CAPP 265-2 FLIGHT TIME: Values for Living Nov 2014

[Eclipse]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P265_002_91CF616EC6FAD.pdf

No excuses for a while on subjects for CDI sessions, nor need to make things up locally.

[Eclipse]

Why are there quotes from the Bible in what are supposed to be secular discussions?
In many of the discussions, the closing statement is a Biblical quote presented as if that was the final word on the matter.

And why is one highlighted in yellow?

As a commander, you discuss the CDI requirements with parents and try to convince the ones
concerned that the discussions are secular and relevent to kids today, and then they pick up the
curriculum and see Biblical references.

Further, the references aren't even from a consistent translation, so that opens the door to >that< discussion as well.
There's even quotes attributed to "unknown", a recognized authority on just about everything.

Not.

Appropriate.

For.

CAP.

[Brit_in_CAP]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P265_002_91CF616EC6FAD.pdf

No excuses for a while on subjects for CDI sessions, nor need to make things up locally.

Withdrawn

[Майор Хаткевич]

Simple explanation. We need to get rid of the Chaplain Corps from the Cadet Program. We supposedly have Chaplains from many faiths, but can't get Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist quotes to at least APPEAR to apeal to most instead of the "majority"?

Mother Teresa wouldn't be qualified to be a CDI most likely.

[Eclipse]

Well, to be fair, there is one quote from the Talmud, a reference to the Koran, and two Jewish proverbs!

All of which have the same relevance to non-believers as the Biblical reference.

That's where you lose people and credibility - when you wind up a decent discussion with a religious reference
that isn't relevent to the audience.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Found 2 Jewish proverbs and a Hebrew reference.

Still stand by my point. We're running a Leadership program with the intent to make good citizens. Faith has little to do with that, otherwise I, and others like me should be forced out.

[Eclipse]

I don't think we should kick out Russians...

[Майор Хаткевич]

I don't think we should kick out Russians...

Well, maybe not the Russian Orthodox, Catholics , or Calvinists, but certainly the nonbelievers. We're a subversive type apparently. Even Brother Putin says so.

[Spam]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P265_002_91CF616EC6FAD.pdf

No excuses for a while on subjects for CDI sessions, nor need to make things up locally.

Amen, Eclipse.
(Can I say "amen"?... oh crap... sorry Eclipse).

OK, "total agreement", then. There's no reason in the world to fly blind and risk a divisive argument when we have approved curriculum to work with.

On the nature of the approved material and its relevance to todays cadets well, we may differ respectfully. I'm positive that many cadets I work with weekly have very strong Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish faith traditions, and the quotes included would certainly be (are) relevant to them. In addition, I did indeed see sayings attributed to the Buddha (p.82), to pre Christian Greeks and Romans, Hindu sources (p.88) Muslim sources (p.98) and even to Oprah Winfrey so there's gotta be something for everyone.  I'd like to hope that we would actually be adult enough and tolerant enough to use this curriculum as intended and to encourage the Chaplain community to continue to produce materials like this.

If it makes any atheists feel more included, rest assured, there's a quote from Ted "Christianity is a religion for losers" Turner, Ayn Rand (p.154) and at least one from Thomas Paine, an avowed atheist.

"Faith does not, in the realist, spring from the miracle but the miracle from faith. If the realist once believes, then he is bound by his very realism to admit the miraculous also." ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov. This is my obligatory Russian content (and he is also cited, p.100).

[Eclipse]

The issue isn't that "some are relevent to some", it's that "not all are relevent to all".

It's also not an atheist issue (of which I am not, if it matters).  The assumption when you start taking exception to the inclusion
of religion is that those opposed are atheists. For the record I've spent a fair amount of CAP effort accommodating members'
religious needs during activities - any time I was able to without negatively disrupting the rest of the activity. You'd be surprised how creative
and discreet people can be when given the opportunity.

The issue is that CAP is, by design and regulation, despite the good-faith efforts of many, a secular organization,
which includes as members, those who hold various faiths, but is not charged, even a little, with supporting,
extending, defending, or discussing that faith.

At all.

No more then you would expect a teacher in a public school, police officer, or fireman, to start quoting scripture
in an art class, or while writing you a ticket, or pulling you out of a fire.

So when you start using quotes from religious texts and leaders in a context which is supposed to
emphasize the primary points or summarize the conversation with climatic verbiage, you're almost guaranteed
to lose some, if not all, of your audience that you just spent 20 minutes cultivating.

Just the translations utilized alone are problematic if you have cadets who are ensconced in a different one.
The Catholic church changed a number of prayers and mass response a few years ago, those of us who
grew up in one version, can't help but trip over the lines that are different in the new one.  Same goes if you
attended both Protestant and Catholic churches and recited the Lord's Prayer - they are subtle different in just enough of a way to
stumble yo if you forget yourself.

