Chapter 2 in McGuire’s book covers the concept of religion being the catalyst for meaning.  This meaning is then expanded to the individual, social group, and meaning during a crisis.  While McGuire gives explanations on why religion is the center of giving meaning and interpretation in one’s life, I am still left asking if religion is the main source of meaning. As example, I was once a follower of the Catholic faith and despite the fact I did not enjoy my time there, I was still given a source of interpretation and a sense of meaning. Since it has been five years I decided to leave the Catholicism, I should have no meaning of the events and social groups I am a part of, right? This is not the case at all. My meaning and interpretations in life are still drawn from religion but are not based on Catholic teachings, rather, they are based on my exposure to other religions. If I were to explain why events unfold the way they do I would draw on the teachings of dharma and karma from Hinduism. I find myself referencing the teachings of the Buddha when I need guidance and assurance during my most stressful days. Concerning social groups, I tend to reference the Christian teaching of ‘love thy neighbor’ when I am presented with an ideology I may not agree with. McGuire is correct when she states that meaning is derived from religion. Now I question about the people who were never exposed to religion. Do these people have a system of meaning that truly has no religious influence?