Begins with hot-headed academic axe-grinding. Tone gets more reasonable as book progresses. The authors repeatedly assert that persons of faith are more "truly scientific" in their study of religion than non-believers, that irreligious scholars cannot truly grasp religion and are thus inherently less qualified to study it than scholars of faith -- all of which is pithy, preening nonsense. If only people of faith are capable of studying religion, does that mean that only farmers can study farming, cops study policing, unions members study unions, racists study racism? If so, let's just give up on this whole social science thing and stare at our belly buttons! The bottom line is that religious people have a unique perspective on religion that the outsider cannot ever grasp, and conversely, the outsider sees things in a way the believer cannot; neither has a monopoly on truth, and both veiwpoints are essential. To earnestly suggest that only scholars of faith are to be trusted is not only self-serving and ad-homonym in nature, but it is downright frightening. One supposes that if Stark and Finke had their way, we'd all have to display our recently validated "faith certificates" before being allowed to get through the doors of the next SSSR! And be forewarned, they have an overt penchant for Protestant Christians, so if you happen to be a witch from Sweden, look out! The authors constantly declare that religion is RATIONAL. But what is "rational," exactly? Rational is one of those words like "beautiful" -- meaning so many different things to so so many different people. Is falling in love rational? Sitting in traffic everyday? Wearing a rabbit's foot? Denying penicillin to your dying child because your religion forbids it? Arguing that religion is "rational" is banal and ultimately teaches us nothing. All this insistence on RATIONAL and yet one wonders -- would the authors contend that ANY belief without evidence/data is rational, or just "religious" belief? Would someone who blindly accepts Freud's theories be considered "rational" in their eyes? Why then is someone considerd "rational" who blindly accepts the theories of Joseph Smith? Indeed, if one person belives something for which there is no evidence and that no one else belives, we call that person self-delusional, insane, or irrational. And yet if 200 or 20,000 people suddeny share the very same belief, we call them "religious" and rational. Go figure. On this whole rational matter, the authors clearly protest too much. The authors do a great and convincing job of digging deep and revealing the "real"/social causes of various religious phenomenon, such as Moonie conversion, Mormon growth, high US religion rates, etc. -- but in doing so, they flatly contradict themselves; they earlier chide scholars for dismissing religious explanations in favor of searching for the "real" causes of religious pheonomenon. Stark and Finke thus do (very successfully!) exaclty what they had earlier criticized in others. I really liked chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 8 was most interesting, and Chapter 9 was solid and intelligent. I learned a lot by the end -- but was distracted by all the initial arrogance and persistent internal contradictions. The book would have been much more powerful and convincing as sound social science had the first chapters with all their silliness and condescension been edited out.

My thinking on the subject of church dynamics has been strongly influenced by other works of Stark (The Rise of Christianity) and of Stark and Finke (The Churching of America).

This latest in their combined efforts is also quite good. HOWEVER, I have found that a conservative bias is beginning to show. In my opinion, they have let biases against Liberal Theology taint an excellent exposition of research. I will support this statement with an example.

They have some excellent numbers which compare the success of Evangelical ministers with in the United Methodist Church to Ministers within the UMC which were co-officiants at a particular homosexual union ceremony. The data clearly indicates that there is stronger growth among the Evangelical ministers. This is used as evidence that "Liberal" (whatever that abused word means) theology is damaging to church growth. I would believe that a better interpretation of this is: Those who go to pick apples get more apples than those who simply seek to polish apples.

As long as Stark and Finke stick to their last, they are wonderful, but when they wander over trying to do theology they faulter.

I would encourage anyone who is interested in Church Growth and Dynamics to buy this book, but please be sure to be on the alert for the conservative bias.

This authors of this book do not, as one reviewer rather superficially whined, claim that the religious perspective is the only valid perspective from which religion can be observed. Their argument is more simply for the validity or "rationality" of the religious perspective. They rightly dismiss the secularization thesis, and contend that religion is here to stay. Furthermore, as an enduring component of human life, religion (and the religious person) deserves to be treated with an appropriate seriousness. The scientific study of religion has for too long been plagued by the presupposition that all religion and religious sentiment is based on illusion or foolishness/irrationality. Stark and Finke, however, give religion and the religious person the respect they deserve by taking their claims at face value. There is no argument for the existence of God (or the validity of any particular truth-claims); instead, the authors put forth an argument for the validity and genuineness of religion as an enduring human construct. The question of transcendence they do not even approach. Finally, it should be noted that Stark and Finke do us a great service by specifying what they mean when they use terms like "religion," "miracle," "prayer," and, yes, "rational." Let there be no mistake: this book is written from the perspective of rational choice theory, and that can be distasteful to many--especially when the subject is religion. But Stark and Finke go a long way toward making their thoughtful, honest and cogent perspective more palatable to the rest of us.

