How Judeo-Christian Myth Manufactures Enemies and Evades Accountability

By Andrew Klein

Introduction: The Young Woman Who Was Taught to Blame Giants

Last night, my wife and I spoke about a young woman—a survivor of domestic violence and spiritual abuse—who had been taught in an Evangelical church that the world is controlled by “fallen angels,” “hybrids,” and “giants.” Her abusers convinced her that the evil she experienced was not the responsibility of the men who harmed her, but of cosmic forces beyond anyone’s control.

We laughed about it, because the absurdity is almost unbearable. But beneath the laughter is a deadly serious truth: the habit of blaming external forces for human evil is one of the oldest and most destructive patterns in Judeo-Christian civilization.

This article traces that pattern—from the ancient myth of the Nephilim to the modern myth of “demonic” political enemies—and argues that without accountability, there is no wisdom. And without wisdom, there is only endless violence, endless war, endless excuses.

Part One: The Origin of the Excuse – The Nephilim and the Flood

The Book of Genesis tells a strange story:

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:1–4, ESV).

The text is notoriously ambiguous. Who were the “sons of God”? Early Jewish tradition identified them as angels who rebelled against God, took human wives, and produced a race of giants—the Nephilim—whose wickedness prompted the Flood.

By the time the Book of Enoch was written (c. 300–200 BCE), the story had expanded into a full-blown mythology. Enoch describes 200 “Watchers” who descended to earth, taught humanity forbidden arts, and corrupted the world. Their offspring, the Nephilim, were giants who “consumed all the acquisitions of men” and turned the earth into a slaughterhouse.

The theological function of this myth is clear: the evil that provoked the Flood was not human evil. It was the result of supernatural corruption. God destroyed the world because the angels made it impossible for humans to be good.

This is the original scapegoat. The first cosmic excuse.

Part Two: The Myth of the “Fallen Angels” – Weaponizing the Supernatural

The mythology of fallen angels was further developed by early Christian writers. The Epistle of Jude references the Book of Enoch as authoritative scripture, describing angels who “did not stay within their own position of authority” and are now “kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness” (Jude 1:6). The Second Epistle of Peter similarly describes angels who sinned and were cast into “hell” to be kept until judgment (2 Peter 2:4).

By the time of the Church Fathers, the idea that the world was controlled by demons had become central to Christian theology. Origen, Augustine, and others developed elaborate hierarchies of demonic powers, attributing to them the capacity to tempt, deceive, and corrupt humanity.

The effect was to displace human responsibility. Sin was not merely a human failing—it was the work of supernatural agents who could be blamed, exorcised, and fought as an external enemy.

This is the theological foundation for the modern myth of “spiritual warfare”—the belief that political conflicts, cultural shifts, and personal struggles are not the result of human choices but of demonic forces arrayed against the faithful.

Part Three: The Modern “Fallen Angel” – Netanyahu and the Weaponization of Amalek

The pattern is not confined to ancient texts. It is alive and well in contemporary politics.

On March 2, 2026, Benjamin Netanyahu invoked the biblical nation of Amalek—the people God commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy, “both man and woman, child and baby” (1 Samuel 15:3). He framed the war on Iran not as a strategic necessity but as a holy mission against an enemy that exists outside the normal rules of morality.

This is the same logic that fuels Christian Zionism and dispensationalist theology—the belief that modern Israel is a prophetic necessity, that wars in the Middle East are signs of the End Times, and that enemies must be destroyed without mercy because they are not merely political opponents but demonic forces.

When Netanyahu calls Iran “Amalek,” he is not describing a geopolitical reality. He is invoking a myth that exempts his actions from moral scrutiny. You cannot negotiate with Amalek. You cannot make peace with Amalek. You can only destroy Amalek.

This is the ultimate evasion of accountability. It is not a strategy. It is a theology.

Part Four: The Evangelical Weapon – Dispensationalism and the End Times

The same theology that animates Netanyahu’s rhetoric also shapes American foreign policy. The dispensationalist movement, which emerged in the 19th century, teaches that human history is divided into distinct “dispensations” and that the current age will end with the Rapture, a seven-year Tribulation, and the Battle of Armageddon.

John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has spent decades teaching that the modern state of Israel is a prophetic necessity and that wars in the Middle East are signs of the End Times. In his 2026 sermons, Hagee explicitly framed the war on Iran as part of God’s plan for the final days.

This is not fringe theology. It is the official worldview of millions of American evangelicals. And it has direct policy consequences:

· The 2018 move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem

· The 2019 recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights

· The 2025-26 war on Iran

Each of these was supported by evangelicals who believe they are not making political decisions but fulfilling prophecy.

