Quote Commanders at all levels
I, (full name), having been appointed the _______________ commander of the United.States Civil Air Patrol, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the constitution, bylaws and regulations of the United States Civil Air Patrol; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter so help me God.
CAP Promotion Oath
(For officer promotions)
I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of ____ in the United States Civil Air Patrol, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and regulations of The U.S. Civil Air Patrol; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge all duties and responsibilities as well as obey the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations, so help me God.
CAP Member Oath
I, (full name), having been accepted as a member of The United States Civil Air Patrol, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and regulations of U.S. Civil Air Patrol; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge all duties and responsibilities as well as obey the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations, so help me God.
So is this like a suggestion that you're proposing, or something you saw elsewhere, or?
(and I think you might mean Oaths of Office) ;)
Quote from: Pylon on May 30, 2007, 03:12:34 PM
So is this like a suggestion that you're proposing, or something you saw elsewhere, or?
(and I think you might mean Oaths of Office) ;)
It just came in my inbox from my Group Commander, from Wing, from Region and from the Major General himself. The Major General discussed all this at the 2007 Texas Wing Conference.
The one flaw I see here is that the reason for asking someone to affirm rather than swear is to eliminate the necessity to say "so help me God" so as not to render the oath meaningless to those of us who happen to be of a different religion (I am a Buddhist and have been for 20 years). Even many of our courts have done away with "swearing to God" and use only the affirmation, having determined that the "swearing" is not necessary and that having a person affirm that they will carry out their duties, tell the truth, etc is sufficient.
Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 04:32:13 PM
The one flaw I see here is that the reason for asking someone to affirm rather than swear is to eliminate the necessity to say "so help me God" so as not to render the oath meaningless to those of us who happen to be of a different religion (I am a Buddhist and have been for 20 years). Even many of our courts have done away with "swearing to God" and use only the affirmation, having determined that the "swearing" is not necessary and that having a person affirm that they will carry out their duties, tell the truth, etc is sufficient.
Ah...this came up at that other forum.
One might ask if the "so help me, GOD" element makes this a deal between you and God, or an affirmation before God. Think of this, if others around you believe in God, would not the saying of the oath be for them rather than for one's self.
Also, what is the definition of GOD? Supreme being? Some could say that God is infact another word for NATURE. A bit of a point I think is better left to the philosophers and theologians than to humble CAP Officers and Cadets.
In anycase, the "so help me, God" was an
ad lib by George washington and remains as a tribute to him in many places.
Personally, I don't like ANY of the above oaths. You don't swear to obey or defend the Constitution of the US, the President, the SECAF, the US itself, etc. We are a member of the AF Family. If they are going to "commission" us, I'd like it to mean more than swearing to obey the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol [sic] Constituion and By-laws" (such as: I will pay for all of my uniforms, and all the changes that occur at least 8 times a year; I will pay my CAP dues; I will not sing "Big Man in a Little Coat" when I see a certain CAP MG wearing a CAP mess dress he shouldn't be in, etc. etc.) ;D
Quote from: NAYBOR on May 30, 2007, 05:16:09 PM
Personally, I don't like ANY of the above oaths. You don't swear to obey or defend the Constitution of the US, the President, the SECAF, the US itself, etc. We are a member of the AF Family. If they are going to "commission" us, I'd like it to mean more than swearing to obey the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol [sic] Constituion and By-laws" (such as: I will pay for all of my uniforms, and all the changes that occur at least 8 times a year; I will pay my CAP dues; I will not sing "Big Man in a Little Coat" when I see a certain CAP MG wearing a CAP mess dress he shouldn't be in, etc. etc.) ;D
Well to be honest, the Air Force doesn't expect us to defend anything. Check out the statement of work.
I think the whole point of this is to make members aware that there are rules they ought to follow, and if they don't feel they can do that, they shouldn't be members.
I think it's possible to add some flowery stuff to the oaths to make for a better ceremony. But, the basics are there.
1. I'll follow the rules (both of CAP and the Nation).
2. I'll obey the folks in charge
3. I'll do the job I'm appointed to do.
Sounds reasonable.
Even Federal Employees swear to defend the Constitution. I don't really think that a clerk for the Department of Education is really going to go to war, but they still take an oath that says that they will defend the constitution. I think we should do the same.
Federal Government Oath of Office:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
What I am saying is that the God referred to in these and other oaths in the USA are referring to the Judeo-Christian notion of God, one to which i do not subscribe.
Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 07:38:05 PM
What I am saying is that the God referred to in these and other oaths in the USA are referring to the Judeo-Christian notion of God, one to which i do not subscribe.
Are you sure...where does it say that?
Quote from: Major Carrales on May 30, 2007, 08:20:40 PM
Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 07:38:05 PM
What I am saying is that the God referred to in these and other oaths in the USA are referring to the Judeo-Christian notion of God, one to which i do not subscribe.
Are you sure...where does it say that?
Well, Im fairly certain they arent talking about Vishnu, and as another member pointed out, if this line is left in as an homage to George Washington, I somehow dount that he was talking about Zoroaster either. Also the fact that when Presidents take the oath of office, they place their hand on the Bible so its a fair bet they arent talking about Allah. Just a hunch.
Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 08:29:10 PM
Well, Im fairly certain they arent talking about Vishnu, and as another member pointed out, if this line is left in as an homage to George Washington, I somehow dount that he was talking about Zoroaster either. Also the fact that when Presidents take the oath of office, they place their hand on the Bible so its a fair bet they arent talking about Allah. Just a hunch.
Frankly, does it matter what the a past guy to say the oath meant when he uttered the phrase? Wouldn't it matter more what diety
you mean when you repeat the phase?
Throwing in the bit about the Presidents -- it's because
they've all been Christian. Should there be a President of another faith or religion, I don't see why they wouldn't take the oath with their hand upon something more appropriate. Again, less to do with what the words meant to someone else and more to do with what they mean to the person speaking the oath.
Actually, you have people like me because of there belief to "Swear No Oaths".
Many Christians will not swear an oath.
I let my yea's be yea and my nea's be nea..
I affirm...
Can't help but notice that they're using United States Civil Air Patrol in those oaths, an organization that does not exist.
It says swear (or affirm) so there is a provision for those with religious objections. What is the problem?
