Category: Caselets

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2010-2019
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Main Actors: Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship (HEF), Pastor Gábor Iványi.
Tactics
- Declarations by organizations and institutions
- Selective social boycott
- Protective presence
- Signed public statements

Hungary has become markedly less free and democratic since Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party won the 2010 elections. Using its parliamentary super-majorities, Fidesz has gerrymandered new districts in its favor, created fake parties to overwhelm its opponents, and used its media control to cover only itself while slandering the opposition. Fidesz’s ideological vision is one of illiberal, Christian, Hungarian nationalism; it opposes so-called “Western” notions of unqualified human rights, multiculturalism, and respect for religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. With Hungarian opposition parties marginalized, several civil society actors have stepped up and attempted to combat Hungary’s democratic erosion.

One such civil society actor is the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship (HEF) church, specifically Pastor Gábor Iványi. Iványi is no stranger to anti-authoritarian organizing, having worked --at times with Orbán-- against the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party dictatorship in the 1970s and 80s. Iványi officiated Orbán’s wedding and baptized his two eldest children. 

Since 2010, Iványi has criticized Orbán’s autocracy, illiberalism, and Christian nationalism. Iványi has expressed these criticisms in interviews with domestic and international media outlets. After Fidesz’s 2010 election victory, Iványi refused to attend Orbán’s inauguration. Iványi’s actions arguably played a role in provoking Orbán to undermine religious institutions: in late 2011, Fidesz passed its ‘Act C’ law that stripped nearly 300 churches and religious groups --including HEF-- of official state recognition. Act C deprived these churches of access to state-funded programs and subsidies.

The Act C law provoked both international and domestic judicial action. In 2017, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Act C violated the European Convention on Human Rights; it ordered the Hungarian government to compensate the Evangelical Fellowship and other churches that lost access to state subsidies. In addition, Hungary's Constitutional Court twice ruled that Orbán's government violated the constitution in its dealings with HEF, e.g., by depriving the church of public education subsidies. Iványi’s activism likely played a role in raising awareness about the dire financial situation of HEF and other Hungarian religious institutions. However, Iványi alleges that the full amount owed to his church by Orbán's government has not yet been paid. Additionally, his rhetoric arguably provoked government backlash; for example, in March 2022, Orbán’s government sent tax officials to raid Iványi’s office, claiming the church owes about $7.2 million in payroll taxes.

HEF runs multiple Budapest shelters for homeless, refugee, and Roma communities. All three groups have been marginalized during Orbán’s tenure. During Hungary’s 2015 migrant crisis, HEF cooked 600-800 meals per day and provided shelter for nearly 200 refugees. This was in marked contrast to the Catholic Church of Hungary, which denounced refugee-sheltering as human trafficking. Despite these efforts, HEF’s actions did little to counter Orbán’s anti-refugee rhetoric and policies. Refugees in Hungary continue to face discrimination and are often prevented from entering the country by Hungarian border police and militias.

Finally, in 2019, Pastor Iványi and other religious leaders authored an “Advent Statement,” which responded to Orbán’s claim that Hungary was being governed in accordance with “Christian Liberty.” The authors denounced this concept as “a slogan for exclusionary, hate-filled and corrosive policy…that systematically threatens democracy and the rule of law.” The statement had nearly 300 signatories but did not provoke an explicit response from the government.

The campaign by Pastor Iványi and the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship has done much to raise awareness of Hungary’s democratic backsliding. However, civil society actors have struggled to stand as a pillar of Hungarian democracy. In both speed and depth, Hungary’s democratic erosion is unique: Orbán’s Fidesz party managed to capture the legislature, executive, judiciary, and media within a couple of years of its 2010 election victory. Hungarian civil society has accordingly struggled to act, even while refraining from using confrontational tactics that tend to provoke authoritarian repression. Without consistent international pressure on Fidesz, civil society is at a further disadvantage. Still, democracy activists would do well to emulate Pastor Iványi and HEF’s consistent and multi-pronged organizing and activism.

Where to Learn More
- Advent Statement of the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship. 2019.
- Barry, O. (2022). “This Pastor Officiated Orbán’s Wedding. Now He’s One of His Fiercest Critics.” The World.
- Bayer, L. (2016). “Orbán’s ‘War Of Attrition’ against Churches.” POLITICO. 
- Kornai, J. Hungary's U-turn: Retreating from Democracy. J. Democracy, 26, 34. 2015.
- Loustau, Marc Roscoe. “Hungary’s Progressive Christian Resistance.” The Christian Century, May 31, 2023.
- Silliman, D. (2022). “Hungarian Fellowship Raided amid Conflict with Viktor Orbán.” Christianity Today.
- Walker, S. (2019). “Orbán Deploys Christianity with a Twist to Tighten Grip in Hungary.” The Guardian.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2016-2023
Location: Poland, especially Warsaw
Main Actors: Polish Episcopal Conference
Tactics
- Declarations by organizations and institutions
- Public speeches
- Boycotts of social affairs

Poland became less free and democratic after the Law and Justice party (PiS) won its 2015 presidential and legislative elections. PiS’s anti-system, populist platform --for example, emphasizing threats posed by Muslim immigrants to the Polish nation-- appealed to older, rural, and religious voters, many of whom lost out from Poland’s economic reforms following the collapse of communism. During its post-2015 tenure, PiS --led by Jarosław Kaczyński-- tightened its grip on the executive branch, media, opposition leaders, and academics, among others. New anti-terror laws empowered the PiS government to monitor and detain foreigners without judicial approval, while hate crimes against Muslims soared.

Christianity played a key role in PiS’s rise. For one, its alliance with the Polish Catholic Church --and especially ‘nationalist’ bishops-- helped PiS win the 2015 elections. As Poland is a Catholic-majority country, PiS and many of its supporters converge on moral issues like opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Meanwhile, PiS has used Christian rhetoric and symbolism to legitimize its policy agenda, for example opposing Muslim immigration that “pollutes” Poland’s pure, Christian nation. PiS supporters have used the symbol of a Rosary with an added clenched fist at their rallies. 

