Apparently, billions of believers throughout the world need a secular humanist to explain their own monotheism to them and to the world at large.
Thank God CNN understands religion better than any of its ignorant adherents. We need CNN’s unparalleled interpretive skill to understand complex Jewish, Muslim and Christian issues. For instance, without CNN, we would never know:
. . . that during the last 30 years, each faith has exploded into a powerful political force, comprised of followers – “God’s warriors” – who share a deep dissatisfaction with modern society, and a fierce determination to place God and religion back into daily life and to the seats of power. Their political and cultural struggles to save the world from what they view as secular materialism, greed and sexual corruption have caused [sic] anger, division and fear.
You see? It isn’t secular humanism that causes problems. How could it be? Secular humanism has only been around since the Enlightenment, has only really gained traction in public culture with the growth of industrialization in the late 1800’s, and only had public advocates in the American political sphere in the latter half of the 20th century, that is, within the last thirty to fifty years.
No, the problem isn’t secular humanism, rather, it’s the explosion of faith into a powerful political force in the last 30 years that causes “anger, division and fear.” As every CNN viewer knows, faith in politics was never a powerful political force prior to 1970.
"Wherever I go," CNN’s Christiana Amanpour says with wide-eyed amazement, "what the believers do all have in common is that they want to bring the politics of faith into the very center of public life – we are seeing this now on almost every continent."
Not on every continent, thank God, but almost every one. Who would have thunk it? Mrs. Amanpour, herself a Muslim, is apparently shocked, shocked to discover that some people actually expect religion to inform politics.
Her breathless revelation, indeed, the entire CNN special on religion, is remarkable both in what it considers important and what it leaves out.
Take a look, for instance, at the timeline CNN provides on the documentary website. Beginning somewhat arbitrarily with WW I, it conflates international events like the fall of the Ottoman Empire, an event that changed several national boundaries, with purely local events, like the Scopes trial in Tennessee, an event that didn’t change much of anything.
Skipping entirely over WW II (the secular humanists' war of scientific economic theory and racism that created more body bags than all pre-20th century wars combined), skipping over the atheist-inspired conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, the timeline suddenly picks up twenty years later so as to claim that the 1960’s was the hinge decade of the 20th century. “By the 1960’s, secularism was beginning to be in trouble,” says Karen Armstrong, "There's a certain feeling of bankruptcy."
Bankruptcy? But why? Every European and trans-Atlantic war since (and including) the French Revolution has been based in secular humanist principles. Together, they have generated more famine, rapine, torture and slaughter than the rest of human history combined. What could possibly be the problem?
Furthermore, given the enormous strides made by secularism between 1960 and 2007, the ability of politicians to actually embrace the dubiously titled "ethos" it promotes and still get elected, Armstrong's statement is curious, to say the least. Who is Karen Armstrong that she would reach such a conclusion? Oddly enough, the CNN website fails to tell us.
But it isn't difficult to find out. Armstrong’s qualifications to comment on religion in the 20th century consists in the fact that she is an ex-Catholic ex-nun whose doctoral thesis in English was rejected by Oxford University. She herself claims to see no real difference between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, a position held only by Muslims. It is a pity that Christiana, herself a Muslim, didn't find a news story in that all by itself.
However, Armstrong's background might explain why she finds Roe v. Wade to have been “a rallying cry for Christian fundamentalists in the United States.” The ex-Catholic ex-nun is certainly a good enough scholar to know the 1970's opposition to abortion in the United States was originally led by, and unique to, the National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB). Most other Christian denominations didn't entertain the pro-life position until the late 70's and early 80's at best.
Thus, Armstrong is unique in referring to the Catholic bishops of the NCCB (now USCCB) as "fundamentalists," although given their notorious politically Democrat leanings, it is difficult to entirely disagree.
But, we are picking on a single one of CNN’s large list of “featured individuals.” Isn’t that unfair? Let’s find out. CNN provides a complete list of the “featured individuals” who will appear in its 6-hour opus. A quick perusal of the list is instructive.
The segment on Judaism features 28 individuals. Of these, at least five were either soldiers or directly involved in bombings, while several more actively funded military activity.
The segment on Islam features 34 people. At least seven are related to suicide bombers or were themselves soldiers, not to mention several more who directly support militant Islam.
