meaning to life: religion is not a theory of the way the world is or a direct command to some action, but is fundamentally an inexpressible but all-pervasive experience of oneness with the world.
This of course raises some questions: if religion isn't knowledge, then what is its relation to metaphysical claims such as in the existence of God? Even if piety is not the justification for ethical action, fully human action or knowledge, according to S., will involve piety. Religion ends up being an essential part of life fully on par with science and ethics. Also, the feeling of piety has to play itself out socially in particular historical circumstances, and that's where we get religious traditions. So S. is a pluralist about religion, but not a non-denominational spiritualist (like maybe Emerson).
We're reading an early work (from 1799), "On Religion; Speeches to its Cultured Despisers," (focusing on the first two of the four speeches) which was originally written when he was at his most theologically adventurous (influenced greatly by Spinoza), but then was revised and has end notes to each "Speech" written much later in his life (1821) where he wants to prove that he really is a Christian.