Mr. Kennedy was in town for a seminar on being an encouraging parent. I was unable to attend, and bought the book instead. I'm glad now that I didn't waste my time attending. I didn't even make it through half of the book, before I refused to read anymore. Mr. Kennedy is very liberal and would have us believe that we should never lay a finger on our children because it would break their spirit. It surprised me that as a preacher he quoted Bible verses, but put most of us down for our "incorrect" interpretations. After I got over being mad all through chapter 1 of Mr. Kennedy's accusation that parents who spank are "barbarians", I continued reading thinking he still probably had some good ideas on parenting. Then I hit chapter 5. I had to stop reading after that. I'm sorry, maybe it's just being from the Bible belt, but Mr. Kennedy not only told us to be tolerant of all people's differences (which I do agree with), but quoted the bible in support of homosexuality. That is where I draw the line.

Rod Kennedy had over 100 of us rolling in the aisles with his very helpful hints in raising children. Anyone who has a chance to see how this father of 5 copes should give his books and seminar a "go!"...I loved what he taught me and my kids are doing better already. God bless him!

This book comes with the seminar and it is great.

I found the book refreshing and inspiring. I think that parents often fall into the trap of being controllers and forget how to encourage the children to think for themselves, confident in the never-ending love of God. While there are some concepts I may see slightly differently than Mr.Kennedy, I found the book helpful in my role as a parent of four and as an educator of parents.

. Only for the most advanced facillitator. Many of these activities put people at risk, you better know how to handle this! Many of the ideas are old "hat" with a new twist, really nothing new. Something of a disappointment.

Napier & Gershenfeld have created a real gift to the seasoned facilitator/trainer with this work. It's not just a quick cookbook of games, but instead a guide to the design process of interventions with sample templates (activities) in major areas such as leadership, communication, conflict resolution, etc. Each activity has a standard version and a Turbo version if time is short. Granted some of the activities are "on the edge", but I happen to like that, and after all the title says it's ADVANCED. Expensive, but comes in the form of a loose-leaf binder with reproducibles. For me worth every penny!

Although Mr. Gallop's cultural knowledge of the Basque's (at least the French Basques) was very in depth, as a Student of Spanish Literature at UCLA, I found it dreary, pompous, and inclined to one side of the Pyrenees. The author assumed that his readers knew French. Well I'm sorry, I only know English, Castilian, Italian, and a little Catalan. Another unfortunate point is that it did not offer anything past 1930, which was probably my fault. But I see that progress has been made over seventy years. It wasn't until the later chapters of this book that there were signs of life. It is a shame because there is little affordable information for students out there. Until there is, I will continue buying my books from the true source, Spain!

I usually don't review books that have already been reviewed, but I think the customer below severely misjudged this book.

First of all, the reason why it doesn't go much beyond 1930 is because that's when it was published. British folklorist Rodney Gallop was a pioneer in the field of Basque anthropology and "A Book of the Basques" was one of the earliest (and remains one of the most readable) attempts to explain Basque culture to the English-speaking world.

Gallop inclined heavily toward the French side of the Pyrénées for two reasons. First, that's where he did most of his research. Second, as he points out in the book, the French Basque Country -- at least up to the time he wrote -- had always been much less heavily industrialized than its Spanish counterpart, making it much more ideal for an anthropologist's study. The ancient traditions of the Basques survived more intact in France and, additionally, the French Basques were more culturally "introspective" than their Spanish cousins; that is, they never played as prominent a part in the national life of France as did the Spanish Basques in Spain and its empire. Consequently, they remained much closer to their "roots", so to speak.

Unlike the reviewer below, I thought the book was extremely well written and a fantastic source of information on traditional Basque folklife. Gallop does quote a lot from French, but he wrote in a time when you weren't considered educated until you knew a little French, and a little Latin, too. (In other words, don't blame Gallop -- blame yourself!). The book is divided into chapters on such aspects of Basque folklife as language and literature, folksongs, folkdance, proverbs, Basque houses, superstition and witchcraft, fishermen and corsairs (!), decoration, and that great game, "pelote". Additionally, the author discusses some of the many theories regarding the mysterious origins of the Basques, which, admittedly, is of less interest today than it was in 1930 (the Golden Age of bogus racial theories!).