The segment on Christianity lists only 14 people, one of whom, Jimmy Carter, is a repeat from the Jewish list. Of those fourteen, none have military ties. One pastor is creating an “army of Patriots Pastors” men will urge their congregations to vote for change. Another is a couple who homeschools their five children. In the promotional video, this is represented as "frightening."
If the timeline is instructive, the map of “flashpoints” is equally so. For instance, in the US flashpoint, the Muslim attacks on the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Center and September 11, which killed 3,000 people, are together counted equal to Eric Rudolph, the lone anti-abortion bomber who detonated bombs in a clinic, a gay bar and the Atlanta Olympic games. Apparently, one white guy is worth several dozen Arabs.
Oddly enough, however, there seems to be no reference to the 7,000 acts of violence committed by pro-abortionists against US citizens and communities. Similarly, CNN somehow fails to mention the thousands of Christian pastors who denounced Rudolph, nor does its online material make any references to the reactions of Muslim muftis and imams to the multiple world-wide Muslim suicide bombings.
CNN’s silence in regards to Judaism is equally puzzling. The documentary claims militant Judaism draws inspiration from the Book of Ezekiel, "and saw Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War in 1967 as the fulfillment of prophecy: they believe that when Jews return to their Biblical homeland and live according to the Torah, the Messiah can come." For some reason, CNN fails to point out that many orthodox Jews find the establishment of the state of Israel as counter-prophetic. These followers of Judaism see Israel as an abomination precisely because it was established by secular Zionists who have no respect for Mosaic law or authentic Jewish faith.
“There are millions of people around the world who feel that their faith is being ignored – pushed aside – and they are certain they know how to make the world right,” Amanpour says. “We cannot and should not ignore them. And, with this report, we’ve tried to explain them.” Apparently, billions of believers throughout the world need a secular humanist to explain their own monotheism to them and to the world at large. Thank God Christiana Amanpour and CNN are here to help us. We all look forward to the follow-up special, "Godless Warriors."
This is just another example of how the media frames the message and the news into the package it so desires. One could say that "believers" have caused more death and misery in the name of God than any agnostic or aethesist has or more importantly could. Before and after the death of Christ religion has been used as a source of inspiration for war and inspire support for war. CNN could have done a very interesting piece on the on inabilty of followers to look to their God for guidance and not political or military leaders when deciding to support or not support a war on another civilization. Few could argue that Hitler did not use religion as a basis in his master plan of extinction of the Jews. The inquistion, the war on terror, the Crusades, etc., etc., etc., all have a religious tones to them. They should. Religion in its simplest forms deals with 2 basic principles.
1. Right and Wrong: Perception of this changes along religious values and cultures and only when one nations "right" interfers with another nations "right" do wars occur. This could be seen in our own Civil War. Right and Wrong were in direct conflict and both sides used religion (the same one, Christianity) to confirm its belief and justify its position.
2. Everlasting Life: Without the promise of everlasting life, I attest finding a soldier would be very difficult. From Al-Quaida to our own beloved military the promise of heaven eases sacrifice.
Without the promise of everlasting life, wars would be minimal. Maybe that was CNN's point from the beginning, but in their very anti-Christian reporting they blamed religion and not those who manipulate it as the source of evil in the world.
More importantly however CNN could not and would not approach a world without religion. What world would that be? That may be a question for Socrates or Plato; but in the essence of journalism CNN should be able to recognize that a world without religion may indeed be a much harsher one than we live in today. It would be like pulling the chains of responsibilty and accountability off every soul on this Earth. Maybe that is a goal of the aethesist. I guess I will wait for CNN to do a special on it to find out.
Honker,
It is evil people doing evil things using religion as an excuse. Religion doesn't kill anyone. For evil people, any excuse will do, and religion happens to be handy.
As the author points out, the evil done by non-religous people doesn't seem to be relevant. It is definitely easier to blame religion than to get to the root cause: failing to follow the precepts of religion.
Mountain Man,
I agree with you for the most part. The religion as an excuse to do evil in my mind is accurate in some cases, but not in others. When the Hitlers of the world used religion as an excuse to do evil- I agree. When the "Puritans" of our own country burned witches at the stake in the name of religion, I believe they felt it was God's will. I believe many of the terrorist we fight today do so in the name of Allah. It is the inabality of people to recognize evil when disguised as religion that is amazing.
