I'm not sure I see the close association between Machiavelli and evangelists. I think you flatter the evangelists. I'd assume Machiavellians would be intelligent and astute, not qualities I associate with evangelicals. Of course evangelicals are being both self-serving and protective, but does it stem from gullibility... from a lifetime of more readily accepting what you are told from someone you perceive to be a strong and knowledgeable (ha ha) leader?
Or maybe I am the gullible one, though I did get 94/100 in that rather loaded test.
Given that the OED definition of a Machiavellian is "a person who practises expediency in preference to morality; an intriguer or schemer", I wouldn't necessarily say that intelligence or astuteness are defining features of a Machiavellian. Neither would I paint such a broad brush about evangelicals. Some evangelicals are quite intelligent, are not necessarily gullible, and are scientifically rigorous (John Lennox, for example). I do believe, however, that some evangelical leaders are quite power hungry , i.e., "Machiavellian", (e.g., Jerry Falwell) but not any more so than non-religious political conservatives (e.g., Stephen Miller, Ben Shapiro, Steve Bannon).
There certainly are a lot of gullible evangelicals who willingly shut down their critical thinking in favor of staying in the fold. Maybe they are even the majority. But in reading about the history of evangelical political involvement I've become more convinced that there are some number of people in leadership who are willing to do almost anything to gain political and cultural influence. Those are the ones I find really dangerous.
I'm not sure I see the close association between Machiavelli and evangelists. I think you flatter the evangelists. I'd assume Machiavellians would be intelligent and astute, not qualities I associate with evangelicals. Of course evangelicals are being both self-serving and protective, but does it stem from gullibility... from a lifetime of more readily accepting what you are told from someone you perceive to be a strong and knowledgeable (ha ha) leader?
Or maybe I am the gullible one, though I did get 94/100 in that rather loaded test.
Given that the OED definition of a Machiavellian is "a person who practises expediency in preference to morality; an intriguer or schemer", I wouldn't necessarily say that intelligence or astuteness are defining features of a Machiavellian. Neither would I paint such a broad brush about evangelicals. Some evangelicals are quite intelligent, are not necessarily gullible, and are scientifically rigorous (John Lennox, for example). I do believe, however, that some evangelical leaders are quite power hungry , i.e., "Machiavellian", (e.g., Jerry Falwell) but not any more so than non-religious political conservatives (e.g., Stephen Miller, Ben Shapiro, Steve Bannon).
Haha, oh no, James! You're an evil mastermind?!
There certainly are a lot of gullible evangelicals who willingly shut down their critical thinking in favor of staying in the fold. Maybe they are even the majority. But in reading about the history of evangelical political involvement I've become more convinced that there are some number of people in leadership who are willing to do almost anything to gain political and cultural influence. Those are the ones I find really dangerous.