Liberal and conservative Polish bishops have both made statements and taken actions to try and halt PiS’ anti-democratic agenda, an agenda that nationalist bishops have furthered. Many bishops have denounced PiS’ anti-refugee policies, which PiS justifies on populist, xenophobic grounds. For example, in May 2016, Polish Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki proclaimed that such policies “lack the spirit of Christ.” And in April 2017, the Episcopal Conference released a document denouncing PiS’ Christian nationalism as incompatible with “loving thy [refugee] neighbors.” In both of these examples, bishops employed biblical language to challenge the convictions of PiS and its Catholic constituents. In January 2018, the Episcopal Conference publicly celebrated both Migrants Day and the Day of Judaism, presenting a document offering church support to migrants.

Bishops have also been vocal in opposing PiS’ more overtly anti-democratic efforts. For example, in June 2017, Archbishop Gadecki and others publicly warned PiS not to undermine Polish judges’ autonomy. These warnings ostensibly led President Andrzej Duda to veto two bills that would have done just that. In May 2018, during a mass celebrating Poland’s Saint Stanislaw, the bishops denounced President Duda’s proposal to change the constitution --in unclear and vague ways-- as “an offense to God.” There they affirmed the democratic, pluralistic nature of their ideal Polish state. In July 2018, arguably because of pressure from Polish bishops, President Duda vetoed a law that would raise the threshold for parties competing in European Parliament elections.

Finally, Polish bishops have resisted PiS’ attempts to utilize Christian imagery and holy days for anti-democratic ends. For example, in November 2017, the Episcopal Conference refused to celebrate Mass during Poland’s Independence Day rallies. In their justification, Episcopate leaders drew attention to PiS’ Islamophobia and “unChristian nationalism.” And in November 2018, the bishops refused to grant PiS protesters permission to hold Mass in front of the Parliament building. 

The bishops’ activism eventually bore fruit in 2023, when PiS was defeated in Poland’s 2023 parliamentary elections. It is unclear precisely what role religious mobilization played in this process. But in a Catholic-majority country like Poland, it is safe to assume that the actions of Archbishops and other prelates did not go unnoticed. 

US democracy organizers can learn much from the model set by Polish bishops. For one, religious actors may be most effective when utilizing religious rhetoric. These efforts may be especially effective when incumbents themselves use religious rhetoric to legitimate their rule. Polish bishops used Catholic arguments to challenge both PiS’ anti-democratic measures as well as PiS’ attempts to define itself as a Catholic party. As some Republican elites work to construct their own version of Christian, anti-democratic nationalism, US religious leaders can endorse democratic norms by drawing on the moral-theological ideas they know best.

A second lesson from the Polish case is that pro-democracy leaders, even if they are an ecclesial minority, can still succeed in countering dominant narratives. Although Polish nationalist bishops gained unprecedented access to power through their alliance with PiS, liberal and conservative bishops succeeded in drawing attention to PiS’ anti-democratic measures. In the US, liberal Catholic bishops are also a minority, owing to the limited number of appointments made by Pope Francis. However, they can still be effective in countering those bishops whose focus on the politics of abortion renders them more accepting of anti-democratic measures. Importantly, joint statements and actions by pro-democratic liberal and conservative Catholic faith leaders and parishioners would go a long way towards countering rising far-right authoritarianism in the US.

Where to Learn More
- Allen, J. L. (2016). With Pope’s cardinal picks, Bernardin’s ‘seamless garment’ is back. Crux.
- Benson, R. (2023). Poland’s Democratic Resurgence: From Backsliding to Beacon. Center for American Progress.
- Campbell, E. (2020). Poland's government is leading a Catholic revival. It has minorities and liberals worried. ABC News Australia. 
- Csaky, Z. (2021). Capturing Democratic Institutions: Lessons from Hungary and Poland. Freedom House. 
- de Oliviera, A.P. (2017). Of popes and politicians. Deutsche Welle. 
- Luxmoore, J. (2017). Eastern Europe's church leaders face growing criticism over refugees. National Catholic Reporter. 
- Meyer Resende, M., & Hennig, A. (2021). Polish catholic bishops, nationalism and liberal democracy. Religions, 12(2), 94.
- Pawlak, J. & Ptak, A. (2021). As Poland's Church embraces politics, Catholics depart. Reuters.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: Civil Rights Era, 1955-1970s
Location: United States
Main Actors: The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); affiliate churches; Civil Rights organizers
Tactics
- Protest–teach-ins to educate and encourage participation
- Mass action–sharing information and raising awareness
- Boycotts–refusal to purchase certain goods or utilize services

Following the success of the Montgomery bus boycotts, civil rights leader Bayard Rustin identified a need for a central organization to coordinate and support nonviolent direct action across the South. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., consulting with Rustin, invited other Black leaders and ministers to establish a coalition to leverage Black churches’ influential networks, independence, and influence as a force against segregation. Together, they established the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957. The SCLC framed the (mis)treatment of “Negroes [as] a basic spiritual problem,” and the organization called on churches to “delve deeper into the struggle [for desegregation] and to do so with greater reliance on nonviolence and with greater unity, coordination, sharing and Christian understanding.” Unlike other umbrella groups that recruited individual members, the SCLC leveraged the collective impact of faith communities to fight segregation and advocate for voting rights. The SCLC’s work was critical to the Civil Rights movement.