Etc. etc. And the above two examples don't include doctrinal differences between faiths that "look the same, but are quite different".
Ask a Presbyterian and Catholic about Mary and then sit back and enjoy. There's imply no reason for CAP to even be in those waters.

There should be plenty of non-sectarian / secular leaders who could provide inspiration and summary without
having to wade into religious lanes.

[JeffDG]

Just because something comes from a religious text does not obliterate it's power to teach character.

I guess we can't teach cadets not to kill (Exodus 20:13), or steal (Exodus 20:15)

[Fubar]

No excuses for a while on subjects for CDI sessions, nor need to make things up locally.

Commanders, Chaplains, and CDIs already aren't allowed to make up things locally:

Character Forums. Unit commanders will provide a character development program for cadets, using the resources found at capmembers.com/character. A CAP chaplain or character development instructor (CDI) will coordinate the program. In units without a chaplain or CDI, the commander may temporarily lead character forums, but must endeavor to recruit a chaplain or CDI as soon as possible. During character forums, cadets examine moral and ethical issues, but the forums are not religious meetings.

Not sure why the materials are quoting religious texts if the regulation goes out the way to point out the forums are not religious meetings.

[JeffDG]

Not sure why the materials are quoting religious texts if the regulation goes out the way to point out the forums are not religious meetings.

Because sometimes religious texts have messages that are also relevant in a secular context.  For example, the Old Testament speaks about the need not to kill people or steal from them, both wholly relevant in religious and secular contexts.

[Spam]

The issue isn't that "some are relevent to some", it's that "not all are relevent to all".

. . .

The issue is that CAP is, by design and regulation, despite the good-faith efforts of many, a secular organization,
which includes as members, those who hold various faiths, but is not charged, even a little, with supporting,
extending, defending, or discussing that faith.

At all.

Well, if everything CAP ever put in a manual had to be relevant to all members, we'd have nothing at all.

CAP, like the USAF, is however filled with fragile, human members who occasionally need individual ministering to, just as our aircraft need maintenance. Having seen Chaplains minster collectively to my first command when one of us died literally with his boots on, I support their presence. Having seen Chaplains minister individually to a sobbing cadet LT at an encampment at 11PM who had just received news of a parental death, I acknowledge our need for their mission of ministry to our members. I'm just as thankful for their presence as I am watchful for any excesses, to be honest... because our people and especially cadets are our most important asset, so I'm rather like the maintenance officer watching the A&P ("trust but verify) and I'm glad so many of you obviously care too. For the Values for Living and other CDI pubs, we're rather like the OEM engineers double checking the mx pubs and TOD...

Ironically, although you cite the example of fire and police departments, I could counter that many larger EMS and LE departments also have Chaplains for that very reason - not repeat NOT to use the organization to extend or defend one faith or another, BUT, to minister to the needs of those human members who need help in times of stress.

Cheers, teammates.
- Spam

[Майор Хаткевич]

Not sure why the materials are quoting religious texts if the regulation goes out the way to point out the forums are not religious meetings.

Because sometimes religious texts have messages that are also relevant in a secular context.  For example, the Old Testament speaks about the need not to kill people or steal from them, both wholly relevant in religious and secular contexts.

Can't we quote the penal code and tort laws then?

[lordmonar]

Well as an atheist, one who thinks we need to drop chaplains and the religious requirements of our CDIs........when teaching character development if the quote comes from a religious text does not make it in valid or in appropriate.
Lots of good things in the bible/Talmud /Koran etc.   no need to throw the baby out withe the bath water.   

[Майор Хаткевич]

So ignore those we no longer follow as a society, ostrisize those who do in other parts of the world, and cherry pick?

[lordmonar]

Sure.  Nothing wrong with cherry picking.   It's not like I'm claiming book XYZ is 100% correct.  It is when you do that then cherry pick that you cross the line into stupidity.

[Eclipse]

Not sure why the materials are quoting religious texts if the regulation goes out the way to point out the forums are not religious meetings.

Because sometimes religious texts have messages that are also relevant in a secular context.  For example, the Old Testament speaks about the need not to kill people or steal from them, both wholly relevant in religious and secular contexts.

Well as an atheist, one who thinks we need to drop chaplains and the religious requirements of our CDIs........when teaching character development if the quote comes from a religious text does not make it in valid or in appropriate.
Lots of good things in the bible/Talmud /Koran etc.   no need to throw the baby out withe the bath water.

Non Concur, because it doesn't work that way.

Quotes from a publication not recognized as an authority on the matter have no value and actually work counter to
their intended purpose.

The collected works of Manson, Kaczynski, and Phelps all have nuggets of wisdom, but no one would accept those writings
as anything but the gibberish of troubled minds.  The Bible and other religious texts only carry the weight of the faith
behind them.  Absent a faith, they are no more or less profound then anything else of the period cited.

