Tim Pawlenty, George Bush, and Michael Scott: three men with similar heroes

Posted on July 21, 2011


In the first episode of “The Office” Michael Scott lists his heroes:

“People I respect, heroes of mine, would be Bob Hope… Abraham Lincoln, definitely. Bono. And probably God would be the fourth one. And I just think all those people really helped the world in so many ways that it’s really beyond words. It’s really incalculable”

It’s a funny line, right? Why is it funny? Well…for one thing, he lists GOD as one of his heroes. I mean, people don’t usually say that. When you think of people you respect, you usually limit it to the human category. Bob Hope, Abraham Lincoln, Bono…those are all acceptable. But God?


Only someone as silly as Michael Scott would list a higher being as a hero, right?


Tim Pawlenty: Jesus Christ is one of my ‘Heroes’

Yeah. Take a look at the article. In case you are really out of the loop, Tim Pawlenty is currently running for president. He told a group of Iowa voters that Jesus Christ is one of his “political heroes”.

Now, let me be clear: there’s nothing wrong with being religious and finding hope and inspiration through Jesus Christ. But to list him as one of your political heroes?? And in Michael Scott fashion, he too lumps Jesus Christ with humans such as Abraham Lincoln. It’s just funny. Isn’t it?

And he didn’t just say that Jesus is a “hero” of his…he said a “political hero”. Was Jesus involved in politics? Now, please, correct me if I’m wrong…but I don’t think so. Jesus was the son of God, a teacher, a messiah. I assure you…politician and messiah NEVER go together. So what the heck is Tim thinking, saying a thing like that?

Well, he’s following in the footsteps of George W. Bush, who said during his visit to Iowa while campaigning in 1999 that Jesus was his favorite philosopher.

"Good grief!"

Am I missing something? Isn’t there supposed to be separation of church and state? I understand that both Pawlenty and Bush were speaking to people who value having a Christian president with strong beliefs, which is exactly why they made those statements. But that’s NOT the way it’s supposed to be. A candidate’s religious beliefs should not influence whether or not you vote for him or her. But in reality, that is a determining factor for people, so candidates play up on their faith and how it guides them, blah  blah blah.

I can’t stand it. It’s frustrating that we will likely never vote an atheist into office. At least not anywhere in the near future. But why? Would an atheist be a less successful president? Futhermore, we will never vote a non-Christian into office anywhere in the near future either. Remember the stir-up that was caused when people questioned whether Obama was Muslim? If he’s Muslim he must be evil, ahhhh!!!!


Take a look at this article entitled “When Will America Have a Non-Christian President?“. The author argues that:

“We must simply consider the logical fallacy of voting for someone based on their religious affiliation (or lack thereof). We may believe that strong religious beliefs equals a moral person, but all of us know people who are religious and not entirely “moral.” We must judge by spoken beliefs and actions, be it from Christians, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, and everything else”

I agree. After all, Michael Scott claims that God is one of his heroes, but would we vote him into office??


Posted in: Politics, Religion