There are some religions that advocate violence against infidels, so their violence should not be surprising. I wouldn't even really like to call these belief systems religion, because my definition of religion is that it builds up the adherent, makes them a better person. Religions that expressly call for violent action are cults, maybe.
The witch burners had to ignore large sections of Scripture to carry out their evils. Therefore, they were not working in accord with the tenents of their religion. They were simply evil people using religion as an excuse.
That is my point. True adherents of real religion who are following the teachings of their religion do not do violence. True religion teaches virtue.
If you are going to rail against Christiane Amanpour, you could at least do her the courtesy of spelling her name correctly!
gz9gjg,
I think that examining a person's presentation and the assertions contained therein hardly constitutes "railing."
The least you could do is accurately portray the author's work. Could you point out where precisely the author is railing against Ms. Amanpour? I'd like to know, since the article only mentions her three or four times.
Oh, and I'm just wondering, do you object to the media calling Bush "Mr." when it is properly "President?"
Great piece, Steve. The only point I would like to argue with is towards the end regarding the establishment of Israel and some Orthodox Jew's rejection of it.
God said in the Bible that in the last days He would regather His people back to their land from whence He had scattered them. God obviously works through men. At times He works through the faithful, as in Moses, and in other times He works through the heathen, as in the Babylonians to bring judgment on Israel.
Regardless of how Israel has been established it is a fulfillment of prophecy.
Regarding CNN; their atheistic bias is well known and this is really just par for the course from them.
Thanks again, Steve.
Talking about religion, even narrowing it down to the so called religious warriors is still too expansive to cover in a 6 hour series. I find it an odd viewpoint to lump the 3 religions all together. Kellmeyer does a great job of expressing this incredulity. The secular world puts religion in a box and does not understand the religion IS THE BOX you put other stuff in.
Secular America also has forgotten that, in the mind of the society of our Founding Fathers, Christianity was what "religion" was and the Muslim faith was a false religion and Judaism was a failed progenitor of Christianity. The Founding Fathers saw religion as Central and government as minimal, peripheral, but necessary. The establishment of religion clause addressed the need for government to not decide on what form of Christian religious practice was to be adopted. Today the secularists’ religion is Hyper Individualism, Socialism and Christianity is just a peripheral antagonist.
I thank Kellmeyer too that he reminds us of the crimes against humanity done in the name of eugenics inspired socialist Nazism and so called “social science” and intellectually based Communism. Remember religion is the opium, the pacifier of the people, that keeps them from finding the true reality. Yes, only the elite few, like CNN’s Amanpour, can show us the way to a new and shiny world.
I've watched the series. It's interesting, yet it lacks substance in regards to all three religions. In the end, some people need a diety in their lives, others don't. The Middle East is interesting in that it is a flashpoint for all hard core believers. It's a perfect storm of religions. The three major religions claim to hold "the truth" and believes the other two are dammed . Jews don't believe Jesus is the Savior, Christians say only the path to salvation is through Jesus and and Muslims don't believe in Christianity. In daily life, these seemingly opposed faiths human practices are very similar. The three faiths practice a similar moral code. All three faiths have demonstrated unparalled kindness and unspeakable brutality. It's a fascinating paradox. It's all done by sincere people to worship an invisible being, who they know nothing about other than what allegedly religious people have told them. Either one faith holds a trump card or we're all terribly guillible people. Chances are, we'll never know.
Greg In NY
GreginNY,
Everyone does have a diety in their life. It's a requirement. Everyone serves something. Everyone bows down to something as master, whether self, money, god, government, or possessions. Everyone chooses their diety and serves it.
"The three major religions claim to hold 'the truth' and believes the other two are dammed ." Your feeble attempt to impose moral equivalence is superficial and specious. There is only one truth by definition, and it isn't that hard to find. You're making excuses for your own intellectual laziness.
It isn't about "similar moral codes," which you just acknowledged. It isn't about superficial, dismissive comparisons. It isn't about how well others adhere to the tenents of their faith. It's about truth. "Chances are, we'll never know," but only because those who do not seek do not find.
If you're relying on the odds, what are you wagering with? Your life? Seems like a bad bet to me.
Mountain Man,
No. It's not a bad bet at all. I'm living in this world, your living in the next world. Fear is the engine that drives religion. I have no problem with that.
