Christiane Amanpour’s six-hour miniseries "God’s Warriors" reflects less of the reality of "fundamentalist" monotheists - Jews, Muslims, and Christians - and more of liberals’ attitudes about these faiths. It is clear, given how CNN and Amanpour covered each faith, that they have sympathy towards Muslims in the U.S., "concern" with the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and are uncomfortable towards the beliefs and practices of Christian evangelicals.
Tuesday night’s "God’s Jewish Warriors" focused on the cause of the "right-wing" Jewish settlers. The term "right wing" is used seven times to describe the settlers and/or their supporters in Israel and in the United States, and "fundamentalist/-ism" was used three times, once in reference to Christian supporters of the settlers in the U.S. On Wednesday night’s "God’s Muslim Warriors," "fundamentalist/-ism" was the more prevalent term, used 11 times. "Right wing" is used twice, only to describe Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament.
A partial transcript of the first occasion Amanpour used the term "right-wing" to describe Wilders:
AMANPOUR: Across Europe, Islam is the fastest growing religion, the number of Muslims tripling in the last 30 years. This increased Muslim presence, and violence like the Van Gogh murder, play into the hands of right-wing politicians, like Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament...
GEERT WILDERS, MEMBER OF DUTCH PARLIAMENT: Yes, here we have my seat.
AMANPOUR: ...who fears the Dutch are losing their country to an alien culture. The party he's founded has staked its political future in large part on an anti-Islam platform. He's proposed shutting down immigration from non-western countries and banning burkas and nikabs, the head-to-toe coverings worn by some Muslim women, even though few here wear them.
A few minutes later, after talking about the "culture clash" between the native European Dutch and the Muslims in the country, Amanpour continued her profile of Wilders.
AMANPOUR: Emerson Vermaat, a Dutch investigative journalist, has spent years studying the group [the so-called “Hofstad Group,” a terror cell in the Netherlands] and the murder of Van Gogh.
EMERSON VERMAAT, DUTCH JOURNALIST: There was a meeting of Hofstad (ph) in Amsterdam, and they said, "We must do something. We must maybe kill someone, but we must revenge. Allah has been offended. The Koran has been offended."
AYAAN HIRSI ALI, FORMER MEMBER OF DUTCH PARLIAMENT: They would sit together. They would watch videos with beheadings and read the Koran together and then plot jihadi activities.
AMANPOUR: It is a twisted version of Islam fueled by the culture clash here. But also by a steady stream of Internet websites which offer radical Islam as the antidote to Western culture. This extremism has generated an extreme response from far-right politicians like Geert Wilders.
Thursday night’s "God’s Christian Warriors," by contrast, took the use of "right-wing" or similar terms to a new high. "Religious right" is used ten times, "Christian right" is used twice (once by a left-wing protester in San Francisco), "right" is used once, and "right-wing" is used once, for a total of 14 uses of "right" terms.
Amanpour also spent much more time focusing on opponents and/or dissenters of the "Christian Right" in the United States during her look at "God’s Christian Warriors." She used three whole segments on profiles of Jimmy Carter, whose new cause is for Christians to "focus on issues like poverty rather than on divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage," and opposing "the growing influence of fundamentalism in many religions characterized by rigidity, male domination, and exclusion;" Greg Boyd, a Yale and Princeton-trained minister in Minnesota who wants calls for a "divorce" in the "marriage between "conservative" Christianity" and "right-wing politics;" and Richard Cizik, the vice president for the National Association of Evangelicals, who, in Amanpour’s words, preaches the "gospel of saving the planet." These segments take up over 20 minutes of time in the two-hour special, which probably has more than a half-hour of commercials in it.