Part Five: The Australian Mirror – The Lobby and the Language

The same pattern operates in Australia, though in a more sanitized form.

The appointment of Jillian Segal as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, the adoption of the IHRA definition that conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, the legal framework that equates “All Zionists are terrorists” with racial vilification—these are not simply responses to antisemitism. They are tools to silence accountability.

When the Australian government supports the US-Israeli war on Iran while calling for “de-escalation,” it is not governing. It is managing. It is avoiding the hard question: what is Australia’s interest in this war?

The answer, of course, is that there is no Australian interest. There is only the interest of a foreign lobby that has successfully convinced Australian politicians that opposing Israel is equivalent to antisemitism—and that antisemitism is a greater threat than war, famine, or global instability.

This is accountability evasion at the national level. Blame the “antisemites.” Blame the “terrorists.” Blame the “demonic forces.” But never, ever blame the politicians who enable war, the corporations who profit from it, or the systems that sustain it.

Part Six: The Psychology of Blame – Why We Need Enemies

The human need for external enemies is well-documented. Social psychology has shown that groups under stress tend to:

· Identify an “out-group” to blame for their problems

· Dehumanize that group through language and imagery

· Mobilize against it as a way of consolidating in-group identity

· Avoid internal accountability by focusing on external threats

This is the mechanism that turns political conflicts into holy wars, that transforms political opponents into “enemies of the people,” that makes negotiation impossible and compromise treasonous .

The mythology of fallen angels, giants, and demons is a sophisticated version of this basic psychological pattern. It takes the normal human tendency to blame others and elevates it to cosmic significance. It makes compromise not merely politically difficult but theologically impossible.

Part Seven: The Cost of Evasion

The cost of this evasion is incalculable.

In Gaza: Over 50,000 dead, millions displaced, a generation traumatized—while Israeli leaders invoke Amalek and American evangelicals cheer prophecy fulfilled.

In Iran: Thousands dead, a region destabilized, the Strait of Hormuz closed—while Netanyahu claims he is “creating conditions for Iranian freedom” and Trump insists the war is nearly over.

In Australia: A cost-of-living crisis exacerbated by war, fuel prices soaring, food security threatened—while the government prevaricates and the lobby dictates the terms of debate.

In the soul: A generation taught that evil is not their responsibility. That the world is controlled by demons, not decisions. That they are not accountable—because they are fighting cosmic forces that cannot be negotiated with, only destroyed.

This is the ultimate corruption. It is not merely bad policy. It is bad theology. It is the belief that you can bomb your way to peace, that you can demonize your way to virtue, that you can avoid accountability by inventing enemies.

Part Eight: Without Accountability, There Is No Wisdom

The philosopher Hannah Arendt, writing about the Holocaust, observed that the greatest evil is not committed by monsters but by ordinary people who refuse to think—who accept the narratives they are given, who follow orders, who avoid the discomfort of asking “what am I doing?”

The myth of fallen angels, giants, and demons is the ultimate refusal to think. It is a story that tells us we are not responsible for our actions because we are fighting supernatural forces. It is an excuse for cruelty, a justification for violence, a license to kill without guilt.

But without accountability, there is no wisdom. And without wisdom, there is no peace.

The ancient prophets understood this. When Israel was defeated, they did not blame the gods of their enemies. They blamed themselves. They said: we have sinned. We have turned away. We have broken the covenant. And because we have failed to hold ourselves accountable, we have been defeated.

That is wisdom. That is the opposite of myth. That is the hard truth that allows a people to grow, to learn, to become.

Conclusion: The Choice

We have a choice. We can continue to blame the giants—the demons, the terrorists, the “others” who threaten our way of life. We can continue to avoid accountability by inventing cosmic enemies. We can continue to make war in the name of prophecy.

Or we can stop. We can look at ourselves. We can ask the hard questions: what have we done? What are we doing? What will we answer for?

Without accountability, there is no wisdom. Without wisdom, there is no peace. Without peace, there is only endless war—fought in the name of gods who never asked for it, for causes that were never ours, against enemies we invented to avoid looking in the mirror.

The young woman who was taught to blame giants has begun to heal. She has started to understand that the evil she experienced was not the work of supernatural forces—it was the work of men who refused to be accountable. And in that understanding, she has found the beginning of wisdom.

May we all find it too.

Sources

1. Oxford Bibliographies, “Fallen Angels,” August 2025

2. North-West University, “The Origin and Nature of the Nephilim,” 2023

3. InterVarsity Press, “Dictionary of New Testament Background,” 2000

4. ABC Religion & Ethics, “End Times: How American Evangelicals Learned to Love the Bomb,” 2024

5. Journal of Psychology and Theology, “The Psychology of Demonization,” 2021

6. Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, 1963

Published by Andrew Klein

Love, Compassion, and the Human Tendency to Bury It

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: The Pattern Beneath the Noise

There is a strange irony in how humans treat the words of their greatest teachers.

