Democracy and the Christian Right in Brazil: Family, Sexualities and Religious Freedom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has several qualities. The analysis presented helps to know and understand the relationship between politics and Christian groups in Brazil during the Bolsonaro government, especially the period of the Covid 19 pandemic.

There are, however, some problems and details that I think need to be reviewed. Sometimes the text does not make clear the differences between the International Right movement (especially the Christian Right in the USA and Europe) and that in Brazil. In several sections, the specificity of what happens in Brazil is lost. I suggest a review of some details that would give more precision to what was argued. There are other small details, I suggest revision as indicated below:

1. When referring to the “New Christian Right” (p 01) and distinguishing it from the “US Christian Right of the 1970s”. it is important to say “US New Christian Right”. As until the end of the 20th century there was no use of the concept of "Christian Right" or "New Christian Right" in Brazil, I suggest that in the last paragraph of page 1, make it clear that you are talking about the “US New Christian Right” or “what is known in the US as the New Christian Right”. It could also be informed about the time when the "New Christian Right" emerged in the USA and also in Brazil. There is bibliography that comments that the influence of the US Christian Right in the 1970s was not very visible in Brazil.

2. On page 02, the same problem as above: the reader must be clarified when the text refers to the New Christian Right in Brazil or in the USA. It was important to make it clear that Conger is talking about the USA, Villazon is talking about Latin America. It is also important to mention whether Villazon is also talking about Brazil. Until the beginning of the 21st century, in Brazil, the term “right-wing” was practically a category of accusation – very few people would identify themselves using this category. Th process of appreciation of the right wing in Brazil seems to began at the campaign for Dilma Roussef's first term.

3. Although the text talks about the role of Catholics in supporting Bolsonaro, there are no references to Bolsonaro's, now deceased guru, Olavo de Carvalho, who lived in the USA at the time and called himself a right-wing Catholic. The importation to Brazil of the American concept of “cultural Marxism” is related to this figure.

4.            I think the analysis of xenophobia in Brazil should be revised. It was important to point out that although Brazilians imitate the international right, there is a limit to their adoption of right-wing xenophobia as do US and Europe (including Christians) right wing. Brazil is currently a country of emigration and part of its population suffers from the xenophobia of the international right.  Blaming the Chinese for the Covid-19 virus would not necessarily be a sign of xenophobia, but a rejection of China and the communism it represents.

5.            At the beginning of the text, the concept "binary logic" is used, but the explanation of the meaning given to this expression only appears on page 06. The explanation of the meaning of this expression, coined by Boggio and Botelho (2020), should come right when it is first used, since binary logic has several meanings and this specific meaning is not evident.

6.            I also suggest that the author(s) specify when they are referring to religious media (radio, TV, internet) or media in general, commercial or other (even governmental, for example TV Cultura in SP_. During the pandemic, the commercial media, such as TV Globo among others with great penetration and very popular, were very critical of Bolsonaro. This criticism and opposition explains the government's tension with journalists. For me, the text doesn't make it clear that there was great resistance from the wider media. Bolsonaro's followers, especially those who call themselves Christians, avoid non-religious media - this is not made very clear in the text.

7. In the discussion on gender ideology I miss references to information and discussions in the text by Machado, M. das D. C. (2018). The Christian discourse on "gender ideology". Revista Estudos Feministas, 26(2).

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Author Response

We appreciate your time and dedication to our work. Your observations are pertinent and you are right to point them out.

