Christianity in Relation to Government and Politics in The Prince by Machiavelli

Throughout history, we often see the relationship between church and state to be quite complex. Unlike modern times, there used to be a lot more of a relationship between the government and the church. This led to many clashing ideas, values, and ways of doing things. We get to experience examples of religion, primarily Christianity, in relation to the government and politics in Machiavelli’s “The Prince” through the historical accounts and personal observation’s/opinion’s he shares.

Machiavelli has a very unique tactic when sharing his thoughts on religion and its place in politics and the government. It is possible that at first the reader could be confused on Machiavelli’s attitude toward Christianity because of his sarcastic tone that he carries toward religion throughout the book, however, he uses this sarcastic tone to discredit values and logic of Christianity as well as to highlight the rest of his teachings regarding the correct way to hold power and rule over a territory. Besides Machiavelli’s irreverence for Christianity in general the differences between the ideology of Machiavelli and that of Christianity and its leaders are widely different. As a result, Machiavelli’s suggested political techniques have far less limitations than those of the churches. Machiavelli accentuates the significance of virtue as a quality within political leaders; however, he defines virtues as qualities that are praised by others such as generosity, compassion, and piety. Machiavelli explains that a prince should try to seem virtuous to everyone, although, if they are acting virtuous without needing to, it could be harmful to their state in the long run. Machiavelli also reveals the impact of having to do things of cruelty or dishonesty based on “virtue”, that is if the result of these actions would benefit the state as a whole. Machiavelli thinks a prince should always make decisions based on the big picture and do what is best for the state at large, not necessarily what is morally right or wrong. As a consequence of Machiavelli’s strong opinions concerning doing whatever it takes for the betterment of the state as a whole, we find a potential motive for his conclusion that religion really has no place in politics.

Machiavelli frequently stresses the importance of a prince having to possess prowess and be able to build their own dynasty on their own agenda. After Machiavelli provides us with these claims we observe Machiavelli start to introduce religion, using examples of people and stories from the Bible. He uses the Old Testament story of Moses to begin the questioning of religious leaders; he attempts to discredit Moses’ leadership abilities, claiming that he was purely carrying out God’s orders. Machiavelli uses the story of Moses to generalize other religious leaders from before his time similarly, expressing that their actions and establishments did not differ much from what Moses did while under the influence of divine guidance. He also added that the only way that these leaders would be able to get their people to follow these laws was through the use of armed forces not divine guidance. While Machiavelli recognizes and respects the church’s tactic toward temporary power of accumulating wealth, using an armed force, and the use of clever political strategy in order to obtain power, he still ironically makes remarks against having the church in politics at all. The political actions of Pope Alexander VI and Julius II through the use of an armed force to weaken other nearby city-states to ultimately gain power over the other factions heavily influenced Machiavelli’s perspective of the church and its leaders but not in a way that would necessarily be expected. He saw the value of their strategy and the way they were acquiring power but still never dedicated any of that credit toward God or anything of relation to faith. Machiavelli clearly conveys that a prince that is attempting to gain control or power over an area could similarly use the tactics used by these religious leaders. Machiavelli doesn’t see the value in religion because there is nothing tangible that Machiavelli can find value in or that contributes to the overall goal to Machiavelli, which is to gain as much power as possible and maintain that power for as long as possible.

Machiavelli’s sarcastic attitude/tone toward religion continues throughout the book all the way until the end, leaving us with a very strong message regarding his views of the Christian faith. After all of Machiavelli’s teachings within the book that emphasize personal power and legacy and all the choices that come with them, both good and bad, he leaves us sharing his ideas on final divine judgment which really confirm his mindset that he is trying to pass on to the reader of being concerned with the ends and not the means as a ruler. Machiavelli claims that divine judgment, something that so many Christians believe in and base many of their beliefs off of, was non-existent. He places a large importance on a person’s reputation on earth and would even go as far as to say that even a person’s reputation is not that important as long as it does not prevent you from obtaining and maintaining power, which is in correspondence with his earlier taught ideals that a ruler should possess.

Machiavelli’s central argument for “The Prince” is the basic idea that it is not necessarily the responsibility of the prince to be well liked but it is better to be feared/respected amongst the people. This does not mean that the ruler should be cruel or hateful, but rather, think about the ends rather than the means when making political decisions and providing the people with safety and stability, as a ruler should according to Machiavelli. To Machiavelli religion does not really have a place in politics; he is constantly making sarcastic remarks claiming that ideologies of religion govern these states rather than governments themselves and that “higher powers” aid in managing the state. Machiavelli clearly does not respect the values of Christianity and this is simply because he recognizes no worth or importance to any of the ideals they hold. From Machiavelli’s perspective, the central goal is to obtain the most power possible and maintain that power, so if something is not assisting in that pursuit, it is not of any worth to him. Therefore, Machiavelli does not really recognize the faith-based aspect of Christianity, but he does however value the parallel approaches that princes rising to power and religious leaders each use to respectively gain power. Essentially, Machiavelli acknowledges the religiously governed states just as he would any other state; this is a result of their political competence and not because of any religious standards or ideals that they may hold.

Overall, “The Prince” offers many separate ideologies regarding the governing of states and the different ways that they can be governed. None of which involve “a higher power” or anything of the divine because Machiavelli can draw no benefit from religion and that is the reason that he makes religion and the idea of faith, into sort of a mockery with his sarcastic remarks and tone throughout the book. Machiavelli directed that it is better to be feared/respected than to be well liked and this truly reflected his parallel attitudes that he shares toward religion in that anything that is not being used in order to boost a prince’s power or status is non-essential to devote any time or efforts toward. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” provides insights into the political mind of leaders from history’s past and could perhaps even lend us hints toward how these ideologies of past leaders may have influenced our world leaders, governments and how politics in our world today operate in general.