The SCLC began its first major campaign, the Crusade for Citizenship, in late 1957. The crusade was developed in August 1957 in response to pending civil rights legislation in Congress. The main objective was to register thousands of Black voters - historically targeted with violence and disenfranchised - in time for the 1958 and 1960 elections. The Crusade raised awareness among Black Americans that “their chances for improvement rest on their ability to vote.” Funded by donations from local churches and other private donors, the SCLC established voter education clinics throughout the South. While the SCLC did not achieve its ambition of doubling the number of Black voters in the 1958 and 1960 elections, the Crusade did accomplish the SCLC’s overarching goal of consolidating churches and regional organizations into a movement.

SCLC campaigns that focused on the desegregation of individual cities were more successful. The SCLC joined local movements in Albany, GA, Birmingham, AL, and St. Augustine, FL to coordinate mass protests and nonviolent civil disobedience. In 1963, the SCLC’s Alabama affiliate wrote that the Birmingham campaign was “a moral witness to give our community a chance to survive.” SCLC members educated Black citizens about the philosophy and strategies of nonviolence and nonviolent action and appealed for volunteers. The SCLC relied on tactics such as mass meetings, direct actions, lunch counter sit-ins, marches on City Hall, and boycotts of local merchants. The desegregation campaigns expanded to include additional tactics like kneel-ins at churches, sit-ins at libraries, and marches to register voters. Because of these campaigns, the organization quickly moved to the forefront of the civil rights movement.

The SCLC reflected Dr. King’s belief that the Christian faith entailed a responsibility to reform unjust laws and policies. However, the SCLC’s position that churches had a spiritual imperative to be politically engaged—especially in pursuit of racial equality—was controversial. Even some Black religious leaders opposed SCLC’s overt call to activism because they considered segregation a “social” issue that fell outside the scope of the church’s mission. The SCLC largely failed to attract moderate white churches for similar reasons. While some Christian progressives challenged white supremacy, this support was often clustered at white seminaries, in denominational headquarters, and on the foreign mission field. Billy Graham, a highly visible white Christian evangelist, supported some measures of desegregation but kept his support for the SCLC private. Oral histories and contemporary documentation indicate that, even when white pastors did attempt to affiliate with the SCLC, their congregations rejected and undermined those efforts. As a result, very few white churches officially joined the SCLC. 

Though the SCLC did not convince many white churches to join its coalition, it was nevertheless successful in recruiting white Christians (and Jews) on an individual level. Reverend Hosea Williams, who had been joined by white college students for various short-term civil rights projects facilitated by local SCLC affiliates, developed an idea to connect teams of young, white volunteers with Black churches. This grew into the SCLC’s Summer Community Organization and Political Education (SCOPE) Project, a voter registration and civil rights initiative. The SCOPE project began in 1965 and deployed 500 white college volunteers (from nearly 100 universities) across six Southern states to areas where local Black leaders had requested aid from the SCLC. The Black church provided a network of homes for SCOPE volunteers to stay at while they registered voters and provided civic literacy classes. 

These white college students provided critical support that helped the SCLC and Black churches accomplish grassroots change. SCOPE volunteers reported violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Based on this information, the Department of Justice conducted targeted investigations and sent additional support to counties that had denied Black peoples’ rights to vote. SCOPE alumni include activist Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, and evangelical pastors. By inviting young, white people to act on their faith directly, the SCLC found a creative alternative to white churches’ resistance. In this way, the SCLC maximized the collective impact and influence of religion. The SCOPE Project offers an interesting model for re-routing individual “defectors” or dissidents toward changemaking initiatives and for supporting them in taking actions of courage beyond their religious communities. 

A vibrant pro-democracy movement can engage and deploy individuals to protest, boycott, and participate in mass action but these tactics are most powerful when there is well-resourced scaffolding backing up public action. The SCLC recognized that churches can provide crucial infrastructure and networks of support for coalition building. The work of preserving and revitalizing American democracy relies on both the responsiveness of individual activists and advocates and a more sustained response by formal organizations. This case demonstrates how faith communities can strengthen and reinforce pro-democracy movements. 

Where to Learn More
- SCLC History
- Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC)
- Carolyn Dupont, Mississippi Praying (2015)

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: 2020-present
Location: United States
Main Actors: The Southern Baptist Convention; Russell Moore
Tactics
- Personal Statements
- Blogging or Online Article Writing
- Newspapers and Journals

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. This denomination is also among the more conservative evangelical faith communities. Since the early 2000s, the SBC has appointed increasingly right-leaning leaders who are determined to stop what they see as a concerning submission to progressive social positions around immigration, racial reconciliation, gender and sexuality, and women and families. As the SBC began to merge its American and Christian identities, linking traditional faith with America’s constitutional democracy, the internal denominational culture conditioned the rise of Christian nationalism (an ideology which seeks to merge Christian and American identities) among its members. That ideology was on prominent display during the January 6^th attack on the US Capitol. This caselet provides an overview of how the Southern Baptist Convention responded to the insurrection. It also addresses the SBC’s struggle to develop a unified front against subsequent attacks on American democracy. 

Unlike other religious traditions, the SBC is not governed by a top-down hierarchy; instead, it is made up of individual churches that voluntarily opt into participation by agreeing to a shared faith and practice. Churches are not required to seek or receive approval from a central authority prior to affiliation, and every church that joins the Convention has equal standing. All churches are completely independent of each other and, as such, fully autonomous. The SBC has an executive committee that manages the day-to-day operations of the denomination. The independent churches select members to that committee at regular intervals through a popular vote. This executive committee has the authority to represent the SBC’s public stance on various social issues, discipline churches who stray from the official theological pillars of the faith, and pursue any other actions delegated to them by the denomination as a whole. The SBC has also created other committees to support the Executive Committee in this work, including the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (which acts as the public policy arm of the SBC). 

In the early 2010s, divisions over ‘social’ issues related to race, politics, and gender began to take hold of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many self-identifying Baptists encouraged their churches and delegates to the SBC to push the Convention to adopt a more progressive stance on these issues while others insisted that the SBC maintain its conservative position. Russell Moore, who was president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) from 2013 through early 2020, garnered national attention as a more measured voice within the Convention. He warned about the growth of Christian Nationalism and encouraged the SBC to distance itself from Donald Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. Though Moore remained staunchly conservative on issues like abortion and LGBTQ-related policies, he nonetheless warned that sacrificing the church's moral values in the short term would result in a long-term acceptance of what he deemed immoral behavior.