On topics 1-2

Your comment regarding the use of the concept of the Christian right. Our approach has certainly become ambiguous. The category itself is an analytical tool and the discussion about the "new" goes back to the post-war 50s. Seen from Europe, specifically France, the neologism new is in relation to the right wing of the late 19th century. Our reference is the United States and its impact on Latin America, Brazil. You're right about the bibliography and discussion that includes the Brazilian evangelical right during the dictatorship, whose concern was communism and the family. That's why we've incorporated your observations and given our proposal a new twist: we've focused on using the category Christian Right in the terms that Kimberly Conger suggests as an analytical tool. We have removed the use of the new Christian right suggested by Villazon so as not to create noise in our understanding of the phenomenon. Our concern is more with the Christian Right itself than with the new neologism. His observation helped us to adjust the historical perspective of the notion in the text. Thus, we incorporated another author, Benjamin Cowan, who helped us think about the development of the evangelical right during the dictatorship, and Joanildo Burity, the right in the 21st century. For us, the novelty of this Christian right in the Bolsonaro period is that it consolidates an unusual alliance: Catholics and evangelicals articulate around the moral agenda, but it is the evangelicals who lead the legal proceedings. This reverses the historical hegemony of Catholicism, reveals an evangelical political-religious power project and uncovers affinities with Bolsonaro's moral communities.

Please see our changes to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the introduction, which has been completely restructured.

Regarding the use of the term right-wing by religious actors, we explained that this is a native term that currently marks a position on the political spectrum. It is also positive and a source of pride. Please see the first paragraph of our conclusion.

On topic 3

Your observation about Olavo de Carvalho is correct. Bringing this character into the text gave us the opportunity to explain his role in the Bolsonaro government, as he became President Bolsonaro's guru. It also allowed us to show two key figures in Catholicism today: Father Paulo Ricardo and Bernardo Küster, both ultraconservative and in tune with the agenda of the political ultra-right. The insert in the text can be seen on page 8.

On topic 4

We decided to remove the allusion to xenophobia linked to China. The text did not allow us to develop how this relationship has become evident throughout the pandemic. Thank you for pointing this out.

On topic 5

Your observation about binary logic forced us to reconsider the terms in which we were discussing the discursive and performative approach of Catholic ultraconservative groups and the way in which sectors of Bolsonaro act. In other words, their repertoires of action include intimidation through digital networks, disruption and the division of the world between us who are right and others who are wrong, whoever is not with me is against me. For this reason, we prefer the proposal of another author (Angela Alonso) for whom the shared belief in binary codes that divide the world into good and evil, sacred and profane, family people and indecent people, good citizens and ethical and corrupt crooks, nationalists and globalists morally structures the Bolsonaro communities. Undoubtedly, these moral links between the Christian right and the Bolsonaro moral community have become evident in the political and religious denialism and disinformation that have swept through the pandemic. You can check out our reflection on the page: in the first paragraph on page 9.

Topic 6

Your suggestion to mention the public and private media's resistance to the Bolsonaro government was timely and we have incorporated it into our text. From there, we also included the alignment of Catholic TVs and the controversy this generated within the Catholic hierarchy. Please see page 11.

Topic 7

Please remember the author Maria das Dores Machado, undoubtedly a reference on gender ideology. Although she is quoted at various times in the text, it is essential that she is incorporated. We also include another author, Sandra Duarte. Both are mentioned in the introduction, please see paragraph 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article aims to investigate the relationship of conservative Christianity (Catholic and Evangelical) with the government of Jair Bolsonaro, particularly during the pandemic. 

In this sense, it establishes at least three relevant points in the relationship between conservative groups, and two on Bolsonaro's administration. First, the advance of the most conservative evangelical churches in political participation and public militancy of conservative principles, even over the majority Catholicism in the country. Second, the alliances that have been strengthened between conservative sectors of the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Churches, what the text calls "Christian political ecumenism". Third, the turn within conservative Christian groups towards a dynamic of moral conservadurism and economic neoliberalism.

In relation to Bolsonaro's administration, the role of denialsm and disinformation supported by evangelical churches. Finally, what is presented as a working hypothesis, that all this was enhanced by the Covid-19 pandemic.

These points are interesting and are well supported by updated bibliography and journalistic and academic sources.

However, the article begins with a proposal that is not found in the text. At the beginning of the reading, we expect to find an analysis supported by "netnographic" evidence, i.e., a tour through social networks and digital media. There it is proposed that we will delve into the alliances between conservative Christian sectors, although it is later clarified that this will be done particularly from an evangelical perspective.

