swifts real argument 2

Swift's Real Argument God only knows from whence came Freud's
theory of penis envy, but one of his more tame theories, that of "reverse
psychology", may have its roots in the satire of the late Jonathan Swift. I
do not mean to assert that Swift employed or was at all familiar with that
style of persuasion, but his style is certainly comparable. Reverse
psychology (as I chose to define it for this paper) means taking
arguments that affirm an issue to such a degree that they seem absurd,
and thus oppose the issue. Swift, in "An Argument [Against] The
Abolishing Of Christianity In England" stands up for Christianity, and
based on the absurdity of his defense, he inadvertently desecrates it. He
sets up a fictitious society in which Christianity is disregarded and
disdained, but nominal Christianity remains. The author writes to defend
this nominal Christianity from abolition. The arguments that the author
uses, which are common knowledge in his time, if applied to Christianity
in Swift's time would be quite dangerous allegations. Indeed, the reasons
that Swift gives for the preservation of the fictitious Christianity are
exactly what he sees wrong with the Christianity practiced in his time. By
applying Swift's satirical argument for the preservation of this fictitious
religion to that which was currently practiced, Swift asserts that their
Christianity served ulterior motives, both for the government and for the
people. If we are to prove that the government was using religion for
selfish purposes, we must be sure that it was not serving its intended
purpose, the assurance of the moral sanctity of its policies. This is quite
evident in the author's comment that if real Christianity was revived, it
would be, "destroy at one blow all the wit and half the learning of the
kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of things[.]" This
proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity has no influence on
the government's current policies. It even seems as if the government
established Church isn't completely rooted in Christianity, as the author
weakly suggests that, "[A]bolishing Christianity may perhaps bring the
church into danger."The ways that the government actually uses

Christianity are completely selfish. One such purpose is the consolation
of allies, "among whom, for we ought to know, it may be the custom of
the country to believe a God." He later goes on to suggest the abolition of
Christianity in peace-time in order to avoid the loss of allies. It also
seems as if the government uses Christianity to pacify the commoners.
Although Swift sarcastically interjects, "Not that I [agree] with those who
hold religion to have been the intervention of politicians to keep the lower
part of the world in awe," he also says that religion is, "[O]f singular use
for the common people." In other instances, the government does not
use, but certainly benefits from Christianity. In several ways Christianity is
a buffer from dissension, in that it takes a blow that might have instead
landed on government. Many of the reasons that the author's opposition
has given for abolishing Christianity deals with the settlement of unrest
that comes from religious disputes. One such example they give is that if
Christianity were abolished, there would be no more persecution of
"blasphemers". Swift answers that these people are naturally inclined to
rebel against establishments. Therefore, if the church, their favorite object
of rebellion, was taken away, they would resort to rebelling against the
government. This statement suggests that ,"deorum offensa diis curae"
(offenses against the gods are the god's business). If applied to the
English government, it accuses them of only punishing "blasphemers" in
the interest of protecting the government. Another argument that the
author counters is that upon the fall of Christianity, Protestants and other
dissenters would be able to again join in communion with the Catholic
church. To this, the author retorts that while this may take away one
reason for dissension, "spirit of opposition" would still remain. Thus, when
these Protestants found themselves unhappily thrust back into the fold,
they would simply find another area in which to dissent, and this time it
may be an important area like government. While reaffirming the
government's selfish motives, this accuses the Protestants of separating

from the Catholic church not because of moral differences, but in order to
quench their desire to rebel. Another unity that the author's opposition
predicted would come from Christianity's fall would that of political and
religious parties. Swift answers that these parties used religious
differences as an excuse to argue, and that, if necessary, they would find
any number of other matters to argue about. One very lilliputian example
that he gives is that of two Italian factions that spawned from a dispute
over the color of some ribbons. The author asserts that, much like the
Protestants, these parties used religion as an excuse to fulfill their selfish
desire to argue.Like the politicians, the people also have disposed of
Christianity as far as letting influence their actions. The Christianity then
practiced has no relation to real Christianity, "[S]uch as used in primitive
times", "to have an influence upon men's beliefs and actions." Apparently,
even belief in a god, "is more than is required of us" (Christians). Also,
"[B]y an entire change in the methods of education," "the young
gentlemen who are now on the scene seem to have not the least tincture
of [virtue, honor, etc.]." This new generation, while not believing in the
morals associated Christianity, still gain from their existence. While they
disobey the laws associated with these morals, Swift asserts that
breaking the rule wouldn't be nearly as fun if it wasn't considered
wrong.The people also value church for selfish reasons. As Swift
explains, church is many things for many people, none of which include
spiritual fulfillment. For social butterflies, church is the perfect place to
hob-knob or show off your latest outfit. For the businessman, "where
more meetings for business?", "where more bargains driven of all sorts?"
Finally, for the insomniac, "where so many conveniences or enticements
to sleep?" These statements apply more directly than any others in the
article to the high church of England.All of the things that Swift says about
this fictional religion would be very strong words if applied to the Church
of England. It might be readily conceived by the innocent reader that Swift

was an enemy of the church in his time. This couldn't be farther from the
truth. Swift was involved in the church and politics all his life, often in the
position of supporting political and religious factions. While this could be
used to counter my thesis that Swift was criticizing the establishment, it
can just as easily support it. Swift obviously didn't hate government or the
church, on the contrary, it was his love of these things that led him to
point out the injustices that were scarring them. Like a mother scolding
her child, Swift finds fault in his beloved church, only that he may edify it.