Those who do not seek do not find. Very true. You were raised in the United States. Thus you became a fervent Christian. Had you been raised in Saudi Arabia, you probably would be a fervent Muslim. In Isreal, you'd be a fervent Jew. In any case, your truth would be as obvious as it is as to you as a Christian. Again, some people need a diety, others don't. Whatever path we pursure to find our respective truth, it is real to us. To me, that's the beauty of life.
Have a good day my friend,
Greg in NY
Well, you're making assumptions about me, but you do not know, do you? I guess you find it pretty easy to toss out smug, dismissive homilies like "fear is the engine that drives religion." Total nonsense. Well, I guess it's less work than engaging logic and critical thinking, isn't it? "Living in the next world." Now that is a statement truly worthy of an intellectual.
Truth is not "respective." There are no versions of the truth. Your statement is a logical fallacy, and internally contradictory. If you don't know why that is, think about it.
Excuse me, answer the argument. All people need a diety. I explained why in my post. Now your burden is to refute me, not simply wave your hand with "…some people need a diety, others don’t" as if that makes things magically go away.
GreginNY,
I do believe you're oversimplifying the issue by looking at over a millenia of history and dismissing it simply as "no one is perfect."
It simply assumes that all misdeeds are equal, and that all bad things are done ignoring the teachings of the religion. Sorry, that's bunk and we both know it.
Neurotic modern man has dismissed the possibility of knowing ultimate truth in the arena of religion. It is funny as to how dogmatic it has become. "You can not KNOW who God, the God, is, and THAT IS FINAL!". So, is that in itself an "ultimate truth"? You can not know God? Out of all the world religions, only Christianity has a God that said he loved us so much that he came out of eternity to pay the price for our fallen nature. The Bible goes on with the disclaimer saying that the whole idea of what the Bible is saying would be deemed as foolishness to men. It further disclaims that few rich, few wise and few strong men will enter into the kingdom of heaven. You see, they become a god unto themselves and are blind to the ultimate truth the Bible espouses. Again, the secular world puts religion in a box and refuses to see that it IS the BOX.
The following is a response to the section of the show regarding Israel and Judaism-
" August 22, 2007
God's Jewish Warriors — CNN's Abomination
UPDATE: See here for comments on part 2 of the series, "God's Muslim Warriors" and here for comments on part 3 of the series, "God's Christian Warriors."
CNN's "God's Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour, is a three-part series intended to examine the growing role of religious fundamentalism in today's world. Unfortunately, the first program in the series, "God's Jewish Warriors," is one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.
While in reality Jewish "terrorism" is virtually non-existent, the program magnifies at length the few instances of violence or attempted violence by religiously-motivated Jewish individuals – including having to go all the way back to 1980, for example, to explore a bombing campaign against West Bank Arab mayors by a small group of Israeli Jews. In dredging up such an old incident Amanpour unintentionally undermines her own thesis.
And, of course, on the exceedingly rare occasions when Israeli Jews commit terrorist acts, the Israeli public and leadership condemns the act and the perpetrators. Prime Minister Rabin, for example, condemned Baruch Goldstein's terrorist attack in Hebron, terming it "a loathsome, criminal act of murder." In contrast, Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israelis are regarded as "martyrs" and become celebrities, with soccer tournaments named after them. Amanpour, of course, fails to inform her audience of this key difference.
Of much more interest to Amanpour are settlements, which are a key focus of the program, their residents and adherents being deemed "God's warriors" – along with those Americans, Jewish and Christian alike, who support them. American presidents and Members of Congress are said to be held hostage to the so-called "Israel Lobby," ostensibly dark forces consisting of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups who supposedly enable the nefarious expansion of West Bank communities.
Disproportionate reliance on partisan voices, some extreme figures, skews the message dramatically. Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer, chief proponents of the discredited canards about Jews subverting American national interests to those of Israel, are repeatedly and respectfully interviewed. Carter, for example, claims that no American politician could survive politically while calling for settlement-related aid cuts to Israel: "There's no way that a member of Congress would ever vote for that and hope to be re-elected."