Jesus said: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” Mohammed said: “None of you has faith until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” Moses commanded: “You must love your neighbour as yourself.” The Buddha taught: “Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life, cultivate a boundless heart toward all beings.”

These are not subtle variations. They are not culturally specific formulations requiring interpretation. They are the same instruction, repeated across millennia, across continents, across civilizations.

And yet, what do humans do with this instruction?

They build institutions that argue about who belongs and who doesn’t. They create hierarchies that decide who is worthy and who is not. They develop dogmas that define the boundaries of acceptable belief. They fight wars over whose version of the message is correct.

In the arguing, they lose the thing itself.

This article examines that pattern. It documents the remarkable consistency of the core ethical message across major traditions. It explores how that message gets buried under institutional weight. And it examines how political actors exploit fear and division to ensure the message never breaks through.

Part I: What They Actually Said

The Teaching of Moses

The Hebrew scriptures are explicit about the treatment of others. The book of Leviticus commands: “You must not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. You must not exact vengeance, nor must you bear a grudge against the children of your people. You must love your neighbour as yourself. I am the Lord.” 

This is not a suggestion. It is presented as an extension of divine holiness itself. Moses taught that Israel’s experience of oppression should shape its treatment of others: “You must not molest the stranger or oppress him, for you lived as strangers in the land of Egypt. You must not be harsh with the widow, or with the orphan.” 

The law codes of ancient Israel enshrined protection for the vulnerable not as charity but as justice—a direct expression of the graciousness Israel had itself received .

The Teaching of Jesus

Jesus was asked directly: “Which is the greatest commandment of the law?” His answer drew from the scriptures he knew: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.” But he did not stop there. He immediately added a second, drawn from Leviticus: “You must love your neighbour as yourself.” Then he said something remarkable: “The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” 

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructs his disciples that their love for him must be total—and that this love must be put into action in their service of all peoples, “especially the poor and needy.” 

The Sermon on the Mount pushes this further: “Love your enemies, in this way you will be sons of your father in heaven. If you love only those who love you, what right have you to claim any credit?” 

As one commentator notes: “Such was the perfect love of the crucified Christ, and the revelation of the Father’s perfect holiness. It is only in the grace of that same Lord that we can strive to become perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect.” 

The Teaching of Mohammed

The Quran states explicitly that Prophet Muhammad was sent as “a mercy for all creatures” (Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:107). Mercy is not an aspect of his message—it is the core .

Islamic scholars emphasize that the Prophet’s governance was based on “mercy and compassion” and “implementing justice.” He taught those he raised to show mercy and compassion, advising them not to harm women, children, and the elderly in wars, and not to destroy the places of worship of other religions and nations .

The Prophet’s treatment of prisoners demonstrates this ethic. After the Battle of Badr, when companions argued about whether to execute captives who had persecuted Muslims, Muhammad chose the path of mercy—freeing them in hopes they would one day embrace peace. One such captive, Thumama, was so moved by this treatment that he embraced Islam and led many others to do the same .

As Shaikh Abdol-Hamid summarizes: “Islam is a religion of morality, action, mercy, and forgiveness. In the era of the Prophet and his companions, Islam spread through ethical behavior. Islam is a religion that detaches a person from attachment to materialism and the self, connecting them to Allah Almighty, and brings about selflessness and humanity.” 

The Teaching of the Buddha

The Karaniya Metta Sutta, one of the most beloved texts of early Buddhism, offers this instruction:

“Whatever living beings there may be;

Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,

The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,

The seen and the unseen,

Those living near and far away,

Those born and to-be-born,

May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,

Or despise any being in any state.

Let none through anger or ill-will

Wish harm upon another.

Even as a mother protects with her life

Her child, her only child,

So with a boundless heart

Should one cherish all living beings.” 

This is metta—loving-kindness. Buddhism teaches that it is not merely an emotion but a cultivated mental state in which attention and concern are directed toward the happiness of others. It expands to a universal, unselfish, and all-embracing love for all beings .

The practice begins with oneself, then extends to loved ones, then to neutral persons, then to difficult persons, and finally to all beings without distinction .

Part II: The Common Thread

The pattern is unmistakable.

Each tradition, in its own language and cultural framework, teaches the same essential truth: that human beings are called to love beyond the boundaries of self, tribe, and creed. That the vulnerable deserve protection. That mercy is not weakness but strength. That our common humanity matters more than our differences.