I am suspicious of the wording of an Oath that requires allegiance to a set of corporate principals and regulations, rather than to the Constitution of the United States of America, The rule of law, etc. Note that the Oath sentence construction refers to the constitution of the "United States Civil Air Patrol". When I signed up, I signed an agreement to uphold the CAP regs, but swearing an oath before the Creator of the Universe under pain of eternal [darn]ation to obey the rules of CAP? You have to be f**king with me!
I swear by the many arms of Vishnu that I am not a hindu!
Capt Lord
Umm....NO! I already swore an oath to the United States. That is not the point. The point is.....as a volunteer in CAP the we can quit at any time. Swearing to obey the orders of the Officers appointed over me carries no weight if I can walk away at any moment. Also, what Officers appointed over me? By whom, when, where.....then we get into the side of the argument that Rank is Absolutely meaningless in CAP. I will not take this Oath and if lord God TP no longer wants me in his made up US Civil Air Patrol, I will be happy serving in just the Civil Air Patrol.
NO MORE CHANGES. IF WE WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING, LETS CHANGE THE LEADERSHIP!
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 31, 2007, 01:58:34 AM
Umm....NO! I already swore an oath to the United States. That is not the point. The point is.....as a volunteer in CAP the we can quit at any time. Swearing to obey the orders of the Officers appointed over me carries no weight if I can walk away at any moment. Also, what Officers appointed over me? By whom, when, where.....then we get into the side of the argument that Rank is Absolutely meaningless in CAP. I will not take this Oath and if lord God TP no longer wants me in his made up US Civil Air Patrol, I will be happy serving in just the Civil Air Patrol.
NO MORE CHANGES. IF WE WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING, LETS CHANGE THE LEADERSHIP!
Your first point is interesting, but I think we're okay. Everyone takes an oath when the join the military, but it doesn't apply once you seperate (retirement is a different story - you're still on the books). So using that model, there doesn't seem to be a problem with us swearing to obey. But to make it clearer, they could add something like "as long as I remain a member......"
Yeah, the term "officers appointed over me" is probably the wrong one, because we use the term several different ways in CAP, and officer "rank" is clearly not what they're getting at here. I think, given CAP's structure, a better term would be "the Commanders appointed over me."
I guess I don't have a problem with saying publically - "Yup, I agree to play by your rules as long as I play."
Pretty innocuous stuff, really. After all, I can always quit.
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.
When I was a cadet, I pledged to serve faithfully in the Cadet Program: to attend meetings regularly, participate actively in unit activities, obey my officers, wear my uniform properly, and advance my education and training rapidly to prepare myself to be of service to my community, state, and nation.
Why not have officers adhere to the same oath as cadets? After all, if cadets are required to obey their officers, why shouldn't officers be required to do the same? The same rules apply: if an order is unlawful or immoral, you should not carry it out.
Requiring officers and cadets to adhere to the same oath will make things a lot more simple, and help bridge the gap between cadets and officers. It would hold officers to a higher standard, without requiring anything unreasonable or unattainable.
Flying Pig you hit the nail on the head. Thanks
Hoser
CAPblog covered this today: http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/05/ive_written_abo.html
Good idea in theory, however:
Quote...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.
Does anyone have a link to a memo or policy letter that indicates this is required as remarked on CAP Blog?
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.
Bridge the gap between cadets and officers? There is suppossed to be a gap there.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 31, 2007, 02:53:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 31, 2007, 05:12:49 PM
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.
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!"
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.
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
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).
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 :D
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.
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.
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 31, 2007, 09:26:03 PM
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 :D
Have you checked the Vanguard website lately? "No image available" suddenly became a GOOD thing!
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.
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!
Quote from: 12211985 on May 31, 2007, 07:38:24 PMIt 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.
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.
Interesting article about modern challenges to the military oath of office:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA425116
^^ Interesting. I had always understood Domestic Threats to mean "home grown terorists, and all those that want to destroy our system of government by way of rebellion, insurection, treason and terror".
Anyway......This Oath thing is most likely coming from good intentioned people, but before we serve it to the membership, perhaps it needs to be re-worded/re-worked! Get rid of any mention of GOD. I am not atheist, but before a lawsuit is brought against the corp, it needs to be taken out. Also, why makje it mandatory to recite upon promotion? Will this also be somehting we need to sign upon joining or just say?
When did Civil Air Patrol officially (illegaly) change to U S Civil Air Patrol? I don't care, but lets follow the corporate rules that are in place that govern changes like this!
Quote from: Eclipse on May 31, 2007, 04:34:24 PM
Does anyone have a link to a memo or policy letter that indicates this is required as remarked on CAP Blog?
Repeating now... ???
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 01, 2007, 11:15:36 AM
Granted, if ordered to do something that you consider morally wrong you should disobey.
Wrong, pure wrong. The ONLY orders that you have the right and responsibility to disobey are illegal orders, such as those that violate Local,State, Federal Law- whichever is more applicable. For example: you joined the Army as a truck driver, because you wanted to serve. That person is against any war for any reason. He gets orders for Iraq. He cannot disobey because it is against his moral fiber. Now once he gets there, and is ordered to shoot an unarmed child, yes he should disobey. The same principle works for CAP, with a few exceptions, We should follow the laws and obey the orders as given. However, if an order is given that you do not like, you can turn and walk away, but be prepared to defend yourself at a 2B hearing, or consider leaving the Organization.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 01, 2007, 02:17:33 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 31, 2007, 04:34:24 PM
Does anyone have a link to a memo or policy letter that indicates this is required as remarked on CAP Blog?
Repeating now... ???
Talk to your Wing or Region people...
Quote from: FARRIER on June 01, 2007, 08:47:01 AM
Quote from: 12211985 on May 31, 2007, 07:38:24 PMIt 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.
Presumably the phrase "so help me God" would not be used when you choose the "affirm" option, since from a Canonical point of view, a religious oath has been taken if either phrase ( "Swear" or "so help me God")is used. This is the case when swearing a legal oath. Ostensibly, when you swear an oath, you do so on pain of perjury or eternal [darn]ation, and no person should take those lightly. (To swear to a
Corporate code? What is this , the mafia?)
