Critically examine Machiavelli's views on religion and politics.

 Machiavelli's views on religion and politics are clearly presented in his best-known treatise, "The Prince," where he advocates for the separation of religion from politics, reflecting his understanding of secularism. He believes that religion should serve the state rather than dictate its policies. He argues that while the rulers should appear religious to gain the trust and support of their subjects (utilitarian approach), they should not let moral principles interfere with political decisions.

Consequentially, Machiavelli criticized the church for corruption, moral decay and interfering with and obstructing national unity. He asserted that the head of the state must be a realist and pragmatic in his political decisions (based on experience and example) and thus be prepared to be amoral if he must to "maintain the state." 

However, Machiavelli's ideas have faced significant criticism. Thinkers like Leo Strauss have argued that separation of politics from morality encourages a form of ethical amorality, where pursuit of power justifies any means, including deception, fear and violence. Similarly, Isaiah Berlin critiques Machiavelli for counseling leaders to divert from common values like temperance and mercy, thus undermining the moral foundations of politics and consequently resulting in the cynical use of power (authoritarianism).

In contemporary politics Machiavelli's influence is visible in various global leaders' actions, like Vladimir Putin's strategic use of religion and national identity to consolidate power in Russia, reflecting a Machiavellian approach to deploying and using power for one's own gain. Alternatively, India's position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict (maintaining a neutral position and abstaining from voting in the UN) is another illustration of the Machiavellian approach in international relations while dealing with a key ally.

To conclude, while Machiavelli’s political theory excludes issues of moral authority and legitimacy from consideration, it is not without evidence that his pragmatic and secular approach continues to guide contemporary nation-states in the discussion of political decision-making and political judgment.