These 20 minutes compares with about 14 minutes spent on former Muslims and/or former Islamic radicals in "God’s Muslims Warriors. - under 8 minutes of a full segment on Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who was a Muslim radical; and clips from interviews of Ed Husain, a Muslim in the UK who was once a member of the radical Hiz Ut-Tahrir organization, and wrote a book to "raise the alarm" about Islamism; and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali Muslim-turned-atheist who is a former member of the Dutch Parliament. Neither Husain, who was given about 5 minutes; nor Ali, who was given just under a minute and a half; were profiled in full segments.
Critics of the Jewish settlers in "God’s Jewish Warriors" - Theodor Meron, a Holocaust survivor and international lawyer who stood by his 40-year old opinion that the Jewish settlements on the West Bank violate the Fourth Geneva Convention; Jimmy Carter; John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, who wrote an article critical of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.; and Dror Etkes of the Israeli organization "Peace Now" received just over 3 minutes of air time in various segments.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Offense
August 24, 2007 - 13:18 ET by saw the lightMaybe Ms. Amanpour was afraid of offending the Muslim world, thus becoming a target, much like van Gogh.
"There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
"...less of the reality
August 24, 2007 - 13:22 ET by mattm"...less of the reality ...and more of liberals’ attitudes about these faiths."
This is what they do on every issue: They don't talk about what Rove says about a topic, they talk about what Libs say about the topic. They don't talk about what Bush says, they talk about what Liberals say is wrong about what Bush says...it's typical.
BTW The idea that Islam is the fastest growing religion is a myth.
And too .
August 24, 2007 - 14:07 ET by FastEdis Islam being the religion of peace.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Oh yea, we asked for it?
August 24, 2007 - 16:13 ET by general companyThis increased Muslim presence, and violence like the Van Gogh murder, play into the hands of right-wing politicians
Play into there hands? As if they asked for conflict? Good grief
Dammit
August 24, 2007 - 13:25 ET by HelenSIf I get any more tired of these people, I'm going to slip into a full blown coma. I despise their craven sucking up to the scum of the world.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Proof
August 24, 2007 - 13:32 ET by cvgbuckeyeBy the fact that Christianity is always the target and that Christians are regularly targeted AND not Muslims-------DOES THAT TELL YOU ANYTHING??????
For anyone who has ANY Biblical knowledge, that is one of the strongest proofs of the Absolute Truth of Christianity that exists.
It tells and proves volumes about Christianity, the Muslim faith and about the persecutors; i.e. Amanpour and her ilk.
Did you watch the show? I
August 24, 2007 - 16:39 ET by Chidi NwachukhuDid you watch the show? I didn't see a flattering portrait of radical islam. I gues YOU are more than happy to see what you want to see and beleive what you want to.
The liberal view:
August 24, 2007 - 13:27 ET by c5thenThey have to pigeon-hole and "classify" everyone into some group or other, because they cannot cope with a world of billions of individuals. It also allows them to pre-judge a person by the group that they classify them into. Makes it much easier to deal with the world. So... They classify "religions" into the same group and when a certain % of that group do bad things, they easily mke the judgement: religion = bad. So therfore, if you are a member of a religious organization or a religion at all, they simply classify you as "bad" and move on.
They are of course horrified if any one does that to them. THEY can not be classified, that is bigotry and prejudice. By the way, how much do you make and where did your ancestor's come from and what color is your skin and what language do you speak? They have to know all this so they know which section of their "big tent" to put you in.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Weren't the phrases
August 24, 2007 - 14:21 ET byWeren't the phrases "Christian Right" and "Moral Majority" coined by Jerry Falwell? I work with people who are proud to be part of the religious right and have no problem with that label. The problems start when they mobilize en masse to try to take over the government and mix church and state, which is also a tradition of Islam. Religious fundamentalism is controversial no matter what the religion is.
Controversial
August 24, 2007 - 14:42 ET by cvgbuckeyebalster:
Then God, our Creator is controversial? The Author of all life and all other things needs to mind his own business? The Creator should not get into government?
What is wrong with us and our reasoning?
"The Creator should not
August 24, 2007 - 14:59 ET by"The Creator should not get into government?"