It is wonderful where in a country where the authority for human rights is that these rights were granted by the "Creator", that these rights are "unalienable" , that we need fear atheistic or non-judeo-Christian backlash. Atheism ( or secular humanism) does not believe that the source of human rights are divine and unalterable, and therefore that rights are "granted" by a government. This is a concept that any American should find abhorrent. It is well and good that we set are selves apart from Marxist ideology, where all morality is drawn from the initial premise of that rights are only valid when they serve the State.
The phrase "separation of church and state " does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but is nearly verbatim from the old Commie Russian Constitution.
Capt. Lord
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 01, 2007, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 01, 2007, 11:15:36 AM
Granted, if ordered to do something that you consider morally wrong you should disobey.
Wrong, pure wrong. The ONLY orders that you have the right and responsibility to disobey are illegal orders, such as those that violate Local,State, Federal Law- whichever is more applicable. For example: you joined the Army as a truck driver, because you wanted to serve. That person is against any war for any reason. He gets orders for Iraq. He cannot disobey because it is against his moral fiber. Now once he gets there, and is ordered to shoot an unarmed child, yes he should disobey. The same principle works for CAP, with a few exceptions, We should follow the laws and obey the orders as given. However, if an order is given that you do not like, you can turn and walk away, but be prepared to defend yourself at a 2B hearing, or consider leaving the Organization.
You didn't bother to pay attention to my post. You call my statement wrong, and then provide a perfect example of how it is right. You even echo the same principles in my original post, and give an identical example.
Refusing orders to Iraq, by itself, would be morally wrong. It would be refusing to discharge your duties as you vowed to do. I don't know where you got the idea that I would advocate such an action, but it is a severly uninformed opinion on your part. Why would a military person advocate such behaviour?
I didn't say to disobey orders you didn't like. In the Army, I obey orders I dislike rather often. I obey because I vowed to do so, not because I want to. If an unlawful order is given there are many ways to deal with it, but it must be done properly. That's a different issue.
I look forward to your answer.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 01, 2007, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 01, 2007, 11:15:36 AM
Granted, if ordered to do something that you consider morally wrong you should disobey.
Wrong, pure wrong. The ONLY orders that you have the right and responsibility to disobey are illegal orders, such as those that violate Local,State, Federal Law- whichever is more applicable. For example: you joined the Army as a truck driver, because you wanted to serve. That person is against any war for any reason. He gets orders for Iraq. He cannot disobey because it is against his moral fiber. Now once he gets there, and is ordered to shoot an unarmed child, yes he should disobey. The same principle works for CAP, with a few exceptions, We should follow the laws and obey the orders as given. However, if an order is given that you do not like, you can turn and walk away, but be prepared to defend yourself at a 2B hearing, or consider leaving the Organization.
Umm... you may want to research the term "Conscientious Objector" and laws (UCMJ and civillian) that apply to this term.
Just as a short recap, you are allowed not to stay in the military if you believe that war is wrong. You can't simply believe that THIS war is wrong, however. It has to be the pure moral belief that all war is wrong. THAT is terms for an honorable or general discharge based on conscientious objection.
By the way, there is no law that binds us to obeying orders in CAP. It is a personal choice each of us makes when joining/renewing membership. We all have the option of leaving CAP if we do not want to follow an order for ANY reason. It isn't so in the military. They have laws that state you MUST obey an order unless it's illegal. No questions.
Quote from: CaptLord on June 01, 2007, 03:38:03 PM
Presumably the phrase "so help me God" would not be used when you choose the "affirm" option, since from a Canonical point of view, a religious oath has been taken if either phrase ( "Swear" or "so help me God")is used. This is the case when swearing a legal oath. Ostensibly, when you swear an oath, you do so on pain of perjury or eternal [darn]ation, and no person should take those lightly. (To swear to a Corporate code? What is this , the mafia?)
Back when the concept of personal honor and integrity was more common than it seems to be today, all one had to say was "I give my word". I disagree that a non-Christian should say "so help me God" to appease those who are Christians. If you give an oath, it should mean something to you personally. Since we're supposed to be brother Officers and support one another, I recommend using, "so help me ya'll". ;D
Quote
It is wonderful where in a country where the authority for human rights is that these rights were granted by the "Creator", that these rights are "unalienable" , that we need fear atheistic or non-judeo-Christian backlash. Atheism ( or secular humanism) does not believe that the source of human rights are divine and unalterable, and therefore that rights are "granted" by a government. This is a concept that any American should find abhorrent. It is well and good that we set are selves apart from Marxist ideology, where all morality is drawn from the initial premise of that rights are only valid when they serve the State.
Capt. Lord
I may be an idealist, but I believe that it's "the People" who dictate to the government what our rights are and hold our government accountable. I would never trust the "government" to grant me anything, whatever rights and responsibilities I have, I have them because people before me stood up and told the government, "you can't do X". If declaring our rights to be "divine" made people feel better and created the impression that a violation of those rights was some sort of sacrilege, more power to them.
Quote from: Psicorp on June 01, 2007, 07:30:14 PM
Quote from: CaptLord on June 01, 2007, 03:38:03 PM
Presumably the phrase "so help me God" would not be used when you choose the "affirm" option, since from a Canonical point of view, a religious oath has been taken if either phrase ( "Swear" or "so help me God")is used. This is the case when swearing a legal oath. Ostensibly, when you swear an oath, you do so on pain of perjury or eternal [darn]ation, and no person should take those lightly. (To swear to a Corporate code? What is this , the mafia?)
Back when the concept of personal honor and integrity was more common than it seems to be today, all one had to say was "I give my word". I disagree that a non-Christian should say "so help me God" to appease those who are Christians. If you give an oath, it should mean something to you personally. Since we're supposed to be brother Officers and support one another, I recommend using, "so help me ya'll". ;D
Quote
It is wonderful where in a country where the authority for human rights is that these rights were granted by the "Creator", that these rights are "unalienable" , that we need fear atheistic or non-judeo-Christian backlash. Atheism ( or secular humanism) does not believe that the source of human rights are divine and unalterable, and therefore that rights are "granted" by a government. This is a concept that any American should find abhorrent. It is well and good that we set are selves apart from Marxist ideology, where all morality is drawn from the initial premise of that rights are only valid when they serve the State.