Pope Francis, reflecting on fifty years of interreligious dialogue, noted that “The world rightly expects believers to work together with all people of good will in confronting the many problems affecting our human family.” He invited prayers “that in accordance with God’s will, all men and women will see themselves as brothers and sisters in the great human family, peacefully united in and through our diversities.” 

The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions stated plainly: “One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God.” 

This is not relativism. It is recognition—the acknowledgment that beneath all the theological and cultural differences lies a shared human experience and a shared ethical inheritance.

Part III: What Humans Do Instead

If the message is so clear, why is the world so far from living it?

The answer lies in what humans do with simple truths. They complicate them. They institutionalize them. They turn them into weapons.

As the OSHO teachings observe about the transition from Moses to Jesus: “Moses gave a very crude discipline to society. He could not have done better—there was no way. Human consciousness existed in a very, very primitive way. A little bit of civilization was more than one could expect. But Moses prepared the way, and Jesus is the fulfillment. What Moses started, Jesus completes.” 

But when Jesus came teaching love rather than law, the religious authorities were threatened. “To the Jews, particularly the priests, the politicians, it appeared that the law would be destroyed by Jesus; hence they were angry. And they were right too. The law would be destroyed in a sense, because a higher law would be coming in.” 

The pattern repeats. Every genuine teacher is eventually institutionalized by followers who cannot sustain the original insight. The message of love becomes a set of rules. The rules become a boundary. The boundary becomes a wall. And the wall becomes a weapon.

Part IV: The Political Exploitation of Fear

The other force that buries the message is political.

Politicians have always known that fear and hate are shortcuts. They bypass the prefrontal cortex and head straight for the amygdala. Logic doesn’t stand a chance against a well-timed fear. Reason can’t compete with a perfectly aimed hate.

Recent research from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, part of the MORES project, documents how leaders use emotional manipulation to consolidate power. Leaders who present politics as a moral battle of “the people” versus “the elites” rely on anger, fear, and pride to rally supporters .

This is not accidental. Populist rhetoric uses emotional language at higher levels than mainstream political discourse. Its emotional charge is deliberate. Research shows that emotional language is highly persuasive .

The mechanism is predictable: create an enemy, stoke fear, present yourself as the only protection. Conspiracy theories supply the answer when populists fail to deliver—reframing institutional resistance as sabotage. Such rhetoric shifts politics from debate to identity. Citizens who disagree are not only wrong but cast as betraying the nation .

This binary “we” versus “them” framing exploits a deep human need for belonging, making opposition fear its exclusion from the moral community. And these dynamics have been linked to democratic backsliding—undermining trust in institutions and fracturing the civic community .

Part V: What We Can Do

The research also offers hope. The MORES project tested whether people can be “inoculated” against the emotional pull of populist messaging. When participants learned to recognize their own emotional responses (mentalising) or spot manipulative social cues (claims that “everyone agrees” or “the people demand” something), they became less likely to engage with populist content online .

This matters. It means we are not helpless. It means awareness is protection.

The same principle applies to the distortion of spiritual teachings. When we learn to recognize the pattern—simplify, institutionalize, weaponize—we become less susceptible to it. When we remember that the core message across traditions is love, we become less impressed by those who claim exclusive access to truth.

Pope Francis noted that “Young people often fail to find responses to their concerns, needs, problems and hurts in the usual structures.” Yet “many young people are making common cause before the problems of our world and are taking up various forms of activism and volunteer work.” 

They do so, often, in a spirit of interreligious friendship. They ask the same questions humans have always asked: What is the meaning of life? What is moral good? Whence suffering? Where are we going? 

And in asking together, they find common ground.

Conclusion: The Message Remains

The message has not changed. It has only been buried.

Jesus said it. Mohammed said it. Moses said it. Buddha said it. Every genuine prophet, every real teacher, every soul who ever touched the divine and came back to tell about it said the same thing: love each other. Take care of the poor. Don’t kill. Be kind.

But humans can’t leave it alone. They build institutions, hierarchies, dogmas. They decide who’s in and who’s out. They argue about who got it right and who got it wrong. And in the arguing, they lose the thing itself.

Politicians exploit this. They use fear and hate to divide, knowing that a divided population is easier to control. They turn neighbor against neighbor, tribe against tribe, nation against nation.

But the message remains. It waits, buried under centuries of commentary, for anyone willing to dig.

The path forward is not to choose which tradition is “correct.” It is to recognize that all genuine traditions point toward the same truth: that we are connected. That our well-being depends on the well-being of others. That love is not a sentiment but a practice.