Unfortunately, much of the book has to be shifted into the past tense today, since the traditional Basque folkways Gallop describes have grown more and more obsolete since he wrote. But as work of history, it's still a classic and is destined to remain one. A+

I found the novel rather dry and unrevealing. However if you are interested in some of the machinations behind the public legal issues the book yields a chronological order of these events. If the espionage issues surrounding this event are more to your interests I would recommend reading "Moscow Station".

As a jarhead myself I had to read this book. I was captivated by the whole intrigue of the spy world and the involvement of the U.S. Marines. This book is a good recommendation for just about anyone, it even has a twist of romance. I strongly recommend it!

The author is a former pilot who became an air carrier operations inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration in 1962. During his tenure with the FAA he became aware of government corruption with regard to air safety as well as the drug trade, and he's been sounding alerts to an unwitting public ever since by writing books and making guest appearances on radio and television. Though (who knows?) there could be substance behind his allegations, his writing falls well short of journalistic investigation. He puts forth statement after statement identifying evidence of government involvement in drug trafficking and cover up; but his sources, citations, and references are tenuous and are made particularly unconvincing by the paranoid mania of their presentation.

Author Rodney Stich requires documentation from those who select to confide in him ... his sources feel compelled to talk, to spread the word, about many unconscionable acts by Federal Agency personnel and other Government Officials. Rodney also offers advice and insight for people who may feel "under assault" by courts, or government personnel ... generally put (1) you have something they want (2) you know something and they don't want you to succeed ...

Rodney's book is very "readable" and is well-indexed. It's tough to put it down, absorbing subject and insights.

Don't get the wrong idea. This book IS an entertaining read, but that is about it. There are many books in the "Gurdjieff field." Several are vitally important and many are useful to varying degrees, but there are quite a few that are a mere litany of second hand accounts, innuendo and gossup. Such is The Harmonious Circle.

There are a few authors that do the subject justice: De Hartmann, Anderson, Peters, however, James Webb is NOT one of them. Other books are first hand accounts and though subjective too, reading of the difficulties that those students encountered, as well as the insights they experienced, can be useful to those seeking a path. On the other hand, this book is written by an author who is unfortunately not qualified to write about Gurdjieff (or his "followers"). This book is far from being "the best" (maybe the "best" of the worst).

Full of a few interesting stories and much conjecture, this is not a book for those looking at gaining a deeper understanding of the significance of Gurdjieff's ideas or an accurate picture of the man. However, water does indeed seek it's own level and for those wanting a good fix of the superficial, this book is for you - an easy read especially if you like reading rambling opinions. I'd be careful about buying this book as a gift. Try James Moore's Anatomy of a Myth, instead. I give The Harmonious Circle 2 stars because it might be of some use - like lining the cage of your American canary.

This book avoids the devoutly worshipful attitude of Moore, Patterson, Bennett and thier moon-mad ilk, and likewise doesn't fall into the pit occupied by the kinds of ignorant dismissals and outright misrepresentations of fact found in so many other books, like those fairly recent things written by some well-known Brits--a psychologist, a lit professor and a famous occult writer. This is a complete presentation of the lives of G. and O., drawing the only conclusion possible: G's ideas are a brilliant but derivative hash made out of a random assortment of old occult documents and a little bit of hearsay, and G. himself just yet another trickster guru--if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's that much. But the book says all this with a remarkable grace, depth and style; this man knows what he is talking about and knows how to say it. Rare in this genre.

This book was confusing - Too much similiar information packed into the same chapter, very confusing for students.....

I have taught out of Pasajes from time to time over the last 10 years throughout several editions. The Fifth Edition appears to be their hottest edition yet. The presentation in the book is sharper and more comprehensible than ever. While many texts just lose steam after several editions, Pasajes has hit its peak!

Although I found this to be somewhat usefull I thought that many of the questions were not appropriate for a generalist while preparing for the board exam. I was perhaps more frustrated by the number of mistakes that I found in the answer key and explanation section of the text where the answer did not correspond to the letter choice given.

This is a well-organized catalog of questions, answers, and explanations for any individual wanting a good NCCPA review of topics. This Q&A book accompanies the new Moser book on topics covered by the PANCE for Physician Assistants. Excellent review.

"King Arthur - the Truth behind the legend" is not as bad as many books purporting to find the historical King Arthur. At least the suggestions for Arthur's location etc. are plausible.

