Here are just some observations about Channel 4’s Dispatches two weeks ago (“In God’s Name”), featuring a group of fundamentalist Christians, and how it compared to their “Undercover mosques” episode a year ago, which centred on the Muslim community.

Though some may feel the Christian Evangelical movement received similar treatment from Dispatches to that lay previously on the Muslim community, there are some blatant differences:

Most obvious of all was the open nature of the documentary in opposition to the deceitful nature of the previous slot on the Muslim community. Dependent upon this was also the fact that speakers were given chances to explain themselves in the correct context in which they wished to be quoted. Despite this, the most tactful and media-savvy Christian in the programme, the representative for the Lawyer’s Christian Fellowship, was caught embarrassingly tongue-tied on more than occasion (once for claiming that science always backed up Biblical values, before then espousing a view that the earth was 4,000 years old). In the end she asked for the microphone to be turned off on one occasion, and turned it off herself on the other.

One wonders why respected Muslim figures such as Bilal Philips and Khalid Yasin, themselves regular speakers to non-Muslim crowds, were never given a chance to be grilled for the duration of the programme in a similar manner, instead of having half-sentences selectively aired on television seemingly promulgating a message quite blatantly opposed to anything they would ever say in private or in public. Could it be that such figures not easily caught tongue-tied due to inconsistencies in their rationale could only be shown as evil and extremist after such selective use and heavy editing?

Will the Christian who suggested at the end of the programme that the British public may stand in arms against any future Muslim in government be prosecuted for incitement of hatred?

It was interesting to note that Christians campaign against the legalisation of abortion, and at the same time state there is no hierarchy in sins, placing abortion alongside adultery and any other such vice. On what grounds then do such Christians criticise Islam for illegalising, according to the state, adultery and fornication? If, as Christians claim, Jesus forbade anyone who had sinned (i.e. anyone) from casting the first stone (against the adulterer), should the same be said of casting the proverbial stone against the abortionist; ultimately, according to Christianity, why should we as sinning people be judging the abortionist? If on the other hand the object of criticism in the Bible is that of punishment and not of mere illegalisation, how then would the Christians deal with one who has broken the law?

Aside from that it was almost inspiring to see a people stand up for what they believe in; inspiring in the sense that Muslims should take a lesson from their proactive stances. This is in stark contrast to the few Muslim MPs in Parliament, who continue to embarrass us by refraining from voting in a way that would place them under scrutiny from other party members.

Look out for the rise of these Born-Agains in coming months. From personal experience they are not as marginal as one would think.

Watch the program here.