By David Warren

At the present time, and under current conditions, in most public places, I would say that reciting the Athanasian Creed would be an example of "badass Christianity."

There are other examples.

By extension, the statement of any of the multiple elements of the Christian creeds, and their application to "real world" questions (such as baby-killing or abortion), is an example of the "badass" approach, which will draw criticism from many of our contemporaries, including most bourgeois Christians, and the Catholic ones.

Mostly, it is the opposite of silence. To keep one's mouth shut, in polite company, rather than saying something that could cause offense, might be considered the quintessence of the bourgeois creed. And verily, "silence is golden," in almost every situation, except when the truth is in dispute.

The form of silence that is commanded by prudence should be carefully considered, where there is time. Is one being prudent? Or is one only (usually unsuccessfully) protecting one's derriere? It would of course be bad-ass not to shield it.

One might try the Christian exercise of not protecting one's behind, or even flinching for the kick. There is a higher and holier prudence, that is not the consequence of intimidation; nor of the expectation of intimidation.

An act of violence, on a supposedly Christian motive, will also be criticized, though as a crime. "Badass" isn't technically a crime, but merely a sometimes-fashionable style, though in certain progressive jurisdictions it may soon be illegal. There are already calls to censor badass remarks, and I should think Christian badass is especially offensive, to the non-Christian "snowflake."

But if Christianity is entirely uninvolved, the expression is generally flattering. We use it of sports personalities, and Mark Zuckerberg even included the almost-assassinated Donald Trump (who isn't usually counted as a Christian).

The badass is "pushing it," not actually committing a crime, when for instance he humorously declares, "Missed me!" after a balloon was exploded in Ronald Reagan's presence. Christianity is, characteristically, not involved in any violent crime that I can imagine, or even in the popping of balloons, though perhaps a reader will correct me. It is more likely to courageously inspire a violent act of defense against a crime, which, however, may be prosecuted.

I am from Canada, but Canada and the "Uniparty" in the United States, plus several uniparty states in Europe, frown upon a violent defense. But they do not punish it, as they still usually do the original act of murder or whatever, unless the perpetrator is, say, defending "mere property" in response to some physical act of aggression, by, for instance, fashionably woke rioters, or one's home and family against violent intruders.

This is inevitable - that Christians will be prosecuted - once an originally Christian doctrine is interpreted, or re-interpreted, in an unambiguously materialist way. It is how the notion of "human freedom" can become "a woman's right to control her own body," so that it becomes the right to murder a body that isn't hers.

But it could be interpreted more exactly. Imagine, if you will, that instead of referring to Jesus Christ as our moral authority, we were to consult only biologists on the question, "When does human life begin?" This would be a materialist interpretation, and non-violent, but indisputably "badass."

I am focusing on abortion because it is almost the last issue in the category of the divine creation, expressed by the words, "Male and female created He them, and blessed them." Like all the many other divine revelations, it is clear beyond the shadow of mistaking, even by material science. For instance, only some people are female. And only they can ever get pregnant. At least, this was formerly understood.

Live things are alive, according to our waning Christian philosophy; dead things are dead. We used to understand this, and for religious minor...