150+ Books You Should Be Reading In Class, But Probably Aren’t

Religious Studies:

Robert Spencer, The Truth About Muhammad

Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianty

Richard John Neuhaus, American Babylon: Notes of a Christian Exile

Michael Novak, On Two Wings

Michael Novak, No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers

Michael Novak, Washington’s God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of our Country

George Weigel, Against the Grain: Christianity and Democracy, War and Peace

George Weigel, The Truth of Catholicism: The Essential Teachings and Controversies of the Church Today

George Weigel, Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism: A Call to Action

Leon Kass: The Book of Genesis

-Lastly, books to counter indoctrination in Sociology and Women’s Studies.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

August 10th, 2010
Topic: Adopt a Dissenting Book, Uncategorized Tags: None
  • Martin K Keene

    Recommend you add the following to list under History
    1> “As We Go Marching”
    2> “The Roosevelt Myth”
    Both written by John T. Flynn printed 1954

  • http://lewitacja.com/ Imprezy integracyjne wrocław

    Often, children in schools that do not read most of the national literature. Then it does not have the sense of patriotism.

  • Nullifidian

    This list does more than any critic of reactionism (I will not degrade the term “conservatism” here) ever could to point out the far-right’s cultural illiteracy. Recommending “A Patriot’s History of the United States”? Calling “Atlas Shrugged” literature? Calling D’Souza’s comic polemic “The End of Racism” a work of sociology?

    One can see where the problem arises from your “political philosophy” section: you don’t actually know what conservatism *is*. Out of your whole list, only two names qualify, and one of them isn’t conservative but an American libertarian (Robert Nozick — and I use “American libertarian” to distinguish the term from its European connotation). Only Michael Oakeshott qualifies as a genuine conservative philosopher. You lot need to sit down with a copy of Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana” to correct your state of ignorance (and this is another book notable by its absence).

    Do any of you actually know how academia works? Simply gainsaying some existing thought identified as ‘liberal’ is not enough to get you qualified as an academically sound conservative thinker. You actually have to apply some scholarship to your thoughts and open yourself up to the criticism of your colleagues. It’s revealing, then, that the majority of these works are right-wing polemics from the popular presses. To be taught in academia, you have to have something worth the reading. Biographies are not taught in college unless the figures have actually *done* something, which few of your selections qualify. Why the hell should a student read “Radical Son”? Just because it’s by David Horowitz and he whines about lefties? If you wanted a conservative figure to feature in your biography section, why not suggest John Henry Newman’s “Apologia Pro Vita Sua”? At least that has some cognizable reason for being included in a British literature class, for example.

    Pull yourselves together and start writing stuff with actual scholarly merit if you want to be admitted into the community of scholars.