Which are the authentic believers: radicals or moderates?

In these troubled times, a debate has opened up about the role of religious fundamentalism. Which are the authentic representatives of their faith: the radicals who have been causing so much trouble, or the moderates who blend unnoticed into society?

A radical meets a moderate, or vice-versa.

It's a shocking thing for a blogger to say, but it is not the moderate Christians who reflect the teachings of their founder. As Mayor Sadiq Khan has said "Living in a big city, we must accept radical Christians, loving their neighbours, giving alms to the poor, visiting the sick, sheltering the homeless, protecting the weak, and so on. But there is no need to panic."

Of course most Christians are anxious to deny that they do "good deeds". They just want to fit in with society, for example by approving of abortion, or homosexual relationships.

Nancy Pelosi explains: we can be Christian without taking Christ seriously!

But the police are aware that some Christian preachers - a minority, certainly - are radicalising their flock with aggressive slogans such as "Love thy neighbour", "Obey my commandments", and "Peace be with you". There are destinations such as Jerusalem, Rome, Lourdes - even Walsingham - where people are deliberately encouraged to take Christ's teaching seriously.

Lourdes - should we allow people who have been there to re-enter the country?

There are those who claim that "true" Christianity is the moderate sort practised by ordinary non-religious Christians - the ones who attend church once a year, get drunk, watch porn, fiddle their taxes, and tell lies when they feel like it; but they have a weak case. For, look at the Founder of the religion, and He was nothing at all like that. No, those irritating do-gooders who cause such a nuisance may actually be nearer to the true faith. And - harsh though it may be - we should judge a religion by its founder. Unless it is Islam.

A charismatic Christian - probably the most irritating sort.