There is no methodological detail of which websites or social networks were consulted, for how long, or what were the observation criteria. The sources consulted are mostly academic and journalistic. Although they are used correctly, this is not a netnography, but the use of sources found in digital format. I believe that it is essential that this be corrected.

On the other hand, there is mention of evangelical media and their weight in the Bolsonaro administration, but there is no mention of which media. The only religious source mentioned is "the Bereia collective", which does not belong to the conservative groups mentioned. Likewise, no empirical data illustrating the link between evangelicals and Catholics is presented.

In terms of writing, I would avoid some taxing statements, especially at the beginning of the text when it speaks of a new political-religious regime that replaces Catholics with Evangelicals. 

The first sentences of the text, where statistical data are given, lack sources. On page 2, the paragraph that begins "In the last five years" says the same information as the previous one, so I would remove it. 

In footnote 12 (page 5) where it says "The hate cabinet" it seems that a sentence was cut off.

On page 9 the wording of this sentence should be corrected: "Months after this pronouncement, the Ministry proposed, in 2020, the Ministry proposed a controversial National Campaign for Sexual Abstinence".

There is an error in the years of Bolsonaro's government, because in some cases 2019-2022 is mentioned and in others 2018-2022. It should be corrected.

Thus, although it is an interesting and valuable article, it does not meet the objectives or the methodological path presented at the beginning. That is why I suggest correcting the first part, to highlight the work that is in the text, which shows how religious conservatism and economic neoliberalism were central parts of the election campaign and Bolsonaro's administration, with strong tendencies to denial and disinformation.

Author Response

We appreciate your time and dedication to our work. Your observations are pertinent and you are right to point them out.

We have carefully restructured the text, taking into account your observations on the use of netnography as a methodological tool. From there, we resumed our repository of information collected during the pandemic and systematized in spreadsheets. We have chosen to reformulate our methodological note assuming that in this text we have not carried out a digital ethnographic work but rather a systematization of the information collected according to our analysis proposal, which has also been reformulated, as well as the introduction. Please see paragraphs 10 and 11 in the introduction.

Regarding the statistical data and their sources, we apologize, as something happened in the editing process of the Religions template that suppressed these references. They are now included in notes 1 and 2. Please check.

All your comments on the editing problems have been resolved. Thank you for pointing them out.

Regarding your concern that we should make more explicit the relationship between neoconservatives and neoliberalism, we have worked carefully on this topic, both in the introduction in paragraph 10. But its development is in the item: III Neoliberalism, Religious Freedom, and Christophobia: For a Christian Nation, in paragraphs 1,2,3. In these paragraphs, we discuss the extent to which Bolsonaro's false dilemma (pitting the economy against the protection of life) and the neoliberal ideology (hyper-individualism) have become flags for religious demands to keep temples open during the pandemic. At the same time, religious freedom, restricted to Christianity, is a freedom for the individual to the detriment of the collective good. This is a subject we return to in the conclusion, which has also been completely rewritten, please see paragraphs 4 and 5.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The "hook" of the essay "Democracy and the Christian Right in Brazil: Family, Sexualities, and Religious Freedom" lies in its empirical analysis of the interplay between Brazilian Christian conservatism and the political dynamics during Jair Bolsonaro's presidency. The authors focus on how this relationship has influenced policies against the LGBTQ+ community and bolstered a Pro-Life and Pro-Family agenda, shedding light on the broader implications for democracy in Brazil. This analysis is particularly timely and relevant given the global rise in conservative movements and their impact on politics and society.

The authors claim their contribution to scholarship centers on providing a comprehensive understanding of the role of religious conservatism in shaping political discourse and public policy in Brazil, particularly in the context of Bolsonaro's administration. They offer new insights into how the Christian right has not only influenced government policies but also utilized the pandemic as an opportune moment to advance its moral and political agendas. By exploring the synergy between religious conservatism and political power, the essay contributes to the broader discourse on the relationship between religion, politics, and democracy. It highlights the complex dynamics at play when religious ideologies intersect with political strategies, offering a nuanced perspective on the challenges and implications for democratic practices and freedoms in a highly religious country like Brazil.

