| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-17, 7:55 am |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1179324480.375305.229160@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 May, 23:58, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> The context was that the gesture was used in the precence of Her Most
> Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and is wholly inappropriate.
Perhaps. If she never saw the gesture, is it still offensive? Given the
differences in culture and the fact that Ms Bush intended no disrespect, is
it still offensive?
I think the Queen should decide what is offensive to her. If she didn't
depart immediately or make some comment to an aide, then it's a fair bet she
wasn't offended. If she wasn't offended, why should anyone else be? You may
be overreacting, Alistair.
> Additionally, the horns gesture is viewed in some countries as
> offensive and representing the devil.
So is what we might consider a friendly wave, or the baring of knees... What
is offensive in some cultures is not pertinent to the case in point. I'm
sure Her Majesty keeps her knees covered and refrains from waving in
cultures where this is considered offensive.
>Is that really the action of a
> moral Christian in the presence of royalty?
Er....it wasn't the Bush's royalty, Alistair. The Republic doesn't recognize
such and affords respect out of courtesy, not from duty. As for the actions
of a moral Christian, the gesture was NOT intended to be Satanic, so cannot
be considered "unChristian".
> What would his reaction
> have been if the Queen had lifted her skirts, urinated and used the
> USA flag to wipe her fanny?
Well, she didn't, did she?
Hypothetical questions are best left unanswered. (especially ones that
really boggle the mind :-))
Perhaps more is being read into an innocent gesture that was aimed at Bush
supporters as a sign of solidarity, rather than as an offense to Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth.
My understanding is that the Queen wasn't bothered by it, why should we be?
Pete.
|