After the January 6th storming of the United States Capitol, Moore used his personal blog to condemn it as “an insurrection of domestic terrorists, incited and fomented by the President of the United States.” Moore told his readers that, if he were a sitting member of the US Congress, he would have voted to remove Trump from office even if it cost him his seat.Moore immediately urged Christians to be truthful that democracy is under assault and called upon the church to be “people who are for integrity” under all circumstances by acknowledging that Joe Biden was elected president. The SBC Executive Committee assembled a task force to investigate Moore, ultimately issuing a report that reprimanded him for making these public comments in contradiction to official SBC positions. Moore resigned from leadership within the SBC and listed the “threats from white nationalists and white supremacists, including within [the] Convention” he received after condemning the insurrection among the reasons he was stepping down.

While many other evangelical leaders—within the SBC, as well as from other denominations—also issued statements condemning the violence of January 6^th, Moore directly connected that assault on democracy to a pattern of permissive silence within the American church more broadly. Since stepping down from the SBC, Moore has continued to speak out against the anti-democracy trend he sees gathering momentum within evangelicalism. Moore also continues to write to an evangelical audience about why democracy matters. He also regularly interviews with mainstream journalists and often makes guest appearances on podcasts to encourage evangelicals to bolster democracy. 

Moore is the most public and high-profile figure within the Baptist denomination to engage in this work but his resignation from the SBC functioned as a catalyst amongst affiliated churches as individual members and more local leaders also push back against the anti-democracy trend Moore identified. These efforts are relatively informal. While many members of the SBC are still figuring out what tactics will be the most impactful in the long-term, some recurring activities have included:

• Publicly posting on social media platforms to condemn the insurrection like Beth Moore (Founder of Living Proof ministries, not related to Russell Moore), Greg Laurie, and Rick Warren (pastors at two of the largest nondenominational megachurches in the US).
• Elevating a pro-democracy vision for “faithful citizenship” via externally-facing outlets such as op-eds (see here and here), news programming, and podcasts.
• Using trade-specific publications to inform, encourage, resource, and connect ministry leaders in pushing back against Christian nationalism and anti-democratic trends within conservative faith communities. 
• Joining with affiliated Baptist and Evangelical institutions to denounce the insurrection on January 6^th, condemn Christian Nationalism, and create resources to combat anti-democratic beliefs amongst the Christian Right.

The key takeaway, though, is that there is growing momentum within the SBC and other conservative Christian denominations to take on a campaign for protecting democracy here in the United States. Russell Moore, along with other prominent conservatives, launched a project called The After Party which is intended to help Christians work against any anti-democratic movement within the American Religious Right. Moore recently emphasized that the future of democracy requires him—and other evangelicals—to come alongside other pro-democracy groups in a trans-religious, multicultural coalition (or, to use Moore’s framing, “a cross-cutting friendship”). Other conservative evangelicals have also formed coalitions to combat the rise Christian Nationalism and anti-democratic trends within the American church. These include Vote Common Good (which aims to inspire, energize, and mobilize people of faith to make the common good their voting criteria) and Christians Against Christian Nationalism (who fight the ideology's violence from within the faith). Moore firmly believes that these kinds of pro-democracy projects “must be done for the sake of our country and our common humanity.”

Where to Learn More
- Southern Baptist Leaders Condemn Storming of US Capitol
- Christian nationalism & the January 6 attack on the Capitol
- What is Christian Nationalism?
- Southern Baptist Convention president, ‘White Evangelical Racism’ author, and Respecting Religion co-host discuss Christian nationalism

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: 2020-present
Location: United States
Main Actors: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Tactics
- Public Statements

In the immediate lead-up to the inauguration of President Biden, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged church members “to honor democratic institutions and processes, and to obey, honor, and sustain the law.” And, as early as October of 2020, high-profile members of the Church warned that they would oppose any post-election unrest. Dallin Oaks, First Counselor to the First Presidency, clarified in his sermon at the Church’s General Conference that “We [members of the Church] peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome.”

Despite these preemptive statements from church leadership, some Latter-day Saints did participate in the insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6^th. Several of these individuals even incorporated sacred texts and imagery into banners and clothing during the attack. These conflicting views of democracy within the Church gesture at the layered challenges that members of the modern church are wrestling with, and this caselet provides an overview of how the Church is dealing with the aftermath of January 6^th. It also addresses the Church’s efforts to establish a more fortified front against subsequent attacks on American democracy. 

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints experienced periods of intense religious discrimination throughout US history, and episodes of violent persecution led the Latter-day Saints to develop a wariness towards the American government. Joseph Smith—the first prophet and founder of the Latter-day Saints faith—initially encouraged his followers to respect the United States Constitution as “a glorious standard” that “is founded in the wisdom of God.” 

The Church encountered mob violence as it grew, and the US government neglected to intervene or protect Latter-day Saints from attack. The Church migrated through different states in order to avoid conflict but continued to face extermination orders and violence that effectively amounted to religiously motivated genocide. Joseph Smith was eventually killed by a mob while in American custody. This event created a disenchantment with mainstream America, and the church fled to Utah territory (which was outside of US jurisdiction at that time). 

Even after they fled west, the Latter-day Saints continued to clash with the United States government. Nevertheless, they maintained a reverence for the Constitution and conceptualized themselves as true defenders of America’s founding principles. The Church adopted a bifurcated position in which they supported the US Constitution but defied American policy. Church leaders like Smith and Brigham Young (the second prophet who took over after Smith’s death) prophesied that the US would ultimately fail, and that Latter-day Saints would step into the ensuing chaos to preserve a collapsing system. As the Church’s theology and culture was refined over the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Latter-day Saints continued to maintain a level of distrust toward centralized government.