Capt. Lord
I may be an idealist, but I believe that it's "the People" who dictate to the government what our rights are and hold our government accountable. I would never trust the "government" to grant me anything, whatever rights and responsibilities I have, I have them because people before me stood up and told the government, "you can't do X". If declaring our rights to be "divine" made people feel better and created the impression that a violation of those rights was some sort of sacrilege, more power to them.
Bravo Zulu and Well Said!
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 01, 2007, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 01, 2007, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 01, 2007, 11:15:36 AM
Granted, if ordered to do something that you consider morally wrong you should disobey.
Wrong, pure wrong. The ONLY orders that you have the right and responsibility to disobey are illegal orders, such as those that violate Local,State, Federal Law- whichever is more applicable. For example: you joined the Army as a truck driver, because you wanted to serve. That person is against any war for any reason. He gets orders for Iraq. He cannot disobey because it is against his moral fiber. Now once he gets there, and is ordered to shoot an unarmed child, yes he should disobey. The same principle works for CAP, with a few exceptions, We should follow the laws and obey the orders as given. However, if an order is given that you do not like, you can turn and walk away, but be prepared to defend yourself at a 2B hearing, or consider leaving the Organization.
You didn't bother to pay attention to my post. You call my statement wrong, and then provide a perfect example of how it is right. You even echo the same principles in my original post, and give an identical example.
Refusing orders to Iraq, by itself, would be morally wrong. It would be refusing to discharge your duties as you vowed to do. I don't know where you got the idea that I would advocate such an action, but it is a severly uninformed opinion on your part. Why would a military person advocate such behaviour?
I didn't say to disobey orders you didn't like. In the Army, I obey orders I dislike rather often. I obey because I vowed to do so, not because I want to. If an unlawful order is given there are many ways to deal with it, but it must be done properly. That's a different issue.
I look forward to your answer.
My point was that someone can not disobey orders that they think are immoral. For example, say killing was not legislated. It would still be morally wrong, but not illegal. Therefore a superior could tell the subordinate to go and eliminate this person. In that case, that order would have to be carried out, even though it's immoral. The same- relatively- thing applies to CAP. Your statement said "
Granted, if ordered to do something that you consider morally wrong you should disobey." No! just because it is immoral, that does not mean illegal. The ONLY time can an order be disobeyed is when it is blatantly illegal.
Quote from: Psicorp on June 01, 2007, 07:30:14 PM
Quote from: CaptLord on June 01, 2007, 03:38:03 PM
Presumably the phrase "so help me God" would not be used when you choose the "affirm" option, since from a Canonical point of view, a religious oath has been taken if either phrase ( "Swear" or "so help me God")is used. This is the case when swearing a legal oath. Ostensibly, when you swear an oath, you do so on pain of perjury or eternal [darn]ation, and no person should take those lightly. (To swear to a Corporate code? What is this , the mafia?)
Back when the concept of personal honor and integrity was more common than it seems to be today, all one had to say was "I give my word". I disagree that a non-Christian should say "so help me God" to appease those who are Christians. If you give an oath, it should mean something to you personally. Since we're supposed to be brother Officers and support one another, I recommend using, "so help me ya'll". ;D
Quote
It is wonderful where in a country where the authority for human rights is that these rights were granted by the "Creator", that these rights are "unalienable" , that we need fear atheistic or non-judeo-Christian backlash. Atheism ( or secular humanism) does not believe that the source of human rights are divine and unalterable, and therefore that rights are "granted" by a government. This is a concept that any American should find abhorrent. It is well and good that we set are selves apart from Marxist ideology, where all morality is drawn from the initial premise of that rights are only valid when they serve the State.
Capt. Lord
I may be an idealist, but I believe that it's "the People" who dictate to the government what our rights are and hold our government accountable. I would never trust the "government" to grant me anything, whatever rights and responsibilities I have, I have them because people before me stood up and told the government, "you can't do X". If declaring our rights to be "divine" made people feel better and created the impression that a violation of those rights was some sort of sacrilege, more power to them.
I am not aware of a time in American History where one could simply "give their word" to become a commissioned officer, enlist, or give testimony.
On the second major point, we would not have had the right of redress enumerated in the Law and Constitution if the "people" merely dictate to the government what their rights are. ( oh, that would work! Lets send a strongly worded letter!) The Constitution is the only written guarantee that we have rights at all, not our power to make demands of goverment. Lets assume you believe that there is no god but nature: There is no conflict in believing that nature, as your creator, endowed you with certain unalienable rights. The second amendment reserved for us the ultimate power of redress against a a Goverment that forsakes the inviolable rights enumerated in the Constitution, as well as those too numerous to list.
Although merely demanding rights has helped create some rights not enumerated in the Constitution, ( such as the right to have a publicly funded abortion) The axiom " Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" should be kept in mind. Fortunately, as a constitutional republic, and not a democracy, we are not completely at the whim of the majority in safeguarding our freedoms.
As far as Non-Christians swearing a Christian or deist oath, nothing I said could be construed to mean that they should. My statement only addressed whether you can "affirm" by "God" and not have defeated your intention to present only a civil oath.
Capt. Lord
We may be able to come to some sort of an agreement on this.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it seems like a lot of people here have forgotten that when you remove references to God in things like the pledge, it eats away at our national identity. That is what our enemy wants. One of the big reasons why Al Qaida, Hamas, the PLO, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and other radical Islamist terrorist groups want America destroyed is because we are a Judeo-Christian nation with Judeo-Christian values. By their thinking, if they can't destroy us tangibly, they will do everything they can to destroy our values and way of life.
Did you know that there are references to God on the monuments in Washington D.C.? On the top of the dome on the Washington Monument are the words "Laus Deo" - Praise be to God. They are inscribed facing the East, so every day, when the sun rises, the sun shines on those words. There are other examples, but this is probably the most striking. Should we get rid of the Washington Monument because the reference to God is offensive to some people?
Someone on here said they would never trust the government to give us our freedoms. I have some good news! The Founding Fathers didn't think that would be good, either. That's why the Founding Fathers stated that our freedoms come from GOD. Those freedoms come by virtue of your creation, regardless of belief or creed. Notice how the Founding Fathers said "God" and not "the God of Abraham." They knew that people would have different definitions/interpretations of what God is.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that if there is any oath that is appropriate for members of an all-volunteer, 501(c)3 Corporation like CAP, it is one that does not mention God at all. Why go through the trouble if it is going to upset so many people? It is sad that we have become so politically-correct that people are offended by our nation's heritage, but that's the state of the Union today.
