This book touched my soul removing harsh dim lit areas of burden replacing them with joyful revaltions of a stress free life. The author touches deeply on the the uneasy subjecxts of the hlolocaust and viatnam with a tender hand coxing out all cliche and bias leaving only a heartfelt felt tale of ones quest for a stress free life using world history.
-Mike Luft

Our Father Who Art in Heaven .... Lead me not into Religion.

Because the title of the book promises so much, "The BEST Christian Writing" I assumed this book would be just that... Christian Writing at its Best. But it is neither "Christian" in its theme, nor "Best" in the writing.

Let's start with the word "Christian". To use this word would predispose the editor to select writing that is by its focus Christian"; you know writing that focuses on Christianity. It could include Christian fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, Christian Catholicism, Christian pentecostalism, the Christian radical right or liberal fringe, or even, something about Jesus Christ. You get the point.

But, John Wilson has done none of the above to any significant degree. Rather, he has given us a smattering of various outlooks on life that hang hinged, sometimes, loosely, on the word "Christian". There is no prevailing Christian theme. The writing flails around, whacking at various issues. Everything from the Pope to Public Schools. You can read about quantum mechanics, Erik Erikson, or the Azure-Hooded Jay. You get the point.

Regarding the word "Best", well, of the twenty-two writings, from various publications or direct submissions ONLY SIX of them are stellar or significant. The remaining are fair to mediocre. Thus, the quality of writing spans a gamut that includes THE EXCELLENT AND ENGAGING WRITINGS of J. Bottum and Richard John Neuhaus ('Pius XII and the Nazis' and 'Born Towards Dying') Just skip the droning of E. Ericson (A Father to the End). Save your money and if you must go to the library for this book. Conditionally Recommended.

The book contains much interesting, moving and no doubt correct information about its subject. That is valuable in itself.

Corns and Hughes-Wilson don't just offer information. They also argue for a certain thesis: 'Spilled water cannot be replaced in a smashed jug' (Arab proverb), and so any idea of retrospective pardons should be strongly opposed.

The book's presentation of its thesis is so slovenly, that it would be a fine text for use for practice on a course in critical thinking. Suppose you want to form your own opinion on this controversy. Here are a few examples of the kind of obstacles Corns and Hughes-Wilson put in your way:

1There are gratuitous sneers here and there about their opponents who advocate pardons. The reader has to be alert to separate sneer from substance.

2In presenting one of the main pillars of their argument they rely mainly on Arab proverbs and poetic aphorisms such as 'The past is another country'. The thoughtful reader will hope to find a clearly reasoned statement of the authors' position on the tricky question of moral judgements about other times and places. But once you cut away the book's vague rhetoric on this point there is nothing left.

3There are some whopping contradictions to be found if you keep your eyes open. For example.
The authors seem to be saying, albeit rather impressionistically, that the executions were basically OK by the standards of the time. However, the jacket of the book states that the executions were 'Controversial even at the time'.
On the issue whether executions were necessary because they discouraged mass desertion that might otherwise have occurred, sometimes the authors seem to be suggesting that this was indeed so, and in other places the opposite.

4There is also scope for spotting important inferences from the facts which the authors unaccountably fail to draw. They state (p. 103) that 'the death penalty was used only in a minute percentage of cases', and they back this up with ample evidence. Do they conclude that those few who were executed were therefore treated unfairly - perhaps even so unfairly that they deserve a pardon? No, Corns and Hughes-Wilson don't seem to notice that this possible line of debate even exists. As a reader, you will have to spot it for yourself.

On a frivolous note, I can't resist recording that the acknowledgement at the beginning to 'our eagle-eyed copy-editor' contains both a spelling mistake and a punctuation mistake in the same sentence.

In short, recommended to two classes of reader: those who want a library of all the main works on this subject; and those who want something for a good workout of the critical thinking faculties.
Definitely not for someone who wants just one thoroughly reliable work on the subject.

Anyone who might read this tiny booklet would be terribly mislead by its zealous anti-popper and anti-HIV rhetoric.

In their attempts to create a soapbox from which to continue to espouse their now long-discredited views on both AIDS and Poppers, the authors' blatant attempts to continue to misinform and mislead the public on matters of such significant importance, are shameful at best, and evil at worst.

As others have already stated, this small booklet should indeed be "out of print", because it truly misleads the reader and does a terrible disservice to ALL those impacted and affected by HIV and AIDS.

I'd seen a refernce to the book on an AIDS website that attempts to debunk the well-known and inconclusively-proven fact that AIDS is caused by HIV. The author, along with the others on this site, seem nothing short of zealots who need a soapbox to help in their shameless self-promotion.

Lauritson's anti-popper stance is as unwarranted as his stance on what causes AIDS. He does a disservice to the public who will undoubtedly be mislead should they read his book.

His brand of false alarmism is a shame.

Lauritsen and Wilson sadly have it all wrong in a booklet that is nearly twenty years old. Their theories about "poppers" and AIDS are as outside the mainstream of responsible research as are their theories that AIDS is NOT caused by the HIV virus.

Such junk science, as exemplified in this small booklet, should indeed be "out of print", since it terribly misleads the reader and does a disservice to all those impacted and affected by HIV and AIDS.