Church leadership eventually chose to integrate the Church into mainstream American society and the current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aims to be a politically neutral body. But, given its complicated history with government in the United States, the Church retains traces of conservative libertarianism. Modern Church leaders often still articulate a religious vision where “America is a chosen land meant to be ruled by godly figures, divine truths, and libertarian values.” According to data from the Public Religion Research Institute, nearly forty-six percent of self-identifying Latter-day Saints believe the “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was rampant with voter fraud and the outcome was stolen. PRRI also found that the members of the Church are likelier than others to believe in disinformation that undermines American democracy. Even as official Church leadership encouraged the Church to support the 2020 electoral outcomes, they struggled to effectively overcome these modern iterations of a historical distrust. 

Utah Senators Mike Lee and Mitt Romney—and their vastly different responses to January 6^th—offer a study of contrasts that illustrates the tensions within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While Senator Lee enthusiastically supported, justified, and encouraged President Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election, Senator Romney steadfastly opposed attempts to undermine American democracy. Romney was the first (and arguably most high-profile) Republican in the US Senate to vote to convict President Trump in the 2020 impeachment trial. Romney, a more establishment Republican, aligned with Church leadership in supporting democracy. Like the official Church, Senator Romney is conservative, but he embraces Church member integration into mainstream American politics. He voted to convict former President Trump in 2021 for inciting the January 6^th insurrection. Senator Lee, however, actively participated in efforts to block President Biden from taking office during the transition between administrations. He also endorsed the “fake electors” scheme prior to the attack on the Capitol. Senator Lee is a more populist politician, and his political behavior carries forward an anti-government distrust that lingers in Latter-day Saints culture.

Other Latter-day Saints also took courageous action in response to the crisis of January 6^th. Rusty Bowers, former Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, gained national recognition for his efforts to resist attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. A former statewide leader, Bowers is a staunch conservative, but he refused to cooperate with unconstitutional attempts to invalidate Arizona’s election results. Bowers publicly asserted that there was no evidence of election fraud, and also denied a bill in the Arizona House of Representatives that would have allowed the state legislature to reject the outcomes of the 2020 election. Bowers consistently emphasized his commitment to democracy, despite being threatened, doxed, and harassed for his position. In 2022, Bowers testified before the US House January 6^th Committee and detailed how his life became completely upended by anti-democratic actors. Bowers stated that his faith motivated him to uphold his oath of office and protect democracy.

The organization Mormon Women for Ethical Government—MWEG—also identifies their faith as foundational to their work of protecting a peaceful and democratic society. While MWEG is not endorsed by or officially affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the group is nonetheless guided by faith and “honors and sustains the Church’s doctrines and leaders.” Much of their work utilizes bridgebuilding tactics to engage its members and other citizens in the political process, support civic leaders in facing tough challenges, and promote peaceful discourse. During the period between Election Day 2020 and the January 6^th insurrection, MWEG issued a series of action calls that urged their members to request that members of Congress acknowledge and certify the 2020 election results. MWEG expressed concern about the attacks on American democracy and offered concrete actions that its members could take to demonstrate support for democratic norms. And, after the attack on the US Capitol, MWEG denounced the events of that day as violent and anti-democratic. MWEG published additional calls to action that encouraged its members (and all Americans) to offer robust support to leaders who take courageous action in defense of democracy.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is uniquely positioned to exercise spiritual authority to influence and mobilize the political behavior of its members. The Church features a centralized organizational structure and Church doctrine requires members to remain in faithful obedience to its leadership. In fact, individual members who wish to participate in Church life are required to affirm that they believe that (1) the president of the Church is the sole person authorized to speak for God and (2) that this Prophet is their primary authority over day-to-day life. Many activities that are central to Latter-day Saints’ religious life—such as teaching Sunday School, conducting home ministering visits, and religious outreach—channel community consciousness through the Church. Latter-day Saints’ congregations view civic engagement as an expression of faith and are thus primed to be part of efforts to fortify American democracy. 

Where to Learn More
- October 2020 General Conference
- Get Involved - MWEG
- Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
- The “Big Lie”: Most Republicans Believe the 2020 Election was Stolen

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: 2017-2018
Location: United States
Main Actors: Immigration & constitutional law attorneys; civil rights activists; members of state and national government; business & labor leaders
Tactics
- Civic Engagement
- Media Outreach
- Petitions
- Signed Letters of Support
- Legal Aid
- Amicus Brief

Beginning in early 2017, the Trump administration issued a series of Presidential Proclamations that indefinitely banned travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. In late 2017, the administration suspended programs for refugee processing and family reunification that largely served Muslims applicants. The impact of these orders—collectively known as the “Muslim ban”—created chaos at airports across America. Individuals traveling from these countries were detained, questioned, or abruptly deported. Even some lawful permanent residents of the US were held for prolonged periods before being allowed back into the country. Others were stranded at airports, prevented from boarding flights to the United States. 

The impact of the Muslim ban triggered wide-scale protests as translators, organizers, and immigration advocates flooded airports to support travelers and family members of loved ones detained under the executive order. Business leaders such as Sergey Brin (Google) and Sam Altman (OpenAI) protested in support of detainees at their local airports while others spoke out against the executive orders and recalled their employees to the US The ban also triggered wide condemnation from universities, academics, and other public intellectuals. Editorial boards also denounced the ban. Members of Congress, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and John Lewis, joined protests in their home states as well. Over nine hundred career diplomats in the US State Department issued a memo of dissent, outlining their disapproval of the Muslim ban. 

