Oaths of Office

[Hoser]

Flying Pig you hit the nail on the head. Thanks

Hoser

[dwb]

CAPblog covered this today: http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/05/ive_written_abo.html

Good idea in theory, however:

...so help me God.

Ruined it for me.  I wonder if it is acceptable to omit this part, or make it optional.  Seems extremely insensitive to non Judeo-Christians.  Heck, even Jews don't use the word G-d lightly.

[Eclipse]

Does anyone have a link to a memo or policy letter that indicates this is required as remarked on CAP Blog?

[Al Sayre]

I think I have the email from CAP/CC to my WG/CC who forwarded it to me about a month ago.  I'll look when I get on my computer at home.

[Flying Pig]

Bridge the gap between cadets and officers?  There is suppossed to be a gap there.

[ZigZag911]

Some of you guys want so bad to make CAP something it isnt.  But good luck with it anyway.  Not only with this thread, but the others about requiring college and degrees, Officer Candidate style courses, 24hr notice emergency response teams and Special Operations Units.

Admittedly many of these suggestions are over the top....but there is a legitimate need to move this organization away from being a good ol' boys flying club....there are going to have to be some standards -- which should be inclusive of those who want to serve. To me this means a college degree is less important than a willingness to learn, to show up, to cooperate with others.

[Eagle400]

Bridge the gap between cadets and officers?  There is suppossed to be a gap there.

Sorry... I put that badly. 

What I meant was, to bridge the gap in professionalism between cadets and officers.  Things like wearing the uniform improperly, staying a lieutenant forever, and not following orders from superiors because they're "volunteers." 

Note: I'm not bashing officers, just going off of things I've seen.  I would say the majority of CAP officers are professional, but we have to remember that everyone is responsible for setting the right image.

Having cadets and seniors follow the same oath seems to make the most sense to me.  It also gets rid of the political correctness problem people seem to have with saying "under God" in an American pledge.  Have people forgotten that America is a Judeo-Christian nation, with Judeo-Christian values?  Sorry, but if the Founding Fathers tried to please everybody, America wouldn't exist. 

[afgeo4]

Well... how does "So help me MajGen Tony Pineda" sound?

I think it's better than the ever so ironically accurate "So help me... Oy Vei!"

[sparks]

The "oath" seems like a solution to a non-existant problem. It was certain to draw a lot of praise and criticism thereby misdirecting your attention away from matters much more important, it has succeeded. Just before the Big Guys meet in June.

An  "oath" won't result in behavior modification of seniors  anymore than the safety pledge made us safer. It's training, habit patterns and a persons predisposition to follow the rules that determines what member do. 5 mile marches, docking pay and denial of benefits have been successful in other organizations but that's not an option here.

How about a true statement of CAP's mission to replace the lame "missions for America" logo. They may as well say "planes for pilots" which is equally pointless.

Time to put away the soap box.

[Al Sayre]

If it makes people think about their commitment a little, it can't hurt...  It sure beats "Sign here and give me a check for $62.00."  YMMV

[sparks]

Does CAP have so many rebellious members that NHQ needs an oath to keep them in line? I doubt it. Maybe it will jog some gray matter initially, but that's just speculation on my part.  Again, what problem is HQ trying to solve with the oath? 

The wing banker is supposed to ensure verifiable audits, I think the term is  unqualified. Does the oath provide members who don't waiver from the regulations no matter what?

It's entertaining to kick around but it seems that "oaths" will be taken since that's the policy (haven't seen the directive).

[Al Sayre]

It could also mean that someone at the top is reading our words and said "Hey! That's a good idea..."  After all, we batted this oath idea around for a couple of weeks a while back also...  Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.   We might have to come looking for whoever it was that was suggesting that orange speedo uniform 

[RiverAux]

CG Aux has you sworn in when you become a member and also has an oath that flotilla staff officers and commanders take every year. 

[sparks]

HQ is watching and considering the ideas put forth in this forum scary but
interesting. I'll have to give that some thought. I'm all for fixing problems not making new ones.

HQ needs to follow the KISS principle some of us learned many years ago. Keep It Simple Stupid. The principle is to not complicate the problem with a solution that makes it worse. It takes more work but is rewarding in the end.

[JohnKachenmeister]

It could also mean that someone at the top is reading our words and said "Hey! That's a good idea..."  After all, we batted this oath idea around for a couple of weeks a while back also...  Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.   We might have to come looking for whoever it was that was suggesting that orange speedo uniform 

Have you checked the Vanguard website lately?  "No image available" suddenly became a GOOD thing!

[ELTHunter]

LOL...you guy's have me rolling!

Seriously though, I think this oath thing is so much crap.  I am certainly not opposed to it for the real military, and for folks that hold political or government office, but for a volunteer organization it's ridiculous.  I made mention of some of our senior members being a bit delusional in another thread, and this is an example of what I'm talking about.  There is almost a fantasy at some levels of the organization that we are on a par with other government agencies that have paid staff, when we are an all volunteer force that can show up or not as we feel like it.

Before you all start verbally stoning me, let me just say that I take my commitment to CAP very seriously.  There have been very, very few times....like maybe one in eight years...when I did not report when called for a mission or other important activity.  However, I have been one of the few on some occasions that cared enough to get out of bed and go out to play when it was a little inconvenient.  Having people recite this oath is not going to materially change there sense of obligation or commitment.

The other aspect of being required to recite this oath is that it does offend me, since I am one of the dependable members that take my commitment seriously.  When I agree to get trained and accept my 101 card, I figure that means I agree to be there when needed, not just when the weather's great and it fits my schedule.  I believe I have already prooven myself through my actions, not because I said this silly oath.

[ZigZag911]

There is a cadet oath, which in some squadrons the young people recite at each meeting.

Adults don't need to do it that frequently.

The idea of a senior oath -- taken on joining, promotion, and installation as commander -- might be a positive way to remind ourselves of the values to which we have committed ourselves.

It strikes me as a heck of a lot more meaningful than a Safety Pledge!

[FARRIER]

It also gets rid of the political correctness problem people seem to have with saying "under God" in an American pledge.

Respectfully, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. Its not being PC, its that there are people that do not follow the Judeo-Christian faiths or are even atheist. To them, making them quote, "So help me God", could be an insult. Pending the policy letter, a good commander would ask the person before the ceremony if quoting that last part would offend them.

In regards to the American Pledge itself, "under God" was added during the Eisenhower Administration to differentiate ourselves from the Communist Russia.

[Hawk200]

I keep seeing issues concerning volunteers. I volunteered to serve my country, in the Air Force, in the Army Guard, and for a brief period the Air Guard. I know I get paid for that service, but in many ways there is little difference.

Seems like a lot of people are saying "I'll volunteer, as long as I get to play my way." With these oaths, people will be held accountable for thier actions. Granted, if ordered to do something that you consider morally wrong you should disobey. But now, there are two options: follow a lawful order, or quit. Seems rather simple.

I agree that there are a number of BS changes that our leadership have come up with. And a lot of them are extremely self serving. Maybe we need to hold them accountable for their actions, since they work for us as much as we work for them. I think oaths are a good thing, but when they are for the benefit of a flawed leadership, they're wrong.

[AlphaSigOU]

Interesting article about modern challenges to the military oath of office:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA425116