That would be news to politicians like Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, who has long been a critic of aid to Israel and opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1992. As well, contrary to Amanpour and Carter, Representatives James Trafficante, Dana Rohrabacher, Nick Smith, Fortney Pete Stark, Neil Abercrombie, David E. Bonior, John Conyers Jr, John D. Dingell, Earl F. Hilliard, Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Jim Moran, David R. Obey, Ron Paul and Nick J. Rahall II, have voted against aid to Israel and/or opposed other resolutions favoring Israel.
Amanpour ignores all this, and turns instead to former Senator Charles Percy, who joins in denouncing Jewish political influence. Only Morris Amitay is presented as balance on this critical issue.
Whether wittingly or not, Amanpour's program, with its reliance on pejorative labeling, generalities, testimonials, and a stacked lineup of guests, is a perfect illustration of classical propaganda techniques. Unfortunately propaganda is the opposite of journalism, the profession Amanpour is supposed to practice.
The program was misleading and inaccurate in many other ways as well:
Land
Amanpour says: "But it is also Palestinian land. The West Bank – it's west of the Jordan River – was designated by the United Nations to be the largest part of an Arab state."
This is highly deceptive. The United Nations 1947 Partition Plan proposed dividing all the land west of the Jordan into a Jewish and an Arab state; the Arabs rejected the plan, choosing instead to launch a war to eliminate Israel. The land did not become "Palestinian land" via this UN Plan. Likewise, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, underscored that territorial adjustments related to the West Bank were to be expected.
Settlements
• Amanpour suggests settlements are the cause of Arab anger: "the Jewish settlements have inflamed much of the Arab world," yet the Arab world was just as anti-Israel (actually more so) before the settlements were built.
• She presents at length the views of Theodor Meron asserting the illegality of settlements as the definitive word, but makes no mention of more senior Israeli experts such as former Supreme Court Chief Meir Shamgar, who disagreed with Meron. Nor does Amanpour mention such foreign experts such as Professors Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow who also argued for the legality of settlements. (See for example CAMERA BACKGROUNDER: The Debate About Settlements and From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories" by Dore Gold.)
• She grossly misleads about America's position on settlements in the following sequence:
WILLIAM SCRANTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N. UNDER GERALD FORD: My government believes that international law sets the appropriate standards.
AMANPOUR: From the earliest days of the settler movement, even the United States, Israel's closest ally, blasted Israel's settlement policy.
SCRANTON: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal.
AMANPOUR: Ever since American presidents both Democrat and Republican have spoken from virtually the same script. They consistently oppose settlement growth.
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements.
In fact, while the Carter administration did deem settlements illegal, President Reagan very much did not speak from the "same script." He explained: "As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there — I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as illegal, they're not illegal" (NYTimes, Feb. 3, 1981). Other presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, also did not term settlements "illegal."
• Amanpour does not discuss Jewish habitation in the West Bank and Gaza in post-Biblical times, before 1948—for example, in Hebron, Kfar Etzion, Kfar Darom (See: CAMERA BACKGROUNDER: The Debate About Settlements) but instead portrays Jewish settlement in the West Bank as an encroachment on "Arab" land—repeatedly referring to disputed territories as "Arab" or "occupied" land (22 times throughout the program).
• Amanpour continuously discounts the context of the Arab world. She says with regard to the post Six-Day War period: "But the Israeli government was divided – trade the captured land for peace or keep it and build Jewish settlements." Unmentioned is the Arab refusal after the Six-Day War to "trade" anything for peace, as embodied in the three "no's" delivered by Arab leaders at a summit in Khartoum in September 1967, declaring there would be no negotiation, no recognition and no peace with Israel.
Jerusalem/Temple Mount, and The Holy Places
• Amanpour says: "It was from here, according to Muslim scripture, that the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven around the year 630. But Hebrew scripture puts the ancient Jewish Temple in the same location, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70. For the next 1,900 years, even the last remnant of the temple known as the Wailing Wall, or the Western Wall, was lost to the Jews."
a) Muslim scripture refers to Mohammed ascending to heaven from the "farthest mosque," which could not have been on the Temple Mount, since the mosque there wasn't built until well after the death of Mohammed.
b) The Western Wall is part of the Temple Mount complex—not the actual Temple. It is a remnant of the retaining wall built to extend and flatten the Temple Mount. There are indeed actual remains of the First and Second Temples on the Temple Mount.
c) Although Amanpour notes the holiness of the Temple Mount to Jews and Muslims, and some Jews in clips say that it is the holiest site for Jews, she never points this out herself, nor does she mention that Hebron is Judaism's second holiest city with its second holiest shrine.
d) Amanpour interviews the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to give a Muslim perspective on the Al Aqsa Mosque, but no Jewish Rabbinical figure is presented to discuss the paramount religious importance of the Temple Mount to Jews.