As concerned Americans assembled at airports to protest the travel ban, so did lawyers. Hundreds of attorneys crowded at international terminals, sitting shoulder-to-shoulder, and crouching on the floor with laptops, conducting legal research and writing motions to file at court. And, as the Trump administration continued to refine and implement the Muslim ban, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and partner organizations filed a series of lawsuits to challenge these immigration sanctions. Once the cases advanced through the legal system, other lawyers filed amicus briefs in opposition to the Muslim ban. These briefs provided critical perspective and expertise to the Supreme Court as it considered the constitutionality of the executive orders. Removal or deportation defense work is complicated, challenging, and time-consuming, but many of the attorneys who rallied against the Muslim ban volunteered independently and immediately. In taking on the pro bono work of defending travelers impacted by the Muslim ban, attorneys practiced civic vigilance and upheld core principles of democracy. 

The Muslim ban represents only one of many attacks against Americans’ civil rights. By publicly protesting the ban, lawyers (and activists, business leaders, Congress members, and other government actors) fulfilled a critical role in shoring up American democracy. One key lesson of the response to the Muslim ban is the power of a rapid, organic response by those with expertise in a moment of crisis, followed by a more sustained response by formal organizations. Lawyers did not wait for the bar association or the ACLU to take action but responded immediately to the impending crisis. This helped check the direct negative effects of the Muslim ban. Then, over the long-term structured organizations took the lead. Successful defense of American democracy will require both a quick immediate response to direct violations of rights, and the construction and maintenance of well-resourced advocacy organizations that can keep this response going.

Where to Learn More
- The Evolution of the Muslim Ban - an Explainer
- Impacts of the Muslim Ban 2019
- Legal Heroes in the Trump Era: Be Inspired. Expand Your Impact. Change the World

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: Present
Location: United States
Main Actors: The American Medical Association (AMA)
Tactics
- Declarations by Organizations and Institutions

In its June 2022 annual meeting, the American Medical Association (AMA) identified voting as a social determinant of health. As a result, doctors are making voter engagement a part of whole-person health care. Over 700 clinics, hospitals, and medical offices are helping their patients register to vote. The AMA is encouraging medical professionals to add a nonpartisan civic health screening, with the hope that helping people vote can address long-standing health disparities. According to the AMA, making ballots more available can help people better advocate for health-related issues such as clean air, better access to health care, and women’s or children’s health. The AMA is also helping patients to understand that social determinants of health—like affordable housing, food security, environmental rights, and disability accommodation—are equally important issues on many ballots. Per the AMA: “More voting is associated with better health outcomes. And as a rigorously nonpartisan organization, we work with our advisers across the political spectrum to ensure that resources are not partisan and that they speak to the daily experiences of Americans in their health.”

The broad reach of healthcare systems, combined with the trust that doctors, nurses, and social workers often have in their communities, offers an innovative avenue to engage voters, and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows many hospitals and clinics to provide voter registration as a patient service. The AMA is encouraging individual doctors and healthcare providers to bring nonpartisan conversations into the clinical practice, connecting health professionals with nonprofits like AltaMed and Vot-ER to integrate civic engagement into health care. Organizations like these help people to register, without endorsing a political party, policy, or candidate. Vot-ER develops tools, training, resources, and programs for doctors, medical schools, clinics, and hospitals “build healthy communities powered by inclusive democracy.” Vot-ER reported that the healthcare industry helped nearly 50,000 Americans initiate their voter registration or request a ballot in 2020. The majority of those patients registered successfully and approximately 85% cast a ballot in the general election.

In August 2020, the American medical profession launched a civic health initiative and has celebrated Civic Health Month each subsequent year. This coalition now includes over 300 partners and over 80 medical schools participate in the Health Democracy Campaign. For the AMA, the goal of these kinds of initiatives is to empower each voter to choose who best represents them and use their own voice to advocate for their health. 

However, the AMA is facing some skepticism from the congressional Doctors Caucus. Some members are concerned that the AMA is overstepping its professional expertise, and its position on voting exacerbates friction with those congressional conservatives around social advocacy. Even with this resistance, the AMA is continuing to build partnerships with civic engagement groups and other medical trade groups (like the American Psychiatric Association) to serve patients by protecting democracy.

The AMA offers an innovative model for pro-democracy movement building by helping health centers identify their role in civic responsibility. The AMA recognizes that its members—doctors, nurses, etc.—are trusted pillars in many communities and can act as powerful vehicles for bringing underrepresented Americans into the electoral process. A key lesson here is how trade organizations can leverage their issue expertise and networks of support to bolster democracy. Civil society actors and the AMA have much to gain from these collaborations. Together, they are serving their patients and addressing the health of the nation. 

Where to Learn More
- Why it’s OK for doctors to ask their patients about voting
- Evaluating AltaMed Voter Mobilization in Southern California, November 2018
- Civic Health Month

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 1977-1981
Location: Brazil
Main Actors: Brazilian Doctor’s Union
Tactics
- Professional Strike
- Slowdown Strike
- Marches
- Establishing new social patterns

In 1964, a military coup overthrew Brazil’s democratically elected president João Goulart and initiated a period of military dictatorship. Following this coup, military repression targeted any member of civil society found favorable to democracy. One target of this repression was the country’s doctors. The military began a purging process, identifying any “progressive” elements in the medical community and removing them from positions in hospitals, schools, and research centers. These medical professionals were then labeled as subversives, and were often detained, tortured, or even murdered by the regime.

About a decade later, doctors began organizing large-scale resistance to the military regime, beginning with junior residents in São Paulo hospitals. Low wages, poor working conditions, and mismanagement of the health sector by the military dictatorship were the primary driving factors. The young doctors also saw an opportunity, as an economic downturn and pressure from civil society had led the regime to express intentions to liberalize. Because of this combination of factors, doctors’ protests quickly spread across Brazil. Residents engaged in work stoppages and slowdowns, eventually recruiting permanent non-resident doctors and hospital staff. Despite threats of dismissal from various state governors, officials were forced to relent in the face of hospital collapse. 

