Yeah, well, there’s attention and there’s attention. I want the feds “engaging” with both Islamic radicals and Christians, but when it comes to prioritization and, er, thoroughness, there’s no question who comes first.

It is “common sense” for Christianity to be sidelined at the expense of Islam, a Government minister claimed on Sunday…

She said it was right that more money and effort was spent on Islam than Christianity because of the threat from extremism and home-grown terrorism.

Ms Blears told BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme: “That’s just common sense. If we’ve got an issue where we have to build resilience of young Muslim men and women to withstand an extremist message.”…

She added: “We live in a secular democracy. That’s a precious thing. We don’t live in a theocracy, but we’ve always accepted that hundreds of thousands of people are motivated by faith. We live in a secular democracy but we want to recognise the role of faith.”

The Church of England bishop responsible for the report, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, said afterwards: “She said we live in a secular democracy. That comes as news to me – we have an established Church, but the Government can’t deal with Christianity.”

Touche. The inevitable reply is that this will create a perverse incentive for Christians to radicalize, but it won’t really, unless you think that getting the government’s attention is more important to believers than proper practice of Christianity. It’s like the good child who gets overlooked while its parents fret about the wayward sibling: Goodness will have to be its own reward.

Also at the link, the prime minister of Malaysia urges the Brits to be nice chaps and let Muslims live under shari’a. Remind me, which Christian sect’s leader was it who made the same suggestion earlier this year? Ah yes.