Wow Ski! This has been my viewpoint for years. In fact, I've been thinking about minoring in religious studies because I wholeheartedly believe religion & history go hand-in-hand. Unfortunately, I had such a horrible experience this semester in my Religious Studies class that I'm rethinking this plan. My prof was so totally “out there” that none of us could follow what he was saying. Plus, he was extremely anti-Christian, anti-Jesus; really turned off the class. I'm very disappointed, now.

There are whole schools of historical thought that avidly seek to avoid history-of-religion approaches.  The most notable are the New Left, Economic Determinists, and of course Marxist Historians.  These groups are ideologically driven, or at the very least, they seek empirical analysis through scientific stimulus (e.g. socio-economic factors, geographical influences such as climate or topography, or through inter-disciplinary approaches involving Political Science and or Humanities (which depend on literary criticism).  Take your pick, but I find History-of-Religion to be a very versatile and worthwhile approach because religion is one of the dominant sociological motivators that move History forward.

Ken, you should ask your History professor what school of thought they subscribe to or are most heavily influenced by and then do a historiographical study on who he/she cites to see who influenced them and so on.  It's very iluminating to know who taught your teacher and who taught their teacher's teachers etc…

Yeah but Donnie don't you think that can only go so far?  I realize that students can attach themselves to their mentor's socio-political philosophy, but it might not be the case with everyone.  Sometimes students could follow a mentor because they like the mentor's style or research, or thoroughness, or just because that mentor is the only expert in the world related to some specific sub-topic.  Or do you think that the history profession is filled with a lot of agenda-driven people? 

From my experiences, I must sadly report that many of my professors were agenda driven.  They were closet activists using their research to further their own biases.  Now back in the day (say a generation ago) historians were less agenda driven and more of the purist variety.  Those days are long gone, but that's not to say there aren't objective researchers still out there because they most certainly are.  It is the job of the student to find them and latch onto their teachings because the others who have an axe to grind aren't going to do their students justice.  Of course this is from my experiences only.

At least in my field the way it's normally done when one gets to the doctoral level is by finding a scholar that one wants to study under and then trying to get into that academic program.  So essentially it's necessary to get a mentor in this regard.  But thus far I haven't seen much that has been viewed at through a prism of agenda-driven ideology.  I'm sure it's out there and I'm sure I could recognize it.  One little thing that still irks me is the use of “BCE” and “CE” rather than “BC” or “AD”.  Now I'm trying to get over it but the whole concept seems somewhat silly to me.  I wouldn't want to rule out studying under someone who used BCE and CE in their language but I suppose it would be a bonus if the person used BC and AD.

BG, I would stay the course in History as it's a field that offers more job opportunities and teaches you to how to apply critical thinking methods in greater detail.  Many lawyers are History majors for a reason…it teaches one to argue points more accurately.  You can make religion a core emphasis if you so desire though.  Religious studies is a degree that just frankly won't do much for you.  However, you can double major if you want to put in the extra work…and that payoff would be considerably higher in my opinion.