With initial protests a success, reform minded doctors began a campaign to fully transform the Brazilian health sector. Running under “Medical Renewal” and “Movement for Medical Renewal,” progressive doctors won elections to leadership roles in doctor’s unions across the country. These key positions in leadership helped reformist doctors spark a stronger and more prolonged protest movement. Legal fights and additional protest support (including strike assistance) were some of the main strategies pursued by union leadership. Perhaps most importantly, doctors connected their struggles to other unions across Brazil. The powerful auto workers' union (led by future president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva), teachers unions, public sector workers and others found a strong ally in doctors, coordinating joint May Day rallies and strikes across Brazil. This participation demonstrated the solidarity of workers, regardless of profession, in protecting rights and demanding democratic reforms. Leadership in other unions met with Brazilian doctors, supported and encouraged their efforts as the Brazilian government attempted to “buy out,” and later repress the disgruntled medical community. 

Some within the Brazilian medical community attempted to undermine the resistance efforts. These “old guard” elements profited from the corrupt system and felt doctors should be treated differently (or better) as members of the professional rather than working class. The relationships formed between doctors and other professions (teachers, trade workers, etc.) helped to minimize this influence and isolate voices who were only interested in personal aggrandizement. 

The military dictatorship’s attempts to disrupt doctors’ organizing failed. Hostile takeover of unions and detention of leaders only further galvanized doctors, who were able to fall back on their labor allies in midst of targeting. By July 1981, the doctors won a series of major reforms, including significant pay increases and better working conditions. 

While the movement of doctors ostensibly concluded in 1981, the profound struggle laid the groundwork for the eventual collapse of Brazil’s military dictatorship. The military regime depended on creating divisions across professions and class. With the medical community organized and connected to the broader struggle for democracy, the military regime’s hold on power dwindled. Using work slowdowns and outright stoppages, associations of Brazilian doctors won victory after victory. By 1984, doctors joined millions of other rallying Brazilians, resulting in the end of military rule in 1985 and the advent of Brazilian democracy in 1988. Brazil’s doctors illustrated the power and value of professional associations in a democratic movement.

US activists can learn much from Brazil’s doctor strikes. The importance of coalition building is of note. Doctors occupy a different position among the working population, generally regarded as professionals, rather than traditional labor. Autocratic governments tend to use this distinction to fragment workers, even currying favor with the professional class to keep them sidelined from political struggles. By “bringing in” professional groups like doctors, more traditional labor elements diversify and broaden their ability to put pressure on the government. In Brazil, this meant that the trade unions could rely on the threat of hospital strikes to heighten democratization attempts. Conversely, these professional workers benefit immensely from the large numbers present in labor groups. Professionals make up a smaller share of the working population than skilled labor, which means they lack some of the benefits larger unions can provide. This weakness can be ameliorated through partnerships with mass organizations. Additionally, this partnership helps to insulate the professional movement from internal strife by providing allies and support from outside the movement. Finally, Brazil’s doctors emphasized the power of strikes and work slowdowns in pressuring governments and initiating change. 

Where to Learn More
- White Coats with Blue Collars: Doctors’ Labor Protests and the Struggle for Democracy in Brazil, 1978–1982

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2007-09
Location: Pakistan
Main Actors: National Action Committee of Lawyers, Pakistan Bar Association, Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan, Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) party, Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Tactics
- Assemblies of protest or support
- Refusal of pledges or oaths
- Walks and Treks

Pakistan suffered a major democratic decline in 1999 when General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a military coup. Musharraf’s government jailed and exiled opposition leaders, harassed and censored journalists and media companies, and declared several states of emergency that significantly restricted civil rights. 

One key area of this assault on democracy under Musharraf was the judiciary. For example, an executive order in 2000 required judges to swear allegiance to military rule. Most importantly, in March 2007 Musharraf demanded, with no legal authority, that Chief Justice Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry resign, to which Chaudhry refused. Musharraf then suspended Chaudhry from his post. This suspension sparked the emergence of a Lawyers Movement to counter Musharraf’s attacks on the independence of the legal system. 

The Lawyers’ Movement used many creative tactics, including international appeals, SMS instructions to local leaders, and pro-democracy poetry. Much of the lawyers’ activism was coordinated through domestic and transnational lawyers associations and bar councils. 

In March 2007, Chaudhry was beaten by police while walking to court to challenge his suspension. In response, Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association called on Pakistanis to protest while carrying black flags and banners. Simultaneously, lawyers groups organized weekly strikes at courts staffed by loyalist judges. And between May and July 2007, Chaudhry toured bar councils across Pakistan and lectured on the rule of law. The protests and tours did much to galvanize ordinary Pakistanis into publicly opposing Musharraf’s assault on judicial autonomy.

Chaudhry’s case proceedings began in July 2007, during which time he was represented by some of Pakistan’s most prominent lawyers. The court ruled to reinstate him, which Musharraf accepted. However, Musharraf then suspended the constitution in October 2007, which he justified by citing the “chaos” resulting from the Lawyers’ Movement. Chaudhry and 60 other judges were removed from their posts. In response, the lawyers announced the Save Judiciary Movement in November 2007. Although Musharraf’s emergency rule temporarily inhibited protest activities (e.g., by arresting leaders and supporters), the movement swelled and its goals broadened to include Musharraf’s outright removal.

Under domestic and international pressure, Musharraf permitted the return from exile and campaigning of Pakistan’s two largest opposition leaders, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. During Pakistan’s 2008 election campaign, Sharif swore that he would restore the sacked judges, thus lending key political support to the lawyers’ cause. This was noteworthy in light of Nawaz’s history of complicity with Pakistan’s military dictator Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. In July 2008, the protests against Musharraf grew to at least 40,000 people. Musharraf resigned a month later.