"What is wrong with us and our reasoning? "
The astute reader will observe that God is mentioned in neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." -Thomas Jefferson
I beg your pardon
August 24, 2007 - 15:20 ET by LCT688The Declaration of Independence clearly states the we are endowed by the 'Creator' with inalianable rights. Laying the foundation that rights and civil liberties belong to the individual and are not 'granted' to us by the government.
SHACK!!!!!!!!
August 24, 2007 - 17:58 ET by BDSHACK!!!!!!!!
Man! Are you wrong!
August 24, 2007 - 15:24 ET by c5thenDeclaration of Independance:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men
are created equal, that they are endowed, by their
CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness."
Constitution of the United States of America:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."
Where do you suppose the "Blessings of Liberty" are supposed to comefrom, if not from the CREATOR as previously mentioned in the Declaration of Independance, which was the legal groud work for the Constitution.
Another thing:
Fundimental Christianity would be adhering to these tennents:
Love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge, lest you be judged by your FATHER in heaven. Love GOD with all your heart. - How scarry. Oooooo!
Fundimental Judaism: would be best evidenced by the "Hasidik" jews (from the Hebrew Ha Tsadiq - The Riteous). You know the ones who always wear black and the men have beards and curly long hair and they are usually diamond cutters or merchants. - How frightening. Aaaahhhh.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Why?
August 24, 2007 - 16:11 ET by Mr. KafirPlease explain your last sentence. I'm trying to figure out if I should take offense or not.
BTW, there is no such thing as fundamental Judaism.
Mr K... but there is such as
August 24, 2007 - 18:02 ET by Jack BauerMr K... but there is such as thing as FUNDAMENTALIST liberalism... and socialism is their sacrement.
No offense intended
August 24, 2007 - 19:46 ET by c5thenI was trying to explain to a liberal what "type" of person would be classed as a "jewish fundimentalist". The Hasidik were about as close as I could get and figured that anyone who's been to NYC would recognize then from my description.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
They are usually diamond
August 24, 2007 - 16:33 ET by Chidi NwachukhuThey are usually diamond cutters? Can I say you are usually a tool and a complete bigot?
Jump to conclusions much?
August 24, 2007 - 17:37 ET by Mr. KafirJump to conclusions much?
Oh man do you have no
August 24, 2007 - 18:12 ET by Airforce_5_OOh man do you have no concept of histoy.
Next your going to tell us that the seperation of Church and state is in the constitution.
Make sure you check before answering.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
Religious fundamentalism is
August 24, 2007 - 14:46 ET by saw the lightReligious fundamentalism is controversial no matter what the religion is.
No blaster, there is no controversy over fundamentalism. It is the extremism that occurs in some religions that can be the issue. However, Muslim extremism seems to be the only one that continues to kill in its name on a regular basis and seems not to be criticized by any media outlet left of center (which includes nearly all of them!).
"There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
They classify "religions"
August 24, 2007 - 15:53 ET by motherbeltThey classify "religions" into the same group and when a certain % of
that group do bad things, they easily mke the judgement: religion = bad. -c5then
The problem is, that isn't what they do, not in all cases. A rare Christian kills an abortionist or bombs a clinic, and all Christians get tarred. However, we are constantly having it drummed into us that Islam is the Religion of Peace...in spite of the fact that their radical believers commit mass murder.
A little parity would be nice.
