God only knows from whence emerged Freud's theory of male organ envy, but one of is own more tame theories, that of 'reverse psychology', may own its roots in the satire of the past due Jonathan Swift. I really do not mean to say that Swift used or was at all acquainted with that design of persuasion, but his style is obviously similar. Reverse psychology (as I thought we would define it because of this paper) means bringing arguments that affirm a concern to such a level that they seem to be absurd, and so oppose the issue. Swift, in 'An Argument [Against] The Abolishing Of Christianity In England' stacks up for Christianity, and predicated on the absurdity of his security, he inadvertently desecrates it. He creates a fictitious society where Christianity is certainly disregarded and disdained, but nominal Christianity remains. The writer writes to guard this nominal Christianity from abolition. The arguments that the writer uses, which are normal knowledge in his period, if applied to Christianity in Swift's period will be quite dangerous allegations. Indeed, the reason why that Swift offers for the preservation of the fictitious Christianity are accurately what he sees incorrect with the Christianity practiced in his period. Through the use of Swift's satirical argument for the preservation of the fictitious religion compared to that which was presently practiced, Swift asserts that their Christianity offered ulterior motives, both for the federal government and for the persons.
If we will be to prove that the federal government was using religious beliefs for selfish purposes, we must be certain that it had been not serving its designed purpose, the assurance of the moral sanctity of its plans. This is quite evident in the author's comment that if true Christianity was revived,