• Amanpour ignores the devastation of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the expulsion of its residents by the Jordanians in 1948, as she does the Jordanian destruction and desecration of synagogues and cemeteries in eastern Jerusalem .Nor does she discuss the denial of Jewish access to holy sites and restriction of Christian religious freedom after Jordan’s illegal annexation of eastern Jerusalem in 1950. Instead she redefines the history of the conflict over Jerusalem with a new timeline, alleging, "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray."
Carter and Mearsheimer
Amanpour states: " Most recently, former President Carter was criticized for criticizing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In his book, "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid."
Carter was, of course, "criticized" for purveying multiple false statements about Israel and the Palestinians. See, for example, A Comprehensive Collection of Jimmy Carter's Errors.
Professor John Mearsheimer is also invited on to explain to viewers the allegedly pernicious effects of the "Jewish Lobby," with no mention by Amanpour of the extremely serious flaws that critics have identified in Mearsheimer's work.
Israel Lobby
• Amanpour also grossly misleads the public about a dispute in the early 1990s between then president George Bush and Israel's prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Shamir. President Bush decided to withhold American loan guarantees to Israel unless that country froze settlement activity. In CNN's version of events, the Israel lobby kicked into gear, and "Congress got the message." (For Amanpour, it seems, it is a given that members of Congress were responding to "the message" sent by the lobby as opposed to acting on their own convictions.) Then, "just a few months later, the very week of the Republican National Convention, the pro-Israel lobby had something to celebrate." President Bush announced his support for the loan guarantees. Clearly, according to Amanpour, the lobby forced Bush's hand.
What is absent from Amanpour's version of events is the reason why the Bush administration eventually reversed its position. A new Israeli government, willing to compromise on the issue of settlements, had come to power. The new prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, backed down from previous Israeli Prime Minister Shamir's positions by promising to curtail settlement growth. Israeli-American relations subsequently improved.
• In addition, Amanpour uses inflammatory language unbecoming of a journalist to describe fundraising efforts by American Jews to help Israeli settlers. Not only does she take sides in the dispute over the legality of the settlements, she evokes negative stereotypes, stating:
Six thousand miles from Israel's settlements, in the heart of Manhattan, defiance of international law comes dressed in diamonds.
Muslim "Anger"
Interviewed by Amanpour, Gershom Gorenberg states: "You can't understand the anger of radical Islam unless you understand the conflict between you know, the Jews and the Palestinians." The false implication is that such "anger" is primarily rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, disregarding the far greater forces driving radical Islam, including the titanic struggle between Shiites and Sunnis triggered in large measure by the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the Khomenist revolution and the expansion of Saudi Wahabism, Saudi-sponsored mosques and schools built all over the globe inculcate vast numbers of Muslims with extreme, supremacist views.
As even the Ayatollah Khomeini put it, the United States was the "Great Satan," while Israel was only the "Small Satan."
And of course, the rise of the Internet and satellite TV has greatly amplified the false and misleading information put out by Muslim supremacist propagandists, inflaming the Muslim masses.
You can reach CNN's online comments page by clicking here."
Also from CAMERA.org , the following analysis of the Christian segment-
" August 27, 2007 by Dexter Van Zile
God's Christian Warriors— CNN Slurs Christians
On August 23, CNN aired the final episode of its three-part series, "God's Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour. At the end of this segment, devoted to "God's Christian Warrirors," Amanpour left viewers with a warning that society cannot ignore “the millions of people who feel their faith is being ignored, is being pushed aside and who are certain they know how to make the world right.”
Given the huge levels of religiously motivated violence taking place in the world today – most of it perpetrated by Muslims against Muslims – Amanpour is right. Religious fundamentalism cannot be ignored. Events of recent years have demonstrated that religious belief can be a source of violence on a global scale and can be used to justify depriving people – women especially – of their human rights.
