We're Half Awake In a Fake Empire

Stout concludes in his essay that "for religious history to correct social history's overcompensation it will have to re-engage the original preoccupations of historians with politics. It will also have to reengage the old preoccupations of "church historians" with theology and ideas, albeit not as the history of "truth" and "heresy" or "belief" and "correct practice" but as an aspect of the history of nationalism and millennialism." Religion has always been such a personal thing - personal in two ways: personal in that people like it to remain their own and they don't like to talk about it or personal in that people become very touchy if they think you believe something different from them. The generation we are in is a much more open-minded generation than previous generations. We can hold our opinions dear to us without trying to push those opinions on to others and we can also hear opinions different from what we believe without assuming those opinions are wrong. Perhaps it is because of this post-modern mindset that Stout's request can become a reality. Will our generation be able to take up religious history in regards to war in a non-offensive and non-biased way more effectively than previous generations?