Sohrab Ahmari

Rather than taking each other’s strongest arguments, people arguing over Catholic Integralism often defeat straw men or completely dodge arguments. This does not advance the conversation so that learning and mutual edification may occur.

Mark Tooley shares an engaging conversation with Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Heinrichs covers a wide…

While quarantined with my family during the COVID-19 pandemic, the following five lessons with international affairs applications have come into focus.

If we are going to get anywhere in this debate about liberalism, we should take on the strongest arguments from our opponents and not their weakest or most caricatured. While I do not think Christians should see liberal democracy as the enemy, I do think its critics often have a point.

Christians can love their nation-state, but civil love should not eclipse the agape love of the Kingdom of God.

Drag queen story hour (DQSH) occupied the debate between David French and Sohrab Ahmari. So how should Christians respond?

A number of friends and I find ourselves unable to commit fully to either side in the Sohrab Ahmari-David French debate. Here are three reasons why.

While there are many nuances and side issues in the debate between David French and Sohrab Ahmari, the crux of the disagreement appears to be a general clash between two opposing political philosophies adopted by religious believers: Catholic integralism and classical liberalism.