April 10, 200917 yr The president bowing implied subserviance IMVHO and our president should not act subserviant to any other head of state. Did the Saudi king bow to him? In Asian countries the custon is a mutual bow in much the same way we shake hands. I also believe (and I may be wrong about this) that normal signs of respect that Catholics display before the Pope (kneeling, kissing the ring, etc.) are not expected when the Pope meets head of state that are not Catholic. On a side note does anyone else now find it laughable that BHO and crew are now back peddling and saying he didn't boy that he bent to shake the hand of a shorter man? :ohbrother: BHO and crew must think we are stupid. Then again, I can't blame them for thinking we're morons...We elected someone that never made an executive decision before in is life for POTUS. I wish he'd get back to his old ways when it comes to making tough decisions...Just Vote Present Barry! How can we expect him to make tough decisions?
April 10, 200917 yr Wow. So, you wouldn't bow to an Asian as is customary? Wouldn't kneel in front of the Pope? I believe proper etiquette would indicate a simple nod of the head (by both parties) as a show of respect and I would not object to that. However, Obama's bow was so pronounced that it went well beyond respect and into subservience. The Pope is a slightly different situation since his main role is as religious leader and not as a head of state (although he is both). If the POTUS was meeting the Pope in his official capacity as President, then I don't think he should kneel in front of the Pope regardless of the President's religious beliefs. If the President was meeting the Pope as a private citizen that might be a different story.
April 10, 200917 yr What about a president who holds the Saudi King's hand while giving him a tour on his ranch in Texas? Definitely not one of Bush's best moments. :lol:
April 10, 200917 yr What about a president who holds the Saudi King's hand while giving him a tour on his ranch in Texas? If a Saudi custom I have little problem with that because it implies peerage rather the subserviance that I believe the bow implies. I would have no issues with the bow had it been mutual.
April 10, 200917 yr If a Saudi custom I have little problem with that because it implies peerage rather the subserviance that I believe the bow implies. I would have no issues with the bow had it been mutual. That's interesting. So...isn't it the Saudi king's fault, for not doing the same thing back?
April 10, 200917 yr I'm trying to understand your point of view. Don't worry about it, my wife's been trying to understand it for 28 years.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.