Out of the books Ive read as an overview of global belief systems, this one was probably the most comprehensive, and as objective as a western publication tends be on international matters. However, there were a few moments throughout my cover to cover read that left me feeling they could’ve been a bit more objective, and there was a subtle concealing of power/biopolitics in discussion on religions. Particularly in relation to the analysis of beliefs largely accepted by americans & europeans compared to analysis of beliefs accepted by chinese. For example, the book spent numerous pages airing/critiquing the connection between governmental corruption (& cultural revolution) and Confucist & daoist teachings; meanwhile it spent 6 sentences out of approx. 60 pages connecting colonialism (of like half the world) to christianity (i.e. doctrine of discovery, manifest destiny, missionization, colonial notions of purity derived from racist scripture). I felt a bit of a hidden curriculum, with the unequal representation on topics. Terrorism was discussed in the context of islam, but not in the context of christianity (KKK & nazis think they are christian); and while we could all agree that no terrorist group is condoned by the overwhelming majority of people in a religion, it felt a bit odd that discussion of terrorism/extremist violence was sprinkled in various chapters of most the main religions, except christianity (at least what stood out rather obviously to me). Confuciusm & daoism were lumped in the same chapter, and the interview in that chapter was rather disappointing as it was two questions (compared to like 3-5 in others) and the second question was almost like the interviewer was disagreeing with the interviewee like, “ How is it possible to believe in religious pluralism when they contradict (according to the interviewer, a biased western understanding of dualism)?”. And the guy was like “uh different philosophies for different things; one for school/work/family, one for health & marriage, one for death & aging”. And idk, that makes a lot of sense to me to not be so singularly attached to one modality of being & thinking, but it gave a sense that the writers did not like or agree with the belief/concept, which is exactly what unbiased writing should not present. Other than those few critiques about structure, I really enjoyed the reading and will probably reference it as I travel or expand my relationships across a variety of religions & cultures. Also maybe its a bit different as I have a different edition of this textbook. So idk what has changed.