I believe it is wise and prudent to establish an Oath for CAP officers just like the one below:
I pledge that I will serve faithfully as a CAP officer: that I will attend meetings regularly, participate actively in unit activities, obey my officers, wear my uniform properly, and advance my education and training rapidly to prepare myself to be of service to my community, state, and nation.
Just like the Cadet Oath, but modified for officers. No mention of God anywhere. As Capt Lord implied, it doesn't make sense to swear to a corporate code.
Whenever I swear the oath, I will absolutely include "so help me God.' I'm only human, and the Lord knows that I'm not perfect. That's why I swear the oath, I'm asking for his help- he knows I need all the help I can get. Can anybody, from CAP/cc to the newest C/ab say that they don't need help? or that they are doing everything perfectly? I know that we all fall short of perfect, but does that mean that we shouldn't try??? I don't think so!! I'm a Christian, son of a pastor actually, and I have no qualms about swearing to God to that I will uphold goals- corporate or not.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 01, 2007, 08:11:44 PM
My point was that someone can not disobey orders that they think are immoral. For example, say killing was not legislated. It would still be morally wrong, but not illegal. Therefore a superior could tell the subordinate to go and eliminate this person. In that case, that order would have to be carried out, even though it's immoral. The same- relatively- thing applies to CAP. Your statement said "Granted, if ordered to do something that you consider morally wrong you should disobey." No! just because it is immoral, that does not mean illegal. The ONLY time can an order be disobeyed is when it is blatantly illegal.
I see your viewpoint and I sure don't agree with it. You believe in legalities, I believe in morals. Your viewpoint has justified some of the worst atrocities in history with the defense of "I was only following orders." Even some of Hitler's troops brought to trial decades after the Holocaust responded the same way. Dispute it if you wish, but it is fact. You may not think it, but you're of the same mindset. If you choose to live life that way, I can't do anything to stop it, not that I would go to the trouble. Think what you wish of me, it will not change my moral standing one bit.
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 01, 2007, 09:39:32 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 01, 2007, 08:11:44 PM
My point was that someone can not disobey orders that they think are immoral. For example, say killing was not legislated. It would still be morally wrong, but not illegal. Therefore a superior could tell the subordinate to go and eliminate this person. In that case, that order would have to be carried out, even though it's immoral. The same- relatively- thing applies to CAP. Your statement said "Granted, if ordered to do something that you consider morally wrong you should disobey." No! just because it is immoral, that does not mean illegal. The ONLY time can an order be disobeyed is when it is blatantly illegal.
I see your viewpoint and I sure don't agree with it. You believe in legalities, I believe in morals. Your viewpoint has justified some of the worst atrocities in history with the defense of "I was only following orders." Even some of Hitler's troops brought to trial decades after the Holocaust responded the same way. Dispute it if you wish, but it is fact. You may not think it, but you're of the same mindset. If you choose to live life that way, I can't do anything to stop it, not that I would go to the trouble. Think what you wish of me, it will not change my moral standing one bit.
You have a point in regards to "moral" versus "legal". If you disobey a direct order that you know is lawful, but in your opinion is immoral, you have a moral obligation to disobey, and a legal obligation to obey. That is quite a dilemma! A martyr, and I use this term in the most favorable sense, would simply bear any punishment that the military handed out in good conscience, and fully accept the consequences of his actions.
On one hand, you ( having been voluntarily enlisted or commissioned) swore an oath to obey all lawful orders ( an unlawful order being ab initio, invalid and non-binding) So to obey the order, you are on legally sound ground, but in your opinion, committing an immoral act.
On the other hand, if you substitute your judgment for that of your commander, for the purpose of evading an act which is legal, but immoral, you have committed an immoral act by violating your oath before God.
A man with
legality on his mind would avoid the order on legal grounds, hoping that after the fact, presuming he has not been summarily executed, the act will be arguably provable to a Court that the order was invalid by reason of illegality or other defect, or, so prima facie immoral as to shock the conscience of his brother officers.
A man with
morality on his mind would face the legal consequences of his actions without complaint, and know that he simultaneously violated an oath that he himself held sacred, and took with no purpose of evasion. He would then also presumably be willing to enter hell for violating his sworn oath, rather than committing an immoral act. ( Perhaps covertly hoping that God would see his dilemma and cut him some slack....)
A man with
duty on his mind would carry out his orders, trusting that his superiors have weighed the moral and legal consequences of the action, and believing that any sin committed was committed by the originator of the order, not by his hapless tool of a soldier.
The real problem came when our hypothetical soldier took an oath that he should have forseeably known was inconsistent with his moral belief system. It seems that many young men suddenly discover the intrinsic immorality of war at the moment they are placed in its path....
Capt Lord
Does anyone else know of HUGE changes that are soon to be pushed on the membership?? I ask, because I find it AWESOME that before a policy memo/letter comes out the first place most people here about this Oath thing is CAPTALK. Is our LEADERSHIP sucking or What?
The ICLs should be coming out much sooner than they have been, if at all. We really shouldn't be relying on meeting minutes, emails or live web streams as sources of official policy. How long should it take to write up a few ICLs and post 'em, really?
The "problem" is that some Wing CC's are better about pushing this stuff downstream than others.
I think NHQ shoudl just hit the "all" button these, or have a site with an RSS feed to handle this stuff, instead of assuming the Wing's are pushing this down.
Quote from: Psicorp on June 01, 2007, 07:30:14 PM
I may be an idealist, but I believe that it's "the People" who dictate to the government what our rights are and hold our government accountable. I would never trust the "government" to grant me anything, whatever rights and responsibilities I have, I have them because people before me stood up and told the government, "you can't do X". If declaring our rights to be "divine" made people feel better and created the impression that a violation of those rights was some sort of sacrilege, more power to them.
If I was looking for a statement that would best display the staggering degree to which our educational system has decomposed, this would be it.
The idea that anyone wearing the uniform of the United States could utter this statement is disturbing. The Founding Fathers would be agast.