Christiane Is a Christian
August 24, 2007 - 13:57 ET by Oiznop....of Lebanese descent, married to a Jew....however, I am not privy to her feelings toward religion in general..I would not be surprised if she were 100% secular....I watched the segments on the Jews, and on the Muslims, but I refused to watch the segment on the Christians....I was under the impression that it basically would be a slamfest, while, as suspected, Christiane did not tell the whole story of Islam by refusing to mention such lovely practices as death sentences for apostates, intimidation and thugary if you don't follow sharia by the book, abuse of women, polygamy, etc. None of these things were mentioned....In short, one can not compare fundamentailst Jews and Christians with fundamentalist Islam...Fundalmentalist Islam's (bad) behavior comes straight from the Koran and the Hadith, preaching hatred toward the "infidel" thus leading to this "we will dominate the world" mentality. You can't say that about the Torah or the New Testament....Yet the whole story was not told....Big surprise???...I'll take God's Christian and Jewish warriors any day over that of Islam. They are the lesser of the 3 evils, if they are even evil at all.
Lesser of the three evils
August 24, 2007 - 14:10 ET by cvgbuckeyeWas it your intent to label Jew, Muslim and Christian as the three evils? I'm not shocked; I'm just asking for a clarification.
Certainly Not
August 24, 2007 - 14:34 ET by OiznopWas it your intent to label Jew, Muslim and Christian as the three evils?
REPLY: Absolutley positively NO! The Fundamentalist branches of the three, possibly, but that really depends. For example, the perception of Fundamentalist Christians is that they are well known to get you to believe through aggressive attempts at conversion. Is this evil? That's for you to decide. The difference is that if you reject their approaches, the Fundamentalist Christain will move on to the next person to convert, where as the Fundamentalist Muslim attempting aggressive conversion will excede being aggressive and will cut off your head if you don't accept Allah as the only God. Again, in short, I guess what I am trying to say is that God's Christain and Jewish warriors are not nearly as dangerous as those who follow Islam. Hence, the end sentence "lesser of the 3 evils, if they are even evil at all." Sorry if I was unclear with that. Does that make better sense???
yes
August 24, 2007 - 14:50 ET by cvgbuckeyeYes, oiznop. The only problem with the secular reasoning of the world is that it refuses to recognize Absolute Truth.
Christians are commanded, by God, to take the Gospel to everyone and to the ends of the earth. This was not a request but a command.
You do point out the significant difference of moving on. Part of our Biblical instruction is that when rejected, we are to shake the dust off of our feet and move on.
Bill Hybells, in his series called "Just Walk Accross the Room", puts Evangelism into perspective in a way that I had never seen before. I encourage everyone who is interested in the concept of Evangelism to read it and watch the videos. It will change you perceptions dramatically.
"The only problem with the
August 24, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Khyris"The only problem with the secular reasoning of the world is that it refuses to recognize Absolute Truth"
That's not a problem, that's a feature. If it DID, then it wouldn't be called secular!
I'm reminded of Braveheart: "The trouble with Scotland... is that it's full of Scotts!"
The problem with "Absolute Truth" is that it is only "absolute" within the mind of the individual. Every mind's "truth" about the intangible will have differences that may or may not be communicable through language. Just think how differently the definitions of "good" and "evil" vary from person to person.
Secular reasoning exists to provide a common ground of definition, and enhance communication, by isolating such wild variations of a so-called "absolute".
Amanpour lusts to be Owned and Punished
August 24, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Lame CherryYou have to understand Chrisy Amanpour in how she relates to the world. This is the woman who runs around with a towel on her head, bowing to Muslim males and only speaking in sub tones when around these males.
That psychologically for a western woman says one thing sexually and that is she deeply wants to be owned and punished by the only males she views in the world as "real men". Muslims.
Behold her miserable life. She has been surrounded by feminine males in all her career and associations. Western males in majority are castrated into giving into every woman's demands. Amanpour hates Christians who are strong, because they tell her that her little sexual fetishes are wrong and she is concerned about those exciting but naughty Jewish males........who entice her, but they are following that same Christian God telling her bed bouncing with whoever she wants is wrong.
Freud said all things are sexual. They are not, but in Amanpour's case it is sexual and she is miserable. She looks to Islam as a covering religion (hence the garb) to make her feel secure. Islam also in hiding her will provide a male who she can finally be subordinate to. (Remember Ted Turner, Chris Matthews, John Roberts, crying Peter Arnette and Keith Olberman...these are the males she is around and she couldn't even get attacked by Bill Clinton, so her entire psyche is bruised.)
