How different are Christian and Islamic fundamentalists?

Yesterday, I wrote a post, blatantly swiping Sarah Posner's work in The American Prospect, about John Hagee, an influential televangelist who's used his TV show, his books and an extensive network of conservative evangelicals to lobby for a war with Iran as the first step towards bringing about the Rapture.

It brought a visitor, a self-described "Christian fundamentalist," who took umbrage at the fact that some commenters dared suggest that Christian fundamentalists are just as … sane as their Muslim counterparts. It's a great comment, and raises an interesting question.

I know its superstition to you learned ones but…

Like it or not the bible does make very specific references to a war involving Persia (Iran) with its allies Gog (Russia) invading from the North with the resulting war leaving "blood up to the horses bridles". But be that as it may …

Well, like it or not, fundamentalists of all stripes believe -- to varying degrees -- in a literal interpretation of their respective holy texts. That's fine when it comes to Thou Shalt Not Steal, but is quite dangerous when it allows people to do harm to "nonbelievers" and think it's a righteous act. There are certainly examples of that kind of fundamentalism -- violent fundies -- in each of the "big three" religions.

This opening also makes it perfectly clear that there's no possibility for common ground here. We're facing an unshakable Biblical worldview, and that's that.

Being a "fundamentalist" myself (a much maligned group if there ever was one) …

Time for an aside. This comment is a perfect example of (right-wing) populism. First, s/he says "you learned ones," which captures the out-of-touch intellectual elitism that liberalism is supposed to represent. The implication is that our commenter, by contrast, is a more "genuine" American -- s/he may not have fancy book learnin', but, presumably, that's made up by an excess of common "horse sense." Implied also, is that those out-of-touch elite types are repressing noble commonfolk like our visitor -- our guest also wrote: "I know that you people love to villify "fundamentalists"- villfy hell., it is really DISCRIMNATE AGAINST us and thats OK."

It's a perfectly appealing message, perfectly divorced from reality and it's been perfectly effective for the past two decades in American politics.

… we do not believe, like the Iranian president who is invoking the "hidden Imam" that we are to "push" a war with Iran. We do believe in it's certainty but that these events will happen on Gods timing and not ours. Nothing we can do will make it happen sooner or later. But we do believe that it will happen and it will be a deadful thing.

Remember that this is a response to a post about a fundamentalist Christian who, unlike Ahmadinejad, is actively promoting a war to bring about the end Times.

By "hidden Imam" I assume we're talking about the Mahdi, Imam Zaman, the 12th Century Shi'ite cleric whose body was "hidden" by Allah and who, according to believers, will someday return to bring justice to the earth. While Jesus' return is a universal belief in Christianity (correct me if there are some obscure sects that don't buy it), belief in the Mahdi's return is limited to a minority of Persian and Indian Shi'ites.

What's more, the Christian version has Jesus saving the good believers and condemning the rest of us to hell. The Mahdi is supposed to return to establish justice on earth and rule benignly. As someone who is not an adherent of either faith, I'll take the Mahdi over Jesus any day -- I don't relish the thought of burning in Hell any more than the next guy.

Here's another difference. Hagee can go around calling for Armageddon, and it's no problem. Not so among Persian Shi'ites who believe the Mahdi will return.