Regarding the oaths,
I thought I would point something out... CAP Officers cannot give lawful orders. CAP members are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Ref: CAP Knowledgebase Answer 734
AFI 10-2701 Organization and Function of Civil Air Patrol
....... as a civilian corporation, has no equivalent to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. CAP is a private, nonprofit, benevolent corporation chartered by Congress at Section 40301 of Title 36 of the U.S. Code. Section 8150 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code makes it clear that CAP members are not granted the status of military or veteran by nature of their CAP membership.
The Air Force provides the following guidance about CAP for members of the Air Force in paragraphs below from AFI 10-2701 ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE CIVIL AIR PATROL , which covers the status of CAP members. (Note: Link(s) will open a new browser window and leave this site.)
1.3. Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer
upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active, reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not apply to CAP members.
A1.3. CAP Members. CAP members are private citizens who volunteer, without remuneration, their time, services, and resources to accomplish the purposes and objectives of CAP. CAP controls the categories and criteria for membership in their organization. CAP members, with certain exceptions, must pay dues on an annual basis. CAP membership, with exceptions, is renewed on an annual basis. Membership in CAP consists primarily of adult members that CAP refers to as senior members and youth members referred to as cadets. There are no physical requirements for membership in CAP, and physically challenged individuals can be found among both their senior and cadet members. Unless otherwise stated, CAP members referred to in this Air Force Instruction are CAP senior members.
A1.3.4. Voluntary Adherence to CAP Rules and Regulations. Since CAP members are non-paid volunteers who do not formally "enlist" or otherwise commit themselves for service in CAP, CAP commanders at all levels of the organization are limited in how they can deal with members who fail to adhere to CAP rules and regulations. CAP, as a civilian, non-profit corporation, has no equivalent to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and guidelines on standards of personal conduct are very broad and general in nature. However, CAP regulations are very strict on aircraft and vehicle operations, safety, proper accountability of equipment, and protection of cadet members. CAP members voluntarily adhere to CAP regulations. Failure to adhere to regulations can result in termination or denial of CAP membership.
Well, there we have it. National Headquarters
again has a solution in search of a problem.
The wannabe-military types are trying hard to make CAP something it's not. The Air Force regs clearly state what CAP is and how it shall relate to the Air Force. I hate to say it, but CAP is not the military.
I would think that AFI 10-2701, para 1.3 would prohibit the institution of an Oath similar to the one the Armed Forces use.
Quote from: AFI 10-2701, para 1.3Air Force protocol requirements do not apply to CAP members.
I would think that swearing oaths like the kind the military uses would fall under the category of Air Force protocol requirements.
What a people are trying to do here is bring some sort of "force of law" to members who won't play the game right, or won't play it "right enough".
The fix for this is just working the program we have, and holding people to standards they agreed to.
A couple of uncomfortable conversations and we have much fewer problems.
I wonder how the State Guards handle their issues. They don't get paid either, so what's to hold them to any oath? Just an idle thought....
Anyone here State Guard that can shed light on this?
Quote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2007, 12:36:17 AM
What a people are trying to do here is bring some sort of "force of law" to members who won't play the game right, or won't play it "right enough".
I think this point is exactly right. The problem, of course, is there is no "force of law" that can be used.
What I'm baffled about is, how does the National Command Staff not know the obvious conflict with these oaths and the AFI covering CAP organization and function? Does anyone really think that CAP officers are comissioned and CAP members enlist into the organization?
-Baffled in Seattle
OK now an OATH to the CORPORATION no way!!! what kind of crap is that, either we are the Auxilary of the USAF or we are a Corporation what a bunch of H.S. crap is this. >:D
Oh Ok where do I sign :angel:
Scouts (boy and girl) take an oath, as do CAP cadets.
Would a CAP senior/officer oath be equivalent to that taken by military members? Of course not!
Would it give CAP commanders orders 'force of law'? No way!
Is it something we can't live without? Hardly.
Does anyone want to swear allegiance to "The Corporation"? I think not!
However, this could be a morale boosting means for individuals to make a public, spoken commitment to one another and to themselves....and that might well be something worth at least considering.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 03, 2007, 03:09:52 AM
However, this could be a morale boosting means for individuals to make a public, spoken commitment to one another and to themselves....and that might well be something worth at least considering.
If a morale boost is needed, I would suggest the new member flip over the CAPF 12 and take the oath printed there.
-Seattle Sarge
Quote from: CaptLord on June 01, 2007, 03:38:03 PM
...that we need fear atheistic or non-judeo-Christian backlash.
Capt. Lord...
its called respect.
Pending seeing the policy letter, If we are supposed to be start taking an oath upon promotion or taking office, I hope there is a provision that "so help me God" is optional.
I'll respect your right to say it when taking an oath, and if
someone who is not of a Christian faith or an atheist, I'll respect their right not to.
Do Senior Members wear a TPU or BDU when they take the oath?
Or will grey distinctives do?
And if I wear my BDU's is my oath still good if I do not wear the U.S. Civil Air Patrol tape? What about the new command patch?
Boy so many questions!
;)
Quote from: FARRIER on June 03, 2007, 07:50:15 AM
Quote from: CaptLord on June 01, 2007, 03:38:03 PM
...that we need fear atheistic or non-judeo-Christian backlash.
Capt. Lord...its called respect. Pending seeing the policy letter, If we are supposed to be start taking an oath upon promotion or taking office, I hope there is a provision that "so help me God" is optional. I'll respect your right to say it when taking an oath, and if someone who is not of a Christian faith or an atheist, I'll respect their right not to.
Ahh, I see we have a little reading comprehension problem! First, my respect for religion and my respect for the Constitution of the United States,
prohibit allowing myself or any other American to be forced to take an involuntary oath. Second, my post clearly states that it does not make sense to swear an oath by affirmation, and then swear to god. That's much like saying "I swear to God I am an atheist". Every oath in which one affirms rathers than swears is done so without the phrase "so help me God".
The Constitution of the United States , to which I have sworn an
actual oath, tells me that Congress Shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion. This means I do not have to fear that druids, atheists or democrats can compel me to take an oath involuntarily.
Right now this Oath is little more than a rumor, but it does have the stench of of fiefdom building. How many people have been thrown out of CAP lately for real or imagined violations of the regulations? At the command level, quite a few.
Farrier, I apologize if you did not understand my post. I assumed that anyone in uniform would have a passing knowledge or familiarity with the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution.
