Christiane Amanpour came under attack from theists rather than atheists for her six hour documentary presenting interviews with J-C-I religious fundamentalists.
Why were theists so negative when atheists were not? Most theists whom I read on this topic focussed on selected details and failed to see the big, damning picture: in allowing bigots such as Jerry Falwell to put his foot in his mouth, Amanpour allowed religious fanaticists to show their true colors. (Atheists, of course, already knew the bad news.)
Taken as a whole, Amanpour's God's Warriors is a damning, implicit indictment of religious fundamentalism as stated spontaneously by those who believed themselves to be speaking on behalf of their personal, religious viewpoint. This puts me in mind of a line in A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise's character decides to put Jack Nicholson's character on the stand because Cruise senses that Nicholson's character wants to tell his objectionable, self-incriminating version of "the truth".
I think that, like Cruise's defense attorney, Christiane gave the religious fundamentalists rope and they hanged any justification for religious zealotry. Was this Amanpour's intention? I'd very much like to think so. Amanpour, after all, grew up in Iran; attended a convent school in England, where she has lived since the Iranian revolution; married a Jew; and, has covered religiously motivated violence as a foreign correspondent.
On the subject of professional objectivity, Amanpour previously said: "There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn't mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing."
Search YouTube for videos about God's Warriors . CNN website on God's Warriors . CNN transcript . CNN's list of interviewees .