Would St. Paul be politically active if he was an American citizen today?

Paul would be president and the USA would become a Christian theocracy.

Actually, Paul emphasized praying for those in authority—primarily for their conversion to Christ:

1 Timothy 2:1-4 (NKJV)
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Paul also used the opportunities his Roman citizenship afforded him and admonished other believers to do the same:

1 Corinthians 7:17-24 (NKJV)
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.

With these things in mind, Paul would have supported using the rights of free speech and voting in order to elect followers of Christ when possible and to convert unbelieving office holders in all other cases. Back then being a follower of Christ meant basically one world view rather than the buffet style Christianity of today in which practically every politician claims to be “Christian” regardless of their actions.

For me, my top issues are first amendment, opposing the legalized murder of babies, opposing the attack on the family as the basic building block of society through the LGBT agenda, and second amendment rights. Only after these things do I consider fiscal responsibility a high priority. (I could never vote for a Socialist or Communist even if somehow one existed who was pro-first and second amendment, because these ideologies are legalized theft.)

Thoughtful consideration of questions such as the one posed here are helpful in today's environment.

As we have begun, of late, to react to the movement begun in the late 1800's--then self-identifying as a "liberal" movement (though not of the classical liberal interpretation)--a movement which has become the driving force in American politics under its new and preferred moniker, "Progressive," we have been compelled to recognize it for what it always has been, a deliberate and contrived effort to undermine and overthrow the great principles underlying the philosophy of America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Such a "Liberal/Progressive" undertaking was initiated and has been led by many in the so-called "academic" community from the start, as can be documented easily for any whose interest and concern for preservation of the Constitution and its protections for religious liberty motivates them.

Removing any vestiges of religion from the "public square," or any vestiges of so-called "political speech" from religious spaces seems to have been a pet cause for radical "progressives." Why?

Are such ideological cultists so threatened by ideas conveyed by Judeo/Christian communities that they would exclude them from participation in our Republic's matters of state?

This thread aims at another facet of the discussion. For more perspective on the topic of this thread, readers might wish to review Professor Ellis Sandoz's Volumes on Political Sermons of the American Founding Era . . . ." - here.

Query: if sermons from the pulpit are dangerous to the Constitution, and if they are to be excluded from appropriate political debate, then why were these Sermons which pre- and post-date the Constitution, as published by Professor Sandoz, not criticized by the Founders themselves and/or subsequent Supreme Court decisions?

Just asking.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.