Our Country was however, unapologetically formed on Judeo-Christian values. This is what makes America the most free, most generous, most moral country ever to exist in the history of the world . Christian thought is the product of western philosophy, and includes great thinkers, like Marcus Aurelius, who were not Christians or Jews. But lets face it, America's strength does not come from Islam, Hinduisim, Druidism or Tennessee Snake worship. Frankly, these people are mere beneficiaries of the greatest Country to ever grace the planet.
Capt. Lord
Tags - MIKE
Hawk200,
Re: State Guard comparison. True that the State Guard and State Defense Forces are unpaid volunteers, but the similarity to CAP ends there. The SG and SDFs are state military forces and not dues paying members of a corporation.
This is not a dispairaging remark as I belong to both and hold each in great esteem.
The "oath" is not an issue to me.
Regards,
Ken
It seems like one of the un-resolved issues in this thread is the the problem that some people have with the, "So help me God." in the oath.
Folks who take issue with the G-word may opt out of that last part, as "So help me God." is an OPTIONAL part of the officer oath. I came across this when I was researching my blog post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegience)
Sorry to cite wikipedia, I would have rather cited the AFI, but I've seen this corroborated online other places.
So those of you who prefer not to use the G-word should simply ask the person administering the oath to strike the last line, and everyone can move on.
I hope this reduces heartburn for the folks affected.
The blog post can be found here:
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/05/ive_written_abo.html (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/05/ive_written_abo.html)
s/v,
- Midway Six
Quote from: KFreeman on June 03, 2007, 02:44:01 PM
Hawk200,
Re: State Guard comparison. True that the State Guard and State Defense Forces are unpaid volunteers, but the similarity to CAP ends there. The SG and SDFs are state military forces and not dues paying members of a corporation.
This is not a dispairaging remark as I belong to both and hold each in great esteem.
The "oath" is not an issue to me.
Regards,
Ken
Still doesn't answer my question. How does the State Guard assure compliance with the orders issued by its command? I drew the similarities between the fact that neither are paid for service and both are volunteers.
If a member of a State Guard decides they don't want to play anymore, what happens? Do they have an oath that holds the individual accountable if they make such a decision?
^^ I think most State Guards are paid when called into State Active Duty, at the same rate as a NG person of the same pay grade would be. CAP members are not. So....SDF's/SG's would no longer be a volunteer when getting paid right? What do CAP members get? Reimbursement for travel and maybe lodging, if approved by like 4 command levels, and then waiting 5 weeks for a check to get cut.
Hawk200,
Perhaps this is a better answer:
In my SDF outfit: Code of Alabama, Title 31, Military Affairs and Civil Defense Military Code: 31-2-50 ....failure to appear for duty....shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
It does not go into detail about the misdemeanor but I get the idea. I did not look into it any further.
Regards,
Ken
(LTC in 3rd Inf Bde ALSDF and LtCol in SER Staff CAP)
To me the reference to Deity is less important then the fact that the 'oath' does not mention the Constitution, United States etc. but instead mentions the CAP specifically. I would not take this oath that National just cooked up. However, I would have no problem taking the oath in use by the Air Force. - Or one that the Air Force, and not NHQ, comes up with.
Quote from: KFreeman on June 03, 2007, 06:45:35 PM
Hawk200,
Perhaps this is a better answer:
In my SDF outfit: Code of Alabama, Title 31, Military Affairs and Civil Defense Military Code: 31-2-50 ....failure to appear for duty....shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
It does not go into detail about the misdemeanor but I get the idea. I did not look into it any further.
Regards,
Ken
(LTC in 3rd Inf Bde ALSDF and LtCol in SER Staff CAP)
That's what I was looking for. I was wondering if CAP could do something similar to the State Guards, but I didn't know how the State Guard dealt with such issues. Obviously, we can't do the same thing in CAP.
At times though, I think it would be nice if we could. Would be easier to deal with malcontents that only want to play their way.
Quote from: SeattleSarge on June 03, 2007, 03:25:27 AM
If a morale boost is needed, I would suggest the new member flip over the CAPF 12 and take the oath printed there.
-Seattle Sarge
Sounds fine....I think we need to bring a bit of structure & formality to the Senior program....as long as we set a tone that this is largely a coffee drinking social gathering, that will be how the members behave!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 03, 2007, 08:33:49 PM
....I think we need to bring a bit of structure & formality to the Senior program....as long as we set a tone that this is largely a coffee drinking social gathering, that will be how the members behave!
Hey, I get plenty of work done while drinking my coffee! ;D
Quote from: Midway SixNHQ has just mandated new oaths to be sworn by all CAP Officers upon initial membership, all promotions, and at change of command. This is effective immediately.
Can anyone find proof of this? So far, I have not seen any memo, policy letter, etc. stating that NHQ has mandated new oaths for all CAP officers.
Source: www.capblog.typepad.com.
Quote from: 12211985 on June 04, 2007, 01:27:32 AM
Quote from: Midway SixNHQ has just mandated new oaths to be sworn by all CAP Officers upon initial membership, all promotions, and at change of command. This is effective immediately.
Can anyone find proof of this? So far, I have not seen any memo, policy letter, etc. stating that NHQ has mandated new oaths for all CAP officers.
Source: www.capblog.typepad.com.
Have you rejoined CAP yet? If not, why are all these things such an issue to you? I puzzle?
Quote from: Major CarralesHave you rejoined CAP yet? If not, why are all these things such an issue to you? I puzzle?
You put a question mark where a period should go. That's funny.
I don't know, Major Carrales. Do you puzzle?
Just kidding with you, sir.
Okay - here is why I'm so inquisitive about things affecting CAP on CAPTalk and CadetStuff:
Things have changed in CAP since I left. I'd like to stay current on things that have changed so I'm not out-of-the-loop regarding the changes when I decide to return to CAP.
Now that you know why I am so inquisitive, there's no need to be puzzled about this anymore.
Does this mean your a joining...or not?
There are really only three reasons people that are not in an organization keep current on it without joining...1) vitriolic scorn 2) destructive vitriolic scorn or 3) desire to rejoin.
Of which of the above are you afflicted?
Quote from: Major Carrales on June 04, 2007, 04:16:11 AM
Does this mean your a joining...or not?