If there are truisms within, it's because those statements are fundamentally true on a societal level and would be just
as profound no matter where they were published, not because they are in that religious text.

A Christian praying for someone in Jesus' name is one of the most profound and personal affirmations of their faith
possible.  It is literally a call to the Son of God for intervention.  To an atheist, that same "profound affirmation"
is just wasted words to the ether, and making that call for intervention looks like "magical thinking" where
reasoned action is necessary.

CAP should make the message strong enough and relevent enough that it stands on its own without invoking
authority that may be viewed as false by the intended audience.

Those CDI discussions are all pretty good, they don't actually >need< any external reinforcement, but someone
thought that the message alone wasn't powerful enough, or they simply felt that religious messages had to be included
as a matter of course, which is unfortunate, because many people view those sorts of interjections as indications that
the writer felt it was more important to inject his spiritual beliefs then the message presented, and then write off the whole deal.

[Eclipse]

Well, if everything CAP ever put in a manual had to be relevant to all members, we'd have nothing at all.

Everything in the CAP curriculum >is< applicable to the class of membership it is directed at, or the membership as a whole.
You won't find anything else in this class which is so fundamentally specific, and potentially troublesome, to only a small group of members.

CAP, like the USAF, is however filled with fragile, human members who occasionally need individual ministering to, just as our aircraft need maintenance. Having seen Chaplains minster collectively to my first command when one of us died literally with his boots on, I support their presence. Having seen Chaplains minister individually to a sobbing cadet LT at an encampment at 11PM who had just received news of a parental death, I acknowledge our need for their mission of ministry to our members. I'm just as thankful for their presence as I am watchful for any excesses, to be honest... because our people and especially cadets are our most important asset, so I'm rather like the maintenance officer watching the A&P ("trust but verify) and I'm glad so many of you obviously care too. For the Values for Living and other CDI pubs, we're rather like the OEM engineers double checking the mx pubs and TOD...

This is the fundamental flaw in the paradigm and the program.

What you witnessed were compassionate adults providing counsel to grieving members.  Those Chaplains, under no circumstances, should have been
"ministering" to anyone, and absent specific training in counseling (something not required of Chaplains, nor assumed as a skill) they provided the
same level of counsel that any competent and caring adult / parent / CAP leader could have provided.

Being a member of clergy, in and of itself, absent training in counseling, does not give one special powers in helping other people,
especially those who do not share the faith.  A Catholic priest advising a Catholic child that the loss of a parent is "part of God's plan",
might bring some solace that there is an omnipotent deity with a plan for everyone. Saying the same thing to an atheist, or worse,
an atheist's cadet will likely get a "reaction", but it isn't likely to "help". If anything it makes the situation worse.

Another issue here is that while the discussions always assume the best of people, practical experience shows that "people are people, and not always
doing their best or acting as they should".

I have personally worked with a Chaplain who is likely one of the best CAP has ever had. A gent who really understood his role,
ministered in a non-sectarian way to anyone who needed it, yet still maintained his beliefs as sacrosanct regardless of which prayer
he was saying.  He was also a knowledgeable member, and generally a good egg.  His moving to another state was a severe loss for my wing.

On the flip side I've worked with more then one who was clueless to his role, or viewed CAP members as "lost sheep who needed to be turned back to God"
or started waving the "discrimination flag" any time it was suggested he dial down the evangelizing.  Top of my list was an incident where
a Chaplain refused to acknowledge or provide sensitivity to other faiths in attendance at an activity, and actually got into a shouting match
about the issue with another member, forcing me to relieve him of his duties for the activity.

All unnecessary background noise that interfere with the actual mission and purpose of CAP.

Ironically, although you cite the example of fire and police departments, I could counter that many larger EMS and LE departments also have Chaplains for that very reason - not repeat NOT to use the organization to extend or defend one faith or another, BUT, to minister to the needs of those human members who need help in times of stress.

Those people should consult their actual clergy, not some stranger with a badge.  If I came home to a burned shell surrounded by flashing lights, the
literal last thing I'd want in my face was a Fire Chaplain trying to "help".  What's he going to do?   If I have a faith, I also have a minister, priest, or rabbi
that I will want to lean on, if I don't, I'm sure not going to get it while the house is still smoldering.

The same goes for CAP - members aren't looking for counseling or medical services, and CAP is neither in the business of, nor consistently equipped to provide,
those services beyond providing a cell phone to call a members actual clergy or Dr, they should stay out of it.

[Eclipse]

The Chaplain Corps, and by association the CDI program, suffers from the same predicament as the Health Service Corps,
and in the same fashion is fundamentally unfair to the members involved.

CAP actively recruits members with these skills, appoints them to various (seemingly) important roles,
and then basically tells them "Well, you can't actually use the special skill you were recruited and appointed for..."