But if Americans are going to determine how to respond to religious extremism on both an international and societal level, they surely cannot rely on Amanpour’s coverage of the issue. In her coverage of "Christian Warriors" Amanpour demonstrates a predictable inability to discern the difference between Christians in the U.S. who organize politically to affect public policy and suicide bombers in the Middle East who target civilians in an attempt to intimidate their opponents into submission.
Amanpour’s inability to discern the difference between believers who play by the rules of democratic pluralism and those who perpetrate violence to create a theocratic state was most evident during her interview with Ron Luce, founder of a ministry called "Tean Mania" headquartered in rural Texas, which has a strict moral code including no secular music, no television, no “R”-rated movies, no alcohol, no drugs and no dating.
AMANPOUR: When I, you know, read that women have to wear skirts of a certain length and guys aren’t allowed to, you know, go on the Internet unsupervised, and I think, you know, totalitarian regimes.
LUCE: No. It’s about learning to have disciplines that communicate purity. You know? The skirts’ lengths are to keep guys from – you know, any many on the planet can be distracted. And we don’t’ want to unintentionally create distraction.
AMANPOUR: But, Ron, that’s what the Taliban said. They kept woman in their house, because men couldn’t be trusted around them.
Amanpour draws an outrageous comparison between the leader of a teen ministry that insists that young women wear long skirts and an honor-killing terrorist organization which according to Amanpour’s own reporting from November 2001, is responsible for driving women in Afghanistan into their homes.
For five years, the religious police known as the Department of the Prevention of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue issued a series of edicts against women, banning them from wearing makeup, from wearing high heels, from making a noise on the street when they walked, banning them from work, from education, from sitting next to men on busses or in cars.
Amanpour knows full well that Luce, the man standing in front of him during the interview, has nothing in common with the Taliban. An article of hers published in Time in June 2001, makes this perfectly clear:
From the day they marched into Kabul, the Taliban's adherents have sought to eradicate women from public life. In a land where the women have had to work while the men fought, the regime has barred females from taking any job outside the home or even leaving their houses without a male relative to accompany them. Girls have been thrown out of school. Foreign-aid agencies have been forbidden to offer any of their services or assistance directly to females.
Today Afghan women cannot even expect proper medical care. Three weeks ago, the Taliban decreed that female patients could no longer be treated at any of the main hospitals in Kabul and would be completely separated from male patients and medical personnel. We discovered that sick women are being sent to a crumbling old building that has no windowpanes, no running water, no proper operating room and barely enough electricity to power lightbulbs. The patients are tended by a meager female-only staff.
…
The toll such measures take on Afghan women is impossible to assess. Several told us how dispiriting it is to be thrown off a bus or forced to sit in the back. We heard reports of an increase in the suicide rate among females, and that many have sunk into despair and depression. For Afghanistan's tyrannized women, there is no escape from an unsparing, medieval way of life.
That Amanpour can equate Christians in the U.S. with the Taliban who shoved women into the shadows of Afghanistan beggars belief. None of the Christians she met insisted that she change into a more modest outfit as a prerequisite for the interview – while her interview regarding the Hidden Imam in Iran required her to put on a full headgear. And the cleric she interviewed about the subject would not even look at her during the course of the interview. By way of comparison, Jerry Falwell, founder of Moral Majority, spoke directly to Amanpour, telling her that he would support any presidential candidate – male or female – that was strong on security:
Well, certainly, we’d love to get, in one package, a man, a woman, who is strong on security and right on social issues. We’ve got to find the person closest to where we are.
It is interesting to note that the segment on Christianity included an interview with Mandy Chapman, a student at Falwell’s Liberty University who hopes to become a lawyer. Amanpour seems unable to discern the difference between the Taliban, a movement that denies women the right to attend school, with a movement that encourages them to attend college and become lawyers.
Compare Amanpour’s suspicion of Evangelical notions of chastity with Muslim convert Rehan Seyam’s desire to cover herself completely:
AMANPOUR: Rehan insists that covering up is not a sign of a woman’s inferiority, as many Westerners believe, but a sign that Muslim women refuse to be degraded, as she feels they can be in American culture.
SEYAM: I don’t want any guy looking at me, except for my husband, provocatively. Why would I want that? Why do I want to be a piece of meat?
AMANPOUR: A feeling echoed by religious historian Karen Armstrong, who herself used to wear a habit as a former Roman Catholic nun.
