Book Review

John McWhorter’s new serially published book on antiracism is a self-described extended editorial in which the avowed atheist seeks to make sense of a political ideology by characterizing it as a religion that is bad for the world in the exact manner in which he understands all religions to be bad.

Goldman responds to commentators who believe that Americans must return to some overarching identity and purpose. He argues that this task is difficult when the conditions that allowed previous unity no longer exist. Moreover, nationalists do not reasonably explain programs that could reignite a meaningful shared identity.

“The Unbroken Thread” by Sohrab Ahmari shows us that our human capacities and loves are not and cannot be strictly contained within the horizons of philosophic liberalism.

Robert Draper’s book To Start a War details why the Bush administration made a gravely mistaken decision, despite having clearly met the jus ad bellum criteria of “right intention.”

The Color of Compromise ostensibly promotes a radical new way of approaching politics that rethinks everything about evangelicals and political engagement. But if you can look past Tisby’s critique of conservatism, all of the fundamentals of popular evangelical political thinking in the post-war era are still at work.

Christians must advocate religious liberty not just for themselves, Walker argues, but “with the conviction that true freedom means allowing fellow citizens… to freely exercise their beliefs with dignity.”

The Bible in American Law and Politics: A Reference Guide, by John R. Vile, is a welcomed resource for surveying and exploring the Bible’s contributions to American political and legal cultures.

Mitchell’s contrast of wokeism with Christianity not only explains our confused and confusing times, but also showcases the truth, beauty, and freeing peace of the true Christian Gospel.

Today any serious book searching for the meaning of rights, natural rights, and human rights is welcome, but in “What’s Wrong with Rights?” Biggar seems preoccupied with a straw man—the claim that rights are absolute.