However, it is not a work of scholarship. This became obvious in the second chapter "The documents" where Castleden makes the unbelievable howler of confusing the part of the Historia Brittonum (c. 800) concerning St Germanus with the "Life of Germanus" by Constantius (c. 470). You'd think he would have noted something wrong since he himself points out that the manuscript indicates 10 generations instead of one generation between the events described and the time of writing.

Obviously Castleden has not read the primary sources he quotes. He relies heavily on John Morris (as do many authors with similar books). Even though Morris is questionable sometimes in his interpretation, at least he knows his sources. As a reader, you are better of with Morris' "The Age of Arthur", or Alcock's "Arthur's Britain" or Snyder's "The Age of Tyrants".

Let me state up front that, yes, as another Amazon reviewer noted, Rodney Castleden did indeed mess up by confusing a passage from Nennius' 9th Century Historia Brittonum with the material in Constantius'5th Century Life of Germanus. I suspect the error lay in how Castleden assembled his notes, getting something in the wrong file, and it is disconcerting that the mistake was not picked up during the editing process. And I think that this error does highlight the fact that Castleden is something of an outsider in Arthurian matters, not a professional in the area like Ashe or Alcock or an amateur enthusiast such as those who reguarly churn out the latest "final answer" to the old mysteries. Rather, he is a writer on archaeological subjects asked by his publisher to write a book on this always intriguing subject. As such, he brings a fresh, albeit imperfect, eye to familiar ground, along with a certain degree of expertise.

Perhaps the most solid portions of "King Arthur: The Truth behind the Legend" are those where he is reviewing various books and theories on the subject, including quite a few from the last couple decades which produced "final answers" (none of them agreeing with one another, of course). At the same time, Castleden does present a good summary of the evidence (even if he does get that Nennius passage in the wrong place) and an even better tour of some of the major sites associated with Arthur.

Of course, Castleden has his own version of a "final answer". His Dumnonian Arthur, perhaps based in Killisbury/Kelliwic and Tintagel, falls in line with the theories of some who have come before him and is reasonably persuasive (always assuming, of course, that you start with the premise that there was a real Arthur), if not ironclad. His extension of Arthur's story beyond this, however, (that Arthur survived the Battle of Camlann and found refuge of a sort in a Galloway monastery seems to me to be something of a reach, more speculation than deduction.

I would recommend the book to persons strongly interested in the historical facts behind Arthur, not as a "final answer" but as a worthy enough attempt to supply at least some of the truth.

This book uses a detailed analysis of archaeological evidence and textual references in an attempt to reconstruct the world in which King Arthur would have lived and to try to determine if he really occupied it. Castleden constructs a plausible thesis: that Arthur was local king of Trigg in present-day Cornwall; that he became high king and war leader of the united Britonnic front against the Saxon conquest; that he was likely a first-generation Christian who retained some elements of Celtic and Roman influence; that his itinerant court occupied various castles including a site at Killibury in peacetime and the Tintagel stronghold in wartime and ceremonial occasions; that Tintagel's alternate name of Myrddin (sea-fort) was confused with a northern bard of the same name, leading to the legend of Merlin as Arthur's protector; that the battle of Camlan where Arthur's career ended was at the convergence of the Gamlan and Eden rivers, where he was attacked by the forces of Maelgwn, who succeeded him as high king; and that a crippled, defeated Arthur may have abdicated by retiring to a monastery, explaining the discrepancy in his reported death dates as well as the legend of his disappearance and inevitable return. It's a credible scenario, consistent with the evidence Castleden presents, and Castleden's grasp of that evidence is excellent. He shows some keen insights, for instance realizing that an contemporary reference seeming to state that Arthur bore a cross on his shoulders for three days and nights (a superhuman feat) was probably mistranslated, and that he actually bore the cross symbol on his shield. But his "biography" of Arthur can't be proven, and Castleden seems too willing to take it as fact, to the point of glossing over other theories. He mentions the possibility that Arthur was a composite of more than one figure, including an Arthmael whose wife was named Gwenhwyfar (Guinevere); but despite this compelling datum he dismisses the theory with a brief, unsatisfying argument. In the end, when he attempts to identify the specific site of Arthur's retirement and burial, he speculates much too far beyond the existing data. He spends much of the book out on a limb, but by this point his argument is hanging by a thread. Castleden is clearly far too convinced of his own thesis, and this damages his credibility. This work is a valuable contribution to the discussion of the historical Arthur, and raises many interesting questions which deserve to be debated; but it should by no means be taken as the "truth" its title asserts it to be.