The History Channel

This semester, The History Channel has come up several times. We have jokingly called for its reform, re-labeling it "The War Channel." But after reading Stout, as an American institution, can The History Channel's content consist of anything but war?

I am troubled by the development of Civil Religion in America and its development around the nationalism and the inerrancy of American action. Civil Religion has become a religion of war and its rhetoric and liturgies are full of battle cries, reassurances and justifications. I recall the writing of Hauerwas in War and the American Difference:

"It is thought that to acknowledge a policy or a strategy was mistaken is to betray the sacrifices made by those who as a result of that policy died...Those who have killed need to have constant praise and assurance from peers and superiors that they did the right thing. The awarding of medals becomes particularly important, because medals gesture to soldiers that what they did was right and that the community for which they fought is grateful. Medals indicate that their community of sane and normal people, people who do not normally kill, welcome them back to "normality."

Can this cycle ever be broken? Can America become disillusioned from the idea that in order to honor those martyrs of Civil Religion we must continue to go to war? As Stout suggests, is an honest and proper exhaustive American history, staring war and religion dead in the eye, a good start?