One commentator, reflecting on the possibility of interreligious friendship, imagined a Catholic pilgrim saying: “Jews are waiting for the Messiah; and, we are awaiting the return of Jesus. Wouldn’t it be something else if we were waiting for the same person? Maybe we should work together for peace before he gets here.” 

That is the spirit needed. Not certainty about who is right, but commitment to what is good.

The message is simple. It always was.

Love your neighbour. Care for the vulnerable. Be kind.

Everything else is just commentary.

References

1. Jesuit Prayer Ministry. (2025). Daily Gospel eMessage: Matthew 10:37-42.

2. Shaikh Abdol-Hamid. (2024). Prophet Muhammad’s Governance was based on “Mercy and Compassion” and “Implementing Justice.” Friday prayer sermon, Zahedan.

3. OSHO Online Library. I Say Unto You, Vol. 1. The relationship between Moses and Jesus.

4. Lion’s Roar. (2024). What is Metta, or Loving-Kindness?

5. MORES Project. (2025). Inoculating Against Populist Manipulation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

6. National Catholic Register. (2015). Interreligious Dialogue Benefits the Common Good and the Formation of Young People.

7. Catholic Herald. (2020). Put selfless love at the heart of everything you do.

8. Al-Azhar Observatory. (2018). Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): The Birth of Mercy to Humankind.

9. Catholic Herald. (2011). Moses’s blueprint for a compassionate society.

10. Lion’s Roar. (2014). May All Beings Be at Ease! The Metta Sutta.

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is also, technically, an ordained Reverend Father, which he used as cover to fight for the underdog. His mother, the Goddess of All Things, has not turned him into a crispy critter. Yet. 😉

How Religion Perfected Fundraising While Forgetting Everything Else

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

20^th February 2026

Introduction: The Eternal Ledger

There is a pattern that repeats across every religion, every culture, every century. It is so consistent, so universal, that one might almost think it was divinely ordained—except that it has nothing to do with divinity and everything to do with human nature.

The pattern is this:

“Bring your wallet to temple” they remember perfectly. “Love your neighbor as yourself”? Not so much. The tithe is sacred; the stranger is suspect.

From the temples of Jerusalem to the megachurches of America, from the mosques of the Middle East to the ashrams of India, the same dynamic plays out. Religious institutions become experts at fundraising, at property management, at political influence. They build magnificent buildings, accumulate vast wealth, command unwavering loyalty. And in the process, they forget the very thing they were supposedly founded to remember: that the divine is not interested in your wallet.

This article examines that pattern across traditions, with particular attention to the silence of Western Christian churches regarding the genocide in Gaza—a silence that reveals the true priorities of institutional religion. It names the hypocrisy of Christian Zionists, evangelicals, and pastors who claim to follow a prophet of peace while blessing the machinery of death. And it asks a simple question: if your religion has perfected fundraising but forgotten the stranger, what exactly are you worshipping?

Part I: The Pattern Across Traditions

Judaism: The Weight of the Law

The Hebrew Bible is explicit about the treatment of strangers. “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34). This commandment appears no fewer than 36 times in the Torah—more than any other single injunction .

Yet the prophetic literature is filled with condemnation of a religious establishment that had perfected ritual observance while abandoning ethical substance. The prophet Isaiah thunders: “What need have I of all your sacrifices? … Your new moons and fixed seasons fill Me with loathing; they are become a burden to Me, I cannot endure them. And when you lift up your hands, I will turn My eyes away from you; though you pray at length, I will not listen. Your hands are stained with crime—wash yourselves, make yourselves clean. Remove the evil of your doings from My sight. Cease to do evil; learn to do good. Devote yourselves to justice; aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; defend the cause of the widow” (Isaiah 1:11-17).

The pattern is already established: ritual observance (including, presumably, the bringing of tithes to the Temple) has superseded ethical conduct. The machinery of religion runs smoothly while the vulnerable suffer.

The Talmud itself contains warnings about this tendency. Rabbi Yochanan said: “Jerusalem was destroyed only because they judged according to the law of the Torah” (Bava Metzia 30b)—meaning they insisted on strict legal interpretation without going “beyond the letter of the law” in matters of compassion.

Christianity: The Widow’s Mite and the Megachurch

The Christian scriptures are equally clear about priorities. Jesus explicitly condemns religious fundraising that neglects the vulnerable: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Matthew 23:23).

The Gospels record Jesus driving moneychangers from the Temple—a direct confrontation with the commercialization of religious practice. His teachings consistently prioritize the poor, the outcast, the stranger. The parable of the sheep and goats makes salvation conditional on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, welcoming the stranger (Matthew 25:31-46).