ARMSTRONG: In some ways, it was very liberating. For seven whole years I never had once to think about my hairstyle, my makeup, my clothes. I never had to wear man-pleasing garments. I never had to fill my head with the junk that society tells women, to trivialize their lives about.
Amanpour did not challenge either of these interview subjects with the charge that they are pushing forth a Taliban-like agenda, but reserves that charge for Ron Luce, an Evangelical in Texas. Why?
Another revelatory moment came when Amanpour discussed the issue of woman’s rights with Kamal Al-Saad Habib, a former Egyptian jihadist and a member of the group that plotted the assassination of Anwar Sadat. When Habib informed Amanpour that women should not be allowed to govern over men, she smiles and wags her finger at Habib as if he were a naughty child, evoking laughter from the film crew. Hilarity for Habib and a gratuitous insult for Luce.
End Times
In her coverage of John Hagee and Christians United For Israel, Amanpour reports Hagee’s scenario for the end times: “Russia and its allies invade Israel. The anti-Christ appears as the head of the European Union. Armies mass and there’s a final battle at Armageddon resulting in a sea of human blood before Jesus returns to slay nonbelievers and reign over an era of peace.”
This is a frightening scenario, especially when its compared with Amanpour’s pretty benign portrayal of the Hidden Iman prophecy adhered to by Shia Muslims in Iran.
AMANPOUR: If Christians and Jews don't follow the Hidden Imam, clerics say there will be trouble.
MOHAMED REZAIE, MAGAZINE EDITOR, BRIGHT FUTURE INSTITUTE (through translator): If Judaism and Christianity don't recognize him, conflicts are possible. So, God will send Jesus to mediate.
In addition to giving relatively short shrift to the apocalyptic violence (“there will be trouble”) envisioned by adherents of the Hidden Imam scenario, Amanpour fails to detail how children were sent to their deaths on behalf of the Hidden Imam during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. To be sure, she mentions Iran's policy of sending children to their deaths during this war, but the link between this action and belief in the Hidden Imam was left unmentioned. Writing in the Telegraph, Michael Burleigh reports that during this war, belief in the Hidden Imam was used to send children to their deaths.
During the eight-year war, an enormous militia, called the Basij, was created under the aegis of the Revolutionary Guard. Boys aged 12 to 17 were dispatched against the Iraqi army, each armed with a plastic key to paradise, manufactured in bulk in Taiwan. A ghostly pale rider occasionally appeared, whose phosphorous-painted face was supposed to be that of the Hidden Imam, to urge these suicide waves on. Mowing these children down — and perhaps as many as 100,000 were killed — was so traumatic that even battle-hardened Iraqi veterans declined to fire.
By way of comparison, Christian Zionists, or pre-millenial dispensationalists as they are called by their critics, have not sent children off to war, they have not threatened to destroy a state with nuclear weapons, nor have they hijacked any planes, blown up any busses, or assassinated anyone. Despite the fearsome manner in which Amanpour describes Christian Zionists, they abide by the rules of pluralistic democracy, and they do not always win, as the 2006 congressional elections demonstrated.
Timothy Weber, author of On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend (Baker Academic, 2005), and one of the harshest critics of the Christian Zionist movement, admitted as such at a conference on Christian Zionism held at North Park University in Chicago in 2005. At a closing panel of the conference Weber stated:
I just need to point out that dispensationalists [Christian Zionists] are not throwing bombs. They are not attacking people in the streets. You may argue that they are promoting things that may lead to that by other people. That’s arguable. I think that that is certainly a possibility. But in our own context, in our own world and our own culture they play by the rules of American democracy. They attack verbally. They promote their own ideas. They denigrate others. But that’s the American way.
This description, offered by a ferocious critic of Christian Zionism, is a far cry from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s belief in the Hidden Imam, the end time scenario embraced by many Shia Muslims in Iran. As Amanpour’s own reporting revealed
[Ahmadinejad] has reportedly made his entire cabinet take an oath of allegiance to the Hidden Imam, a ninth century Shiite cleric who is a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. He is meant to come back one day as a Shia messiah. President Ahmadinejad repeatedly says that his government must hasten that day.
Amanpour would do well to learn the difference between those who have religious and political beliefs she finds distastetful, and extremists who perpetrate violence to force their beliefs on others. "