Let us start out this morning's sermon with some data absconded from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States.  According to the CIA, the world's population of religion breaks down approximately like this:

• Christian (31%)
• Muslim (25%)
• Hindu (15%)
• Buddhist (6.6%)
• Folk Religions (5.6%)
• Jewish (<1.0%)
• Other (<1.0%)
• Unaffiliated (15.6%)

Anyone who wants to be a globanomicist should make a note of the above.  Over time the numbers may shift a little, but for the time being, the above numbers tell it like it is.  

Why is it important to know the above?

The primary reason is religion tends to give you a sense of what one's moral and ethical background comes from--and in globanomics there is nothing more important than healthy moral and ethical values.  Last week i discussed six of the above religions.  Today, i would like to touch on those religions that we did not discuss last week, starting out with:

1.  Folk or traditional religions are faiths closely associated with a particular group of people, ethnicity or tribe. They often have no formal creeds or sacred texts. Examples of folk religions include African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions.  Most of these folk religions were derived in the same manner as the Hindu religion was developed--by simply looking around and noticing everything and how everything interacts with everything else.  Some might feel that these religions are "quaint", but they are really far from being "quaint".  These religions are typically as solid as any of the religions we talked about last week.

2. "Other religions" as classified above (< 1%) are hard to interpret not knowing what the "other religions" are, but that should hardly be a concern because it represents a relatively small portion of the world's population.  

3.  The Unaffiliated group is an important group to understand.  I am not sure who the CIA put into this group--whether it includes essentially "all agnostics", or also people like me (or like Unitarians) who don't necessarily affiliate themselves with a single religion, or people who simply use Confucianism for their religion.  It's a conundrum, but for analytical purposes and making the most cautious assumption, i would think of the entire group as "agnostics" (or people that simply do not believe in religion or who do not find it worthwhile to ponder the unknown or the Greatest Abstract). 

------ 

Now that we have covered all the religions as identified by the CIA at least from a peripheral basis, let's dig into them a bit more--in terms of what it takes to become an enlightened individual at his/her highest rank.

First of all, it is normally accepted that there are two ways to enlightenment: (1) love; or (2) understanding.  Without love being a "major part" of your religion (i.e., Confucianism; Judaism, Some of the Folk Religions; and the Unaffiliated) it means that you are somewhat limited to "understanding" to reach enlightenment. 

As i pointed out last week, those religions without love tend to be more analytical in nature, more logical, more bureaucratic, and more cliquish.  Those religions with "love" tend to be more creative, outward thinking, more encompassing.  From a "globanomic perspective, this is an extremely important factor to keep in mind when you are talking across religious and people boundaries.

Religions with "love as a focus" tend to be "happier religions" than those religions without love being a focus.  (Although i would tend to say the Hindu, Buddhist, including Taoism and Zen, and many of the Folk religions are happier religions than either Christianity or Islam).  And i believe that makes a difference in thinking, too.  Christians and Muslims still tend to get angry more than other religions.  I am not sure why this is the case, but it shows up a lot in their histories (including the Crusades up to the current times).  Sometimes, i think Christians, especially, and Muslims only more secondarily are more "ambitious" in nature because it is easy for Christians to forget "love" after the Sunday Sermon--leaving open more important concerns like money, prestige, and power.

It doesn't take much to say that you are a Christian these days, although you could probably say that of all the various religions.  

Regardless, the "understanding route" to enlightenment is available to everyone and every religion (although it would still be difficult without recognizing the importance of "love" within that "understanding".

But so what?  Enlightenment is not everyone's bag, so let's downplay that for a moment. 

Enlightenment does not matter.  Just the same, it is hard to argue that religion affiliation does not somewhat define the fundamental and basic tenets of one's moral and ethical character, which in turn generally has more to do with one's actions than probably any other factor, including such things as money, prestige, and power. 

------

One good thing to remember is this: you can find the Golden Rule or Ethic of Reciprocity in every religion (except perhaps the Unaffiliated or Agnostic bunch).  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And there is a reason you can find that rule in every religion--the reason is it makes sense.  The Ethic of Reciprocity essentially says do no harm to others.  That by itself puts the world in "one f---- boat" together with a common belief.  After that, love is the next differentiator between religions.  

Now, earlier i mentioned that most people believe there are two ways to enlightenment: (1) love; or (2) understanding.  But i say there is a third way to enlightenment and that is the "nothingness" way.  Nothingness meaning nothing, no meaning, no purpose within the universe, a vacuum inside a vacuum kind of nothingness, complete brain shutdown, etc.  This approach to enlightenment is available to everyone whether they have religious tendencies or they are completely unaffiliated.  The trouble with approaching enlightenment using this approach is that it leads to "nothingness" in lieu of "everythingness".  Just the same, it is possible to reach "extreme happiness" either through "nothingness" as well as "everythingness"  Both are perfect.  But it is important to know the difference because there is a big difference in the final outcome from each path.

-----

In summary, i believe it is extremely important to understand the varioius religions in the world and where they are primarily practiced.  You can understand more about a person if you understand what their religion is than you can by their race or ethnicity.  Race and ethnicity don't describe one's moral and ethical foundation--religion does.  And if you don't take religion into consideration when dealing globally, you are not dealing with the most fundamental characteristic that defines the person or group you are dealing with.  

And that would be a big, big mistake.  Religion or non-religion may or may not define the man or woman, but it is the starting point--outside of course such things as facial beauty, weight, height, eye color, size of nose, breast and penis size, etc..(sic).