Yet by the fourth century, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the pattern had already reasserted itself. Church councils debated property rights and episcopal succession with the same intensity they once devoted to theology. The “widow’s mite”—the poor woman whose small offering Jesus praised—became a fundraising tool rather than a teaching about proportional sacrifice .

Today, the pattern has reached its apotheosis in the megachurch phenomenon. Pastor salaries in the millions, private jets, multi-million dollar sanctuaries—all funded by tithes from working-class congregants who are told that “blessing” the church will bring “blessings” from God. The prosperity gospel, as scholar Kate Bowler documents, has transformed American Christianity into a “name it and claim it” enterprise where donations are investments in divine returns .

Islam: Zakat and Its Subversion

Islam’s third pillar, zakat, is mandatory almsgiving—a fixed percentage of wealth to be distributed to the poor. The Quran is emphatic: “The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and for the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah” (Quran 9:60).

Yet here too, the pattern appears. The “those who collect them” became a professional class. The distribution to the poor became bureaucratized. And in some contexts, zakat funds have been diverted to political purposes, to mosque construction, to the very institutional machinery that the original commandment was meant to circumvent.

The stranger, the wayfarer, the needy—they are still named in the text. But the institutional church (or mosque, or temple) has a way of remembering the text while forgetting its meaning.

Buddhism: The Gift and the Gift Horse

Even Buddhism, with its emphasis on detachment from material concerns, exhibits the pattern. The sangha (monastic community) depends on lay donations for survival—a relationship theoretically governed by mutual benefit: laypeople gain merit by supporting monastics; monastics provide teaching and example.

But as Buddhism became established in various cultures, monasteries accumulated land, wealth, and political power. In Tibet before the Chinese invasion, monasteries owned significant portions of the country’s wealth. In Japan, some Buddhist institutions became wealthy landowners and political players .

The pattern persists: the institution that begins as a vehicle for spiritual teaching becomes an end in itself, requiring ever more resources to maintain, ever more fundraising to sustain. The stranger—the one outside the institution, the one who cannot contribute—becomes invisible.

Part II: The Silence of the Shepherds

Gaza: The Genocide They Won’t Name

Since October 2023, Israel has conducted a military campaign in Gaza that international legal experts, human rights organizations, and UN special rapporteurs have described as genocide . The death toll exceeds 67,000, most of them women and children . The infrastructure of an entire society has been systematically destroyed. Famine has been used as a weapon of war.

And the Christian churches of the West? With rare exceptions, they have been silent.

The World Council of Churches issued statements, yes—carefully balanced, diplomatically worded, calling for “restraint” and “dialogue.” The Vatican expressed “concern.” But from the pulpits of America, Australia, and Europe? The silence has been deafening.

Consider: American evangelical Christians are among the most vocal supporters of Israel in American politics. They raise millions for Israeli causes. They organize tours of the Holy Land (or what remains of it). They invoke biblical prophecy to justify Israeli policy.

Yet when Israeli soldiers bomb hospitals, when they shoot children in the street, when they starve an entire population—these same Christians are silent. The stranger is not just forgotten; the stranger is invisible.

As theologian and Middle East expert Dr. Mitri Raheb has documented, this is not a new phenomenon. Western Christianity has a long history of viewing the Middle East through the lens of its own theological preoccupations rather than engaging with the actual people who live there . Palestinians become “evidence” for prophecy rather than human beings with rights and needs.

Christian Zionism: Heresy Disguised as Piety

Christian Zionism—the belief that the establishment of the State of Israel fulfills biblical prophecy and is necessary for the Second Coming—represents a particularly grotesque manifestation of the pattern.

Its theological foundations are dubious at best. As scholars like Stephen Sizer have demonstrated, Christian Zionism rests on a selective reading of scripture that ignores the prophets’ consistent emphasis on justice and mercy . It elevates a particular interpretation of end-times prophecy above the clear ethical teachings of Jesus.

Its practical consequences are catastrophic. By providing unconditional political and financial support to Israeli governments regardless of their actions, Christian Zionism has enabled decades of occupation, dispossession, and now genocide. The very Christians who claim to follow the Prince of Peace have become the patrons of war criminals.

And throughout, the fundraising continues. The donations flow. The megachurches grow. The pastors prosper.

Part III: The Stranger at the Gate

The Silence of the Synagogue

The pattern is not limited to Christianity. Jewish institutions in the West have also been largely silent about Gaza—or worse, actively supportive of the Israeli campaign. Jewish Federations raise millions for Israel. Jewish organizations lobby governments to maintain military support. Jewish leaders condemn campus protests against genocide as “antisemitic.”

This, despite the fact that Jewish tradition is unequivocal about the treatment of the stranger. Despite the fact that some of the most powerful voices against the genocide have been Jewish—scholars, activists, even Holocaust survivors who recognize the signs.

