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