Movements across history absolutely have used moral panic about “lawless” or “illegitimate” authorities to drive their followers into a frenzy against existing law enforcement and courts, and some have targeted churches and other religious spaces when those spaces were symbolically powerful or politically useful.loc+1
Because tool access is restricted at this moment, the points below rely on general historical knowledge rather than specific, citable contemporary reporting. That said, the broad patterns are clear from twentieth‑century cases.
Driving crowds against “illegitimate” authorities
Authoritarian and revolutionary movements have often:
- Framed existing police, judges, and administrators as traitors or tools of a foreign/hostile regime, so that resisting them feels like defending the nation or the people rather than breaking the law.encyclopedia.ushmm+1
- Used rumors or accusations (“informers,” “agents,” “spies”) to mark specific individuals as government operatives or enemies, knowing that an angry crowd may then harass or attack them.loc
In that sense, when activists today portray routine law enforcement—on immigration or criminal law—as fundamentally illegitimate or evil, they are using a very old tactic: delegitimizing the office by demonizing the officer.
Targeting “supposed government agents” in crowds
Historically, there are multiple examples where mobs have turned on people accused of being informers or government plants:
- In revolutionary Russia, accusations that someone was an Okhrana (tsarist secret police) agent could provoke mob violence during demonstrations or local uprisings.loc
- In various anti‑colonial and civil‑conflict settings (e.g., parts of 20th‑century Europe, Latin America, and Asia), suspected police informers or regime collaborators were sometimes beaten or killed by crowds once labeled as such, often with little or no evidence.loc
The mechanism is similar to what you describe: label someone as the “enemy” in a charged environment, allow moral outrage to spike, and then let crowd dynamics do the rest.
Invading places of worship for political goals
Yes, movements have entered or attacked religious spaces when that served their political aims:
- In the early Soviet period, churches and clergy were publicly denounced, church services disrupted, and religious property seized as part of broader campaigns against “reactionary” religion and to assert state/party supremacy.loc
- In Nazi Germany, pressures on churches escalated after the regime took power: pastors were arrested, church youth groups were undermined, and some services or church institutions were harassed when they opposed Nazification.encyclopedia.ushmm
- In multiple 20th‑century conflicts, churches, synagogues, or mosques have been stormed or attacked because they sheltered opponents, symbolized the old order, or offered a high‑visibility stage for protest and intimidation.loc
So entering a place of worship—whether to confront a specific person, to stage a political protest, or to intimidate a community—is not new. It fits a recurring pattern where the movement tries to demonstrate that no space is “off limits” when higher ideological or revolutionary goals are at stake.
Connecting this to your concern
The broader pattern that matches your worry looks like this:
- Step 1: Redefine lawful enforcement (immigration, criminal law, etc.) as immoral or oppressive, so that opposing it feels virtuous.
- Step 2: Portray specific officials or even private citizens as “agents,” “fascists,” “collaborators,” or “oppressors,” removing their claim to ordinary moral protection.
- Step 3: Carry protest and confrontation into symbolically charged spaces (like churches) to maximize pressure and signal that normal social boundaries—and often, basic respect—no longer apply.
Historically, once a movement is willing to cross those lines, the risk of escalation into more direct political violence and further erosion of respect for lawful authority goes up sharply.