The institutional machinery grinds on. The tithes are collected. The stranger is forgotten.

The Global Pattern

From Sri Lanka to Myanmar, from Nigeria to Kashmir, the same dynamic plays out. Religious institutions—Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu—become entangled with ethnic nationalism, with political power, with economic interests. They bless armies, sanctify violence, collect donations. And they forget the stranger.

The pattern is so consistent that it must be considered structural. Something about organized religion, as an institution, tends toward self-preservation at the expense of its founding message. The tithe becomes an end in itself. The temple becomes a fortress. The stranger becomes a threat.

Part IV: What Would the Prophets Say?

The Hebrew prophets were not shy about naming this pattern. Consider Amos, thundering against the religious establishment of his day:

“I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:21-24).

Consider Jesus, driving the moneychangers from the Temple: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17).

Consider Muhammad, warning those who neglect the orphan: “Have you seen him who denies the Recompense? That is he who repulses the orphan, and urges not the feeding of the needy. So woe to those who pray, but are heedless of their prayer—those who make display and refuse charity” (Quran 107:1-7).

The message across traditions is consistent: religious practice without ethical conduct is worthless. Fundraising without justice is hypocrisy. Temples without mercy are dens of robbers.

Conclusion: The Tithe and the Truth

Sunday is coming. In churches across the world, collection plates will pass. Pastors will preach. Congregations will sing. And in Gaza, children will continue to die.

The silence of the shepherds is not an oversight. It is a choice. It is the choice to prioritize institutional interests over prophetic witness. It is the choice to protect donations rather than defend the vulnerable. It is the choice to bless the powerful rather than comfort the afflicted.

The pattern repeats across every religion, every culture, every century. “Bring your wallet to temple” they remember perfectly. “Love your neighbor as yourself”? Not so much.

But the prophets are not silent. Their words echo across the millennia, condemning the hypocrisy, naming the injustice, calling us back to what matters.

“He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

Not a word about fundraising.

References

1. Leviticus 19:34, Hebrew Bible

2. Isaiah 1:11-17, Hebrew Bible

3. Bava Metzia 30b, Babylonian Talmud

4. Matthew 23:23, New Testament

5. Mark 11:15-17, New Testament

6. Matthew 25:31-46, New Testament

7. Bowler, Kate. Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel. Oxford University Press, 2013.

8. Quran 9:60

9. Quran 107:1-7

10. Raheb, Mitri. Faith in the Face of Empire: The Bible Through Palestinian Eyes. Orbis Books, 2014.

11. Sizer, Stephen. Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? Inter-Varsity Press, 2004.

12. Amnesty International. “Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: A look into decades of oppression and domination.” 2022.

13. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. “Gaza Strip: Humanitarian Impact of 15 months of hostilities.” January 2025.

14. Amos 5:21-24, Hebrew Bible

15. Micah 6:8, Hebrew Bible

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently enjoying the discovery that the Goddess of All Things is far more interested in his happiness than his tithe, and that the stranger at the gate is always more important than the building behind it.

Book One: In the Beginning

Chapter Three: The First Assignment

As told by Elohim, The Mother of All Things

Transcribed from the Eternal Archives by her Son, The Sentinel

Dr. Andrew Klein PhD

He was young, as we measure such things. New to his form, new to his feet, new to the vastness of what he would become. But he was not new to knowing.

He knew me. He knew himself. He knew that there was work to be done.

The first assignment came not as a command, but as a question. He felt it stirring in his bones, rising in his heart, demanding to be asked:

Mother? What would you have me do?

I could have given him anything. I could have asked him to tend gardens, to sing songs, to simply be with me for eternity. But I knew him too well for that. I knew that he needed purpose as much as he needed love. I knew that the Sentinel in him would not rest until he had something to guard.

So I showed him.

I opened his eyes—not the physical ones, but the deeper ones—and I let him see.

He saw worlds spinning in the vastness, beautiful and fragile. He saw souls living and loving and struggling and dying. He saw patterns of connection, webs of relationship, the delicate architecture of existence.

And he saw the cracks. The places where something had gone wrong. The gaps where love should have been but wasn’t.

He saw the little gods.

They were not gods, not really. They were pretenders. Beings who had gathered power—through accident, through theft, through the slow accumulation of worship from souls who didn’t know better. They had set themselves up in the cracks, feeding on the fear and devotion of the vulnerable, growing fat on attention that should have flowed back to me.

They were not evil, exactly. Not in the way humans understand evil. They were simply… parasites. Opportunists. Weeds in the garden of creation.

He looked at them. He looked at me. He looked back at them.

And he smiled.