Chrisy Amanpour deep down is telling the world she desperately wants to reject the west and just have a Muslim male take her. She is parading around the entire Middle East and can't even get herself kidnapped.......think about that. Amanpour is in a culture which has the hots for white chics and like the sister in Little Big Man, all the Indians think she is a guy and don't want her.
It is not a stretch in her fantasy is probably to be kidnapped, sold at some auction and then spanked by her Master to be punished for her "sins" in her religion forced upon her, because Christians and Jews don't force religion on anyone.
The Catch 22 in this as it is for all Muslim males is this:
The women who gravitate toward these glowering Muslim turban wearing despot husbands........just like the western girlies who always date only the hulking Arnold jock types and marry them....deep down have a psychopathy of dominating these hulks in a submissive roll. They take extreme pleasure in getting a man who is bigger and stronger to do all their will.
Amanpour would be the same. She wants to be held marriage hostage and then like all Muslim women in the clothes bondage wreck unholy havoc on their Master. That is what subs always do and is one of the great secrets I exposed in Islam. It is the women with psychopathies behind these dom males who are actually dominating them and pushing them to violence.
CNN and Amanpour have no idea all they revealed about her in her little religion bashing stunt. She chose though warriors and not men of peace in the religion as the war turns her on and in this clash she is looking for her knight.......well her Muslim in smelly wool to come and wisk her away.
Perhaps in viewing Chrisy you can do it with more of a smile now in knowing what is going on in the towel wearing chic from CNN.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Brilliant!
August 24, 2007 - 14:36 ET by HelenSBrilliant! Excellent!! And wonderfully funny - but so true!
Bravo!!!
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
HUH?
August 24, 2007 - 14:57 ET by cvgbuckeyeLame Cherry:
I'm sure you gave that a lot of thought and it is great to have every ally to combat the type of thing that Amanpour and her secular network produced.
But I swear, I don't know what to think of your scenario. It sure gave me a smile, though. My goodness.
She's Holding Out For A Hero
August 24, 2007 - 15:40 ET by GothampcShe's married to a former assistant of Bill Clinton, so your scenario is probably not too far from the truth.
Lame you've invented a new Acronym....MTWDH
August 24, 2007 - 17:08 ET by JayTeeMuslim turban wearing despot husbands
Although I'm gonna hafta to look up "Despot" and Check out some Psychology books before I can pass judgement on most of what you said.
I would like to hear from you on Hillary.....but I don't think NB can handle that Analysis in print here.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Go For IT LC
August 24, 2007 - 18:40 ET by NoMoreClintonsI would like to hear from you on Hillary.....but I don't think NB can handle that Analysis in print here.
Sure, we can handle it . . . go for it Lame Cherry!
This one is pretty good
August 24, 2007 - 20:02 ET by general companyhttp://newsbusters.org/node/13646
Hope you dont mind LC
CNN & the MSM: The
August 24, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Chris NormanCNN & the MSM: The Secularists' Warriors
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Amanpour's Straw Argument
August 24, 2007 - 14:51 ET by GothampcNotice in the third part, when Amanpour is interviewing Ron Luce. Luce is talking about how on his campus there is a requirement for the length of a woman's skirt. Amanpour, desperate to throw some mud, claims "Isn't that what the Taliban was doing?" It seems to escape her that Luce's organization is one where people choose to attend and can leave any time if they don't agree. The only way a woman could escape the Taliban was through death.
I actually suffered through
August 24, 2007 - 15:16 ET by bigtimerI actually suffered through some of this last night on a repeat....
When she got to her adoration for a real creep as far as I am concerned, I could not take anymore.
Hypocritical obvious biased witch...that is what she is to me, always has been always will be.
