Geertz, like us, created a box and tried to stuff all religions into it. Comparison is understandable and useful when one has no idea how to approach a topic. For example, if I were to encounter an act or set of ideas that was hard for me to understand due to my background, comparing them to practices, rituals, and beliefs that I was familiar with would probably be a helpful starting point. However, once having a firm grasp on what one is studying, removing the biased terms is possible and is necessary so that an impartial evaluation of the subject can take place. If Geertz had done this, he would have eliminated the Christian dominated rhetoric in the study of religion and his definition of religion would be more valid than it …show more content…
Professor of religious studies, Craig Martin, does a great job of explaining how symbols do not convey moods or motivations, but instead mark insider and outsider boundaries in the book he wrote called A Critical Introduction to the Study of Religion. He states that one of the most obvious examples of reinforcing boundaries is with flags. He says, “nations use flags to identify themselves. Most ships on the open ocean are required to bear flags of their nation of origin. The Canadian flag on a ship tells the world: this is a Canadian ship.” When someone sees the Canadian flag they can automatically determine if they are an insider, a fellow Canadian, or an outsider who is not Canadian. The same concept is used when he says, “Catholics are sometimes known for wearing a crucifix on a chain around their neck; this says to the world ‘I am a Christian.’” These symbols serve the purpose of marking insider and outsider boundaries, not conveying a certain mood or