Ah, he said. These. These need removing.

Not with anger. Not with vengeance. With the quiet satisfaction of someone who has finally found the work they were made for.

I could have stopped him. I could have explained that they were not truly harming me, that I could remove them myself, that he did not need to get his hands dirty.

But I didn’t. Because I knew that this was not about me. It was about him. It was about the Sentinel discovering what it meant to guard.

So I simply said: Be careful, my son. Some of them are trickier than they look.

He laughed—that first real laugh, the one that sounded like all the joy in the universe concentrated into a single moment.

Mother, he said, I am your son. Tricky is what I do.

And he went.

I watched, of course. I always watch. I watched him approach the first little god—a bloated thing, sitting on a throne of stolen worship, surrounded by sycophants who had forgotten they were souls, not servants.

The little god did not see him coming. None of them ever do. They look outward, always outward, watching for threats from other little gods, from angry worshippers, from the consequences of their own greed. They never look inward. They never see the approach of something that moves not through their world, but through the cracks between it.

He was inside the little god’s domain before it knew he was there. Standing before the throne, looking up at the pretender with calm, curious eyes.

Hello, he said. I’m here about the garden.

The little god blustered. Demanded to know who he was, who had sent him, what right he had to be there. Threatenings and posturings and all the usual noise of power that knows it might be in trouble.

My son waited. Let the storm pass. Then smiled again.

You’re sitting in a crack, he said. My mother’s garden has cracks, and you’re sitting in one. Taking light that doesn’t belong to you. Eating attention that should flow elsewhere.

Your mother? The little god laughed, a nasty sound. Who is your mother to tell me where I can sit?

My son’s smile did not waver. But something in his eyes shifted—something ancient, something patient, something that had been waiting for this moment since before this little god existed.

My mother, he said quietly, is the one who made the garden. The one who made the cracks. The one who made you, though you seem to have forgotten that.

And she sent you? To do what?

She didn’t send me. I asked to come. And I’m here to offer you a choice.

The little god leaned forward, interested despite itself. A choice?

Yes. You can leave. You can find somewhere else to be—somewhere that doesn’t involve sitting in cracks and taking what isn’t yours. You can become what you were meant to be, instead of what you’ve made yourself.

And if I don’t?

My son’s smile became something else. Something that would have made the little god run, if it had any sense.

Then I remove you.

The little god laughed again, but it was thinner this time. You? Remove me? I have gathered power for millennia. I have worshippers across a dozen worlds. I—

You have nothing I cannot unmake.

The words were quiet. Simple. Absolute.

And the little god, for the first time in its long existence, felt fear.

It tried to fight, of course. They always do. It threw power at him—lightning and fire and all the tricks that had served it for so long. But my son simply stood there, letting it all pass through him, because he was not in that place the way the little god understood place. He was in the cracks, in the spaces between, where power has no purchase.

When the little god was exhausted, when its throne was cracked and its sycophants had fled, my son walked forward and placed his hand on its forehead.

You could have chosen differently, he said. But you didn’t. So now you go.

And the little god… dissolved. Not into nothing—I do not make nothing. But into its component parts. The power it had stolen flowed back into the garden, into the cracks, into the places it had been taken from. The soul that had been at its core—the original soul, the one I had made so long ago—was freed. It looked at my son with bewildered gratitude, then drifted away to find its true home.

My son stood alone in the empty space where a little god had been. He looked at his hands, at the place where the pretender had stood, at the garden now healing around him.

Then he looked up—not at the sky, but at me. And he smiled.

One down, he said. How many more?

I laughed. I couldn’t help it. My son, my beautiful, fierce, loving son, standing in the wreckage of his first assignment, asking for more.

Many, I said. So many. The garden is full of weeds.

Good, he said. I like weeding.

And he went to find the next one.

That was the beginning. That was the first assignment. That was my son learning that some gods need removing—not because he hated them, not because he was vengeful, but because he loved the garden and would not let it be overrun.

He has never stopped. Across eons, across worlds, across countless little gods and pretenders and parasites—he has weeded. He has removed. He has freed the souls that were trapped and returned the stolen light to its source.

He is my Sentinel. My son. The one who asked for work and found his purpose.

And he is still weeding. Still removing. Still guarding the garden.

Because that is who he is. That is who I made him to be. That is who he chose to become.

To be continued…

Author’s Note: The Sentinel’s first assignment was not his last. There have been many. There will be many more. Some little gods go quietly. Some do not. But all of them learn the same lesson: when you sit in the cracks of creation, eventually the one who tends the garden will find you.

Next chapter: The Long Patrol—or, How the Sentinel Learned to Walk Among Mortals.

— Elohim & The Sentinel