Just getting religious words about the vices out of the language would not make the underlying human vices disappear. People are prone to form factions regardless of religion. This would be unlikely, however, because people would not suddenly become rational, moral beings. The narrator says that the best advantage of abolishing Christianity, people say, if it would really happen, would be the end of party divisions, both religious and political.

Besides, churches give everyone a chance to meet and make business deals, to dress up for one another, or at least to sleep.

The coffee-houses stay open on Sundays, for instance, and many people go to them. Yet, a lot of people already do not go to church, which was the presumed purpose of the day of rest. The next argument for abolition is that people would be allowed to work on Sundays, which would have economic benefits, and the churches could be used for other purposes. In response, however, Christianity provides at least a small number of people with the intellectual resources that the civilization will need to depend on, even if their number is few. People seem to do quite well in their professions without much learning, so it is not quite right to suggest that most people live their lives on the basis of Christian doctrine. Likewise, it has been said that Freethinkers are unfairly forced to believe difficult things that were not ingrained from youth, even though it is unclear how much education in Christianity the people really have after all. Yet, if Christianity were abolished altogether, this kind of person who would enjoy the ornery nature of being an atheist would, instead, rail against the nobility and the government. Two people who genuinely had decided, after reflection, to be atheists were prosecuted for blasphemy, and a system of prosecution in the name of orthodoxy is likely to become very oppressive. On the side of abolition is “liberty of conscience,” which after all is a Protestant thing as well. He says his purpose is to argue in favor of 'nominal Christianity.' Yet, in all fairness, he will examine both sides of the argument, the arguments both for and against abolishing the religion. He assures his readers that he is not advocating for true, original Christianity, as this would be counter to all modern institutions.

Today, however, Christianity is out of fashion. Not that long ago, the fashion was to be arguing the opposite, defending Christianity, as this author is doing now. The full title of “An Argument Against the Abolishing of Christianity” is “An Argument to Prove That the Abolishing of Christianity in England May, As Things Now Stand, Be Attended With Some Inconveniences, and Perhaps Not Produce Those Many Good Effects Proposed Thereby.” The author begins with the idea that while it is dangerous to take up a religious topic, especially when it is against the established leadership, he is resisting those who want to abolish Christianity.

A Modest Proposal by Frank Schaeffer