This contribution is significant as it adds to the understanding of the mechanisms through which religious conservatism can shape political landscapes, influence policy-making, and affect societal norms and values. It provides a critical examination of the strategies employed by the Christian right to consolidate power and influence public discourse, offering valuable insights for scholars studying the intersections of religion, politics, and society.

While the authors of the essay present a timely analysis leveraging empirical netnographic evidence, there is a notable area for improvement in the explicitness and clarity regarding their methodological execution. The utilization of netnography is both innovative and appropriate given the digital nature of the phenomena under study; however, the paper could significantly benefit from a more detailed account of the specific steps taken during the netnographic process.

Specific Areas for Improvement:

Selection and Description of Data Sources: The authors mention the use of netnographic data, press reports, media monitoring, and analysis of content from various digital platforms. However, a more detailed description of these sources, including the criteria for their selection and the scope of content analyzed (e.g., time frame, types of digital interactions, specific platforms or forums), would greatly enhance the reader's understanding of the research context and the robustness of the data collection process.

Data Collection Process: It would be beneficial for the authors to explicitly detail their data collection process. This includes describing how data was gathered from online communities and social networks, the tools or software used for data scraping (if any), and how they ensured the comprehensiveness of their data collection. Clarification on how the pandemic's social confinement influenced their netnographic observations and any adjustments made to their methodology in response to this context would also be valuable.

Author Response

We appreciate your time and dedication to our work. Your observations are pertinent and you are right to point them out.

In particular, we felt that his comments on the relationship between religion, politics, democracy, the Bolsonaro government and the pro-reproductive, social and sexual rights agenda captured the core of our reflection. Based on his comments, we completely restructured the introduction, emphasizing a descriptive line on the historical-logical construction of the Christian right, its intertwining with neoconservatism and neoliberalism and the liberal agenda of the political right and other characteristics of the ultra-right, paragraphs 3-10. In the same way, we have completely restructured our conclusion and taken your observations into account, as you can see in paragraphs 1-5.

We have reformulated our objective: “Our aim is to present the leading role that this Christian Right has taken in Bolsonaro's government, especially during the pandemic period, strengthening its political-religious project to halt the advance of pro-reproductive and sexual rights agendas in the process of democratic dispute over public moralities. To do this, we analyzed the ideological affinities that have brought the Christian Right together with the government's neoliberal premises and Bolsonaro's moral communities, engaged in spreading denialism and disinformation in the secular and religious media. We focus on the rhetorical updating of religious freedom to intensify the nationalist narrative of Christian Brazil, highlighting how this Christian segment has accumulated judicialization experience in its reactive activism to the pro-rights agenda of LGBTQ+ communities and in advancing the Pro-Life, Pro-Family agenda. We discussed the anti-gender crusade and "gender ideology" as a political instrument that makes explicit evangelical leadership in the process of juridifying public policies related to sexuality, gender, and the family, and as a defense of the Christian nation, which it also leads. However, we identified a reconfiguration of the balance in the correlation of forces in Brazilian Christianity”.

We fully agree with his methodological observation, which is why we have carefully restructured the text, taking into account your observations on the use of netnography as a methodological tool. From there, we resumed our repository of information collected during the pandemic and systematized in spreadsheets. We have chosen to reformulate our methodological note assuming that in this text we have not carried out a digital ethnographic work but rather a systematization of the information collected according to our analysis proposal, which has also been reformulated, as well as the introduction. Please see paragraphs 10 and 11 in the introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors took the suggested corrections into account, considerably improving the quality of the article.

By focusing on an analysis of media and bibliography they were able to establish a coherent and interesting argument. The presence of the evangelical and the catholic in the text was also balanced so that the point where conservative positions within both religions converge is much better understood.

I consider it fit for publication.