I think the point of it is that it unveils the reality of religion - for the most part it has no effect on the politically-correct, cliched "Moral Values" that are propped up at every instance to support religion as a positive societal force.
Religious or not, people are primates are animals and, by these facts, prone to instinctual, emotional, irrational behavior under a variety of circumstances (stress, disorder, disease, and so on).
See, religion is a tradition. It is an indoctrinal passage within family and soceity. There is little to be done to foster more knowledgable, scientific, realistic views under these self-perpetuating circumstances. That is, except by example. The more widespread the information concerning how religion either plays a part in or actually plays no part in criminal activities of the religiously professed the less a force it becomes.
Look at the stigmatism being created within the Muslim religions caused by the rampant terrorism (in its name), gender inequality, among others. They are being forced to reconsider their religion, values, traditions, political structures in the face of a possible world-wide retaliatory action. At some point, if something horrific enough occurs, there will be 1/2 to 1 million multinational troops redecorating the MiddleEast. There are already nearly 200,000 troops there now (mostly American soldiers).
But the other enlightening embodiment is that it puts one more nail in the coffin of the "atheists/skeptics are second class citizens", "atheists/skeptics are immoral", and the other profanities and degradations poured upon us. The story won't hold up for long that every religious person that commits a crime is real an atheist underneath. How does that work with clergy?
Would that mean that the concervative right wing is pro -atheist?