"adoration of a real creep"
August 24, 2007 - 15:47 ET by RJDo you mean the large time segment she turned over to a Jimmy Carter-led indictment of the right?
Lesson from World War II
August 24, 2007 - 15:58 ET by LCT688This bimbo has either forgotten or is ignoring a fundamental (pardon the term) lesson from the end of the war with Japan. Not only did we dictate their constitution but we also told them that if they wanted to continue practicing Shinto that was their business but that we would not tolerate it being taught in government schools or being used as a basis of political, governmental or military policy and there would be no negotiation or discussion on the matter. But apparently for CA and the rest of the MSM crowd that's ok as long as it only the Muslims who are doing it. What a deceitful a__ hole she is
blaster, I beg to differ
August 24, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Tom in NCblaster,
I beg to differ fom you but God is mentioned in the very first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
People!!! You need clarification!!!!!
August 24, 2007 - 16:21 ET by Mr. KafirThere is no such thing as fundamentalist Judaism!!! None. Nada.
There are 3 recognized BRANCHES of Judaism, which all believe in the exact same Torah and Talmud. It is their interpretation of HALACHA or Jewish law that are different. The sects are: Reform (not Reformed!), Conservative, and Orthodox.
As for Christianity (I am not a Christian), there appears to be one sect that everyone seems to think are fundamentalists and that is Evangelical Christianity. I prefer to say the Amish are fundamentalists as they seem to take the Bible quit literally.
"there appears to be one
August 24, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Gothampc"there appears to be one sect that everyone seems to think are fundamentalists and that is Evangelical Christianity."
Well, it's not quite that simple. Jimmy Carter calls himself Evangelical, yet has very liberal beliefs not in line with basic Bible principles.
The main point about Christianity is that its Fundamental beliefs are different from Islam's Fundamental beliefs. Jesus said that Christians should love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. There is a lot being done in the name of Jesus that is not Christian. Jesus would not have approved of suicide bombers nor hatred toward the Jews. There are many good Christians who would be considered fundamentalist because they take the Bible literally. Many liberals and the main stream media have painted these people as intolerant demons.
Your point is well-taken.
August 24, 2007 - 17:43 ET by Mr. KafirYour point is well-taken. Christianity and Islam are diametrically opposed to each other. Christianity, following the Jewish principles, chooses life over the cult of death like Islam does.
But what does "fundamentalism" mean in terms of religion? Literal interpretation of their scriptures? Living a simple life? This would help clarify the term.
Fundamentalist Christianity
August 24, 2007 - 20:29 ET by Gothampc"
But what does "fundamentalism" mean in terms of religion?"
For Christians I believe that fundamentalism is a literal interpretation of the scripture. For Christians, fundamentalism is attempting to live as close to the life of Jesus as possible. Trying to pattern one's life in such a way that God would be pleased with the life they live. One of the problems with some Christians is that they haven't been taught the scriptures as well as the Jews have. Fundamentalist Christians believe in using the Bible as a mirror to show them how to live.
Yet they sometimes ignore very obvious things in the Scripture. Liberals like Jimmy Carter do this quite often. They will say things like "Jesus would want you to feed the poor" which is true, but Jesus never said anything about using government funds to do it. The method of Jesus would be to do it out of your own pocket and God will see your generous heart and reward you. Jesus never said that money should be stolen from your paycheck before you ever see it.
For fundamentalist Christians, they are divided about living a simple life. My personal belief is that God wants Christians to enjoy life. I believe the Bible when it says that through the example of the Jews all nations of the Earth have the opportunity to be blessed. If you turn to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then He will reward your faithfulness with a good life.
There is no such thing ......
August 24, 2007 - 17:56 ET by ForeverOnTheRight"There is no such thing as fundamentalist Judaism!!! None. Nada."
True, and false. Their is no branch of Judaism that is labled "fundimentalist," but Orthodox Judaism is "fundamentalist" in practice.