Jonathans Swifts Real Argument :: essays research papers

Jonathans Swifts Real Argument     God only knows from whence came Freuds theory of penis envy, but one ofhis more tame theories, that of " pinch psychology", may have its roots in thesatire of the late Jonathan Swift. I do not mean to assert that Swift employedor was at all familiar with that style of persuasion, but his style iscertainly comparable. Reverse psychology (as I chose to define it for thispaper) means taking arguments that affirm an snub to such a degree that theyseem absurd, and thus oppose the issue. Swift, in "An Argument Against TheAbolishing Of Christianity In England" stands up for Christianity, and based onthe absurdity of his defense, he unwittingly desecrates it. He sets up afictitious society in which Christianity is disregarded and disdained, butnominal Christianity remains. The author writes to defend this nominalChristianity from abolishment. The arguments that the author uses, which are park knowledge in his time, if applied to Christianity in Swifts time wouldbe quite dangerous allegations. Indeed, the reasons that Swift gives for thepreservation of the fictitious Christianity are exactly what he sees rail at withthe Christianity practiced in his time. By applying Swifts satirical argumentfor the preservation of this fictitious godliness to that which was currentlypracticed, Swift asserts that their Christianity served ulterior motives, bothfor the government and for the people.     If we are to usher that the government was using religion for selfishpurposes, we must be sure that it was not serving its intended purpose, theassurance of the moral sanctity of its policies. This is quite intelligible in theauthors comment that if real Christianity was revived, it would be, "destroy atone blow all the wit and half the learning of the kingdom to break the entire prepare and constitution of things." This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt thatChristianity has no influ ence on the governments current policies. It evenseems as if the government established church service isnt all in all rooted inChristianity, as the author weakly suggests that, "Abolishing Christianity mayperhaps bring the church into danger." The ways that the government actuallyuses Christianity are completely selfish. One such purpose is the consolation ofallies, "among whom, for we ought to know, it may be the custom of the countryto believe a God." He later goes on to suggest the abolition of Christianity inpeace-time in order to avoid the loss of allies. It also seems as if thegovernment uses Christianity to pacify the commoners. Although Swiftsarcastically interjects, "Not that I agree with those who hold religion to