[drpcap]C[/dropcap]onservative religious actors assumed a growing political prominence in Brazil and contributed to the election of Jair Bolsonaro. Complementing the political lessons of this rise, this article focuses on four analytical lessons. The first section challenges the idea of an "evangelical vote." The second part disputes the relevance of religious affiliation as a central analytical category for apprehending the phenomenon. The third part recalls that a central factor in this political rise is to be found in an eschatological shift. The fourth section questions the radical opposition between progressive governments and conservative religious actors.

Whe aim of the text is to promote a dialogue with the article "The evangelical people: hegemonic construction, minority disputes and conservative reaction", by Joanildo Burity. By positively valuing the hypotheses of the article, related to the evangelical growth in Brazil, it seeks to dialogue with them from an anthropological perspective. To this end, it explores issues related to the diffusion of evangelical culture, its heterogeneity and its affinities with peripheral cultural practices. It invites the reader to consider the importance of the militarism that develops in Brazilian urban centers as partially responsible for the mediating role of evangelical churches and, consequently, as important for their hegemonic construction. It also suggests that reflecting on gender relations may contribute to a better understanding of the political forms now adopted by the populist project to build the country as an evangelical nation.

The consolidation of conservative projects supported by political and religious actors in Latin America is not a novelty: the continent has seen advances and crises of popular governments, bloody dictatorships, violent speeches and rights expansion processes that are carried out with different intensity and decoupled temporalities in different countries. The ways of naming this trend are the subject of discussion in this section, since the naming itself is a problem: they are expressions made up of diverse sectors socially and even politically, claiming transformations of varying thickness as the context allows them. Based on these ideas, we organized our discussion around three questions, which the authors answered based on the experience of each country.