Then, it looks the other way as both services do exactly the opposite "for the good of the corps".

Chaplains and Drs, among others, have every right to be indignant (or worse) when presented with this dichotomy,
yet no one seems willing to address it, let along fix it.

And at the end of the day, CAP, Inc. can't figure out why this is a problem.

[lordmonar]

And here I am the Atheist getting ready to defend the bible.   

Eclipse...you are guilty of the same magical thinking by rejecting everything in the bible because it has some things that are based on faith.

Like you said it don't work that way.

If we use that way of thinking then there is no authority...because I can show where Issac Newton was guilty of wrong thinking.   So we have to reject his wisdom on the fundamental laws of gravity....because he thought he could change lead into gold?

[JeffDG]

And here I am the Atheist getting ready to defend the bible.   

Eclipse...you are guilty of the same magical thinking by rejecting everything in the bible because it has some things that are based on faith.

Like you said it don't work that way.

If we use that way of thinking then there is no authority...because I can show where Issac Newton was guilty of wrong thinking.   So we have to reject his wisdom on the fundamental laws of gravity....because he thought he could change lead into gold?

Yep, we can't quote Martin Luther King because he was a preacher too.

[Eclipse]

And here I am the Atheist getting ready to defend the bible.   

Eclipse...you are guilty of the same magical thinking by rejecting everything in the bible because it has some things that are based on faith.

Like you said it don't work that way.

If we use that way of thinking then there is no authority...because I can show where Issac Newton was guilty of wrong thinking.   So we have to reject his wisdom on the fundamental laws of gravity....because he thought he could change lead into gold?

You're making my argument. 

Hindsight shows Newton was correct on some things and incorrect on others, so like everything in life, context
is the key.  If you quote Newton on some physics or math subject where he was proved correct, then his
status as amateur philosopher will have weight, if you punctuate a presentation on the Higgs Boson with:

     "All things are all things and their physical form is fluid like the rain."
                                                                    Sir Isaac Netwon, Transmutation Chronicles

Your entire thesis will be viewed as at least suspect, and probably invalidated on principle.

Profound quotations are only "profound" when they have some basis for their experience
and "wisdom" beyond merely being published.  The Bible, as well as other similar works,
are viewed by many as the literal Word of God, or the Revelation of His plan to mankind.
That is where it gets the majority of its weight of authority - the faith that it is Revelation,
even if only tangential, and not simply the writings of random people who each put their own
spin and flavor into the texts.

Do Presidents swear their oath with their hand on a Bible because it contains a narrative
of Moses leading the Jews from Egypt?  Of course not. They do so because many believe that
the Bible is a literal conduit to a higher, omnipotent authority who will punish those who
make promises in His presence and name that they fail to keep.

Absent that faith, it's just viewed as theater - it might as well be a telephone book as the
Bible because many feel they have equal power.  How would you view the oath if it was
sworn with POTUS' hand on a Penny Saver?

Consider this...there's no question that religion is an increasingly divisive issue in this country,
and further, that CAP is, by regulation, policy, and public statement a non-sectarian, secular
organization.

So accepting those two fundamental, inarguable statements, there are no
secular scholars and philosophers who could bring the same weight of truth to these
CDI sessions without also opening the door to the other, counterproductive issues?

To summarize, I could quote Ecclesiastes 3:1, which would both make my argument, and invalidate it in
the same sentence, depending on the reader.

[SamFranklin]

Teachers deal with the matter of religious content in the curriculum all the time. Thankfully, the Supremes were very clear in Abington v. Shempp. Generally, a public entity can teach *about* religion in an academic context, but cannot proselytize or make truth claims about religious belief. Some practical ways to follow Shempp include:

= study texts academically, not as devotionals
= strive for awareness, not acceptance
= expose kids to a diversity of views, not impose an official view
= inform, not make conform
etc.

I haven't read the lesson in question, but if someone were teaching servant leadership and mentioned that Jesus washing the disciples feet is one example of that, then that'd be a good example of placing a religious text in an academic context and staying true to Shempp.

[Eclipse]

^ There's no reason for CAP leaders to ever venture into those examples, and if they do, they are asking for trouble.

None of CAP's missions include the academic study of religious texts or the increase of religious awareness.
Parents do not bring their kids to CAP to be exposed to other religions, and seniors are not there for that either.
There are plenty of other worthy organizations who make that their mission.

Though I have no issue with Shempp, CAP tends to be closer to Curly Joe most of the time...

[raivo]

Skimming the CAPP, it doesn't appear that the Bible verses quoted even add anything to the discussion at all beyond "and for no real reason, here's what the Bible says about the subject."

So why were they put there in the first place? If they're not contributing to the debate, they're serving no purpose other than to put a decidedly Christian slant on the publication.