The Lawyers’ Movement did not stop at Musharraf’s resignation. After Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, her husband Asif Ali Zardari won the presidency. However, Zardari continued many of Musharraf’s authoritarian policies, including with respect to the judiciary. In response, the Lawyers’ Movement organized protests that grew to nearly 100,000 people by March 2009. In June 2009, Zardari was compelled to restore all of the sacked judges. 

US democracy organizers may wonder whether lessons can be drawn from the Lawyers’ Movement. Pakistan was a somewhat open autocracy that became more autocratic after a military coup; its autocratization centered on judicial autonomy and states of emergency. By contrast, the US is a democracy that became more autocratic after free and fair elections, particularly in 2016; its autocratization centered on the integrity of elections and suppression of peaceful protest, among other changes.

In spite of these differences, Pakistan’s Lawyers’ Movement offers a model of unity in response to democratic decline. The US pro-democracy ecosystem is very diverse in its economic, racial, and religious composition. Such diversity arguably impeded pro-democracy leaders from responding in a united way to authoritarian threats during Trump’s presidency. By contrast, the Lawyers’ Movement united around a grievance (autocracy and its threat to judicial autonomy) and strategy (peaceful protests), although its leaders and members disagreed on economic, religious, and foreign policies. US democracy organizers may benefit from thinking in similarly simple and direct terms. 

Where to Learn More
- Ahmed, Z. S., & Stephan, M. J. (2010). Fighting for the rule of law: civil resistance and the lawyers' movement in Pakistan. Democratization, 17(3), 492-513.
- Chaudhry, I. M. (2008). Full text of the letter from Pakistan's former chief justice. New York Times. 
- Chu, H. (2008). Those are fighting words in Pakistan. Los Angeles Times. 
- Hasan, A. (2007). Destroying Legality: Pakistan’s Crackdown on Lawyers and Judges. Human Rights Watch. 
- Phelps, J. (2009). Pakistan’s Lawyers Movement (2007-2009). International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
- Traub, J. (2009). Can Pakistan Be Governed? New York Times Magazine. 

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: 2016-present
Location: United States
Main Actors: Lawyers
Tactics
- Civic Engagement
- Media Outreach
- Legal Aid
- Petitions
- Signed Letters of Support

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, attorneys threatened American democracy by weaponizing the American legal system to advance conspiracies and fringe legal arguments through litigation. Dozens of lawsuits were filed across the United States to challenge the election results and the “Big Lie” lawyers also amplified false claims about election fraud outside of the courtroom through public statements in the media, tweets, and elsewhere. Several members of Congress—who are also attorneys—complicitly supported or participated in efforts to undermine and overturn the election. Following the January 6^th insurrection, 138 members of the US House of Representatives and twelve Senators voted to overturn the election; twenty-eight of those Congresspeople were attorneys. But even as some lawyers used their legal expertise to destabilize and undermine elections, others within the legal profession have stood up against election denialism and fought to strengthen American democracy. 

Individual lawyers, law firms, professional associations (including the American Bar Association), ethics committees, state judiciaries, and other institutions have adopted a special role in advancing democratic values by making it tougher for lawyers to use the legal system to overturn elections. Some have formed coalitions to combat “fraudulent and malicious lawsuits” against fair election results. Launched in March 2022, the 65 Project initially focused its sights on 111 lawyers who engaged in efforts to challenge or reverse the 2020 election results across 26 different states. The group filed ethics complaints to expose and disbar attorneys who used the legal system to undermine American democracy. Some of the targeted lawyers included President Trump’s legal advisors (like Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis), lawyers who served as “alternate electors,” and attorneys who were present or otherwise supported the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

The 65 Project has expanded its scope of work and is now campaigning to change the Bar rules of professional conduct across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Other groups like States United Democracy Center and Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) to “connect state and local officials, law enforcement leaders, and pro-democracy partners… with the [legal] tools and expertise they need to safeguard democracy.” In addition to filing ethics complaints, these organizations rally individual lawyers at the state level to exert disciplinary action. LDAD has also authored open letters and issued statements calling for lawyers, leaders of bar associations, and the legal academy to join in speaking out against threats to democracy.

Others in the legal community have taken on pro bono work to combat anti-democratic policies. The Free and Fair Litigation Group was started in 2023 to “bring carefully selected, high-impact cases that protect democracy and individual rights.” This firm focuses on ten cases at a time, taking a more bespoke approach. While Free and Fair is not currently tackling cases directly related to the 2020 election or the Big Lie, their mission is to challenge authoritarianism by taking on issues like gun control and school censorship. Free and Fair believes that—by engaging these policy areas—this fight to restore long-held, constitutional freedoms ultimately combats other, more direct assaults against fair elections and strengthens democratic values. 

The 2020 election and the months that followed posed an existential threat to American democracy. As the January 6^th Commission hearings confirmed, a team of “Big Lie” lawyers committed brazen violations of their oaths of office and the Constitution in their attempts to overturn the election. Their anti-democratic conduct motivated others in the legal profession to reimagine their responsibility to American democracy. Groups like the 65 Project, States United Democracy Center, and LDAD are protecting American democracy by revitalizing accountability processes that discourage lawyers (and public officials) from using, misusing, and abusing the legal system to overthrow free, fair, and legitimate election results. 

These cases show the power of working through and protecting existing institutional channels in order to uphold democracy. A vibrant pro-democracy movement can employ protests and other tactics outside of institutions, but such public actions will be more powerful if there is systematic, organized work to ensure that the institutions that constitute and maintain democracy continue to fulfill their crucial functions. Professional groups like lawyers who make up these institutions can be a critical organizer for this work inside existing channels.

Where to Learn More
- Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules 
- The Attorney’s Duty to Democracy: Legal Ethics, Attorney Discipline, and the 2020 Election
- Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers' livelihoods
- Free + Fair Litigation Group
- Our Work – Lawyers Defending American Democracy
- Surveying Americans on Accountability, Election Denial, and Democracy

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.