I am joining, just not tomorrow. I want to get my undergraduate studies out of the way first.
Quote from: Major Carrales on June 04, 2007, 04:16:11 AMThere are really only three reasons people that are not in an organization keep current on it without joining...1) vitriolic scorn 2) destructive vitriolic scorn or 3) desire to rejoin.
I have a desire to rejoin CAP. I certainly do NOT have any vitriolic scorn, as you say. However, there are more reasons than the ones you listed as to why people not in organizations keep current on them without joining. Can anyone say research?
By the way, my purpose in life is NOT to keep you happy. Why should I care what you think about my lack of membership in CAP? I can still count on one hand all the people on CAPTalk and CS who judge what I say based on my status as a former member. I don't care about what those few people think, either.
Now please, let's get back to the topic.
I think that automatically instituting oaths for CAP officers without input from the membership was a major snafu by general Pineda. This seems to be an infamous trait of his - institute something first, then (maybe) get input from the membership about what they think. Look at what happened with the TPU!
Just another thing to add to the long list of "Things I would never do if I were National Commander."
BUPKES!
Wow. Only one reply in 10 hours? What I said must have been a show-stopper!
Doesn't anyone have more to add about this Oath stuff? I think CAP officers should just keep it simple and use the same oath that cadets use.
Does anyone have a problem with that?
Quote from: 12211985 on June 05, 2007, 12:21:12 AM
Wow. Only one reply in 10 hours? What I said must have been a show-stopper!
site was down...
Oh, okay. I'll put away the soap box.
Has anyone been able to confirm this rumor as acurate yet?
Can any tell me -if real- if this 'oath' has a revisions/appeals process?
Wonder what the "RealMilitary" / USAF-CAP think of this thing.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:26:54 AM
Has anyone been able to confirm this rumor as acurate yet?
Can any tell me -if real- if this 'oath' has a revisions/appeals process?
Wonder what the "RealMilitary" / USAF-CAP think of this thing.
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that, as in the case of the corporate uniforms, they really don't give a hoot one way or the other.
Any oaths sworn by CAP members would have the same legal effect as swearing an oath to topple trees or leap tall buildings in a single bound -- in other words, none at all. Just a kind of feel-good thing, a "we're part of the team too" thing.
I've seen no policy letters or anything like that; the above is my humble opinion, free and (doubtless) worth what it cost. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Jack
That's correct, a feel good measure. Some want more structure and organization in the senior program plus more respect and military order etc. They see the oath as a step in that direction. I don't think it will do anything beyond highten the initial curiosity of the one saying it. If that person is inclined to be a loyal person the it will happen. It has the same efect as the safety pledge.
The senior program already has structure loosely based on military principles. Replacing the current program with a rigid military structure would be a mistake. That would satisfy a few but chase aware many others whodidn't join CAP to be part of the USAF "Lite".
I think all of us are yearning for the same thing, clear missions and direction from the top. "Missions for America" tells me nothing. Frequent uniform changes and giving the supply system to a nonresponsive contractor doesn't help either. It tells me top management is disconnected and/or doesn't give a crap, remember the race car.
I hope the BoG sees the light but I also am trying to get the magic "Powerball" ticket too.
Quote from: sparks on June 05, 2007, 10:53:57 AMThe senior program already has structure loosely based on military principles. Replacing the current program with a rigid military structure would be a mistake. That would satisfy a few but chase aware many others whodidn't join CAP to be part of the USAF "Lite".
I don't understand. CAP makes it clear that it is the USAF Auxiliary. People join the Coast Guard Auxiliary to be part of the Coast Guard "Lite", so why shouldn't CAP be the same way? This is one reason why CAP is one of the two U.S. Military auxiliaries and is, by and large, the junior of the two.
Quote from: sparks on June 05, 2007, 10:53:57 AMI think all of us are yearning for the same thing, clear missions and direction from the top. "Missions for America" tells me nothing. Frequent uniform changes and giving the supply system to a nonresponsive contractor doesn't help either. It tells me top management is disconnected and/or doesn't give a crap, remember the race car.
Very true. It is my opinion that defining clear missions, stopping the frequent uniform changes, etc. is more important than establishing an oath.
First you FIX THE ORGANIZATION, then establish the oath. Jeebus!
Quote from: sparks on June 05, 2007, 10:53:57 AMI hope the BoG sees the light but I also am trying to get the magic "Powerball" ticket too.
I doubt they will see the light anytime soon.
Hi Everyone,
Sorry to throw cold water on this topic, but after talking to a friend at HQ. I have found we don't have any oaths YET. They are working on one first for commanders, then promotions and lastly new members as part of a mentor program that will be reflected on a new membership application.
Things didn't look like they were put together quite right. You don't need to worry right now. When it does happen there will probably be a bit of fanfare.
Quote from: cap53 on June 05, 2007, 03:34:18 PM
Hi Everyone,
Sorry to throw cold water on this topic, but after talking to a friend at HQ. I have found we don't have any oaths YET. They are working on one first for commanders, then promotions and lastly new members as part of a mentor program that will be reflected on a new membership application.
Things didn't look like they were put together quite right. You don't need to worry right now. When it does happen there will probably be a bit of fanfare.
You want
US to just
drop a five page thread ??? Why ???
Quote from: cap53 on June 05, 2007, 03:34:18 PM
Hi Everyone,
Sorry to throw cold water on this topic, but after talking to a friend at HQ. I have found we don't have any oaths YET. They are working on one first for commanders, then promotions and lastly new members as part of a mentor program that will be reflected on a new membership application.
Things didn't look like they were put together quite right. You don't need to worry right now. When it does happen there will probably be a bit of fanfare.
Then explain why it has come to me from Region, Wing and Group? These are offical channels.
Someone needs to clear this up...officially beofre this day ends.
Quote from: sparks on June 05, 2007, 10:53:57 AM
The senior program already has structure loosely based on military principles. Replacing the current program with a rigid military structure would be a mistake. That would satisfy a few but chase aware many others whodidn't join CAP to be part of the USAF "Lite".
I agree completely...
Not to beat this to death, but remember USAF (previous posting) says CAP is
not a military organization. It's very clear. We are not subject to the UCMJ and we have no military status with the Department of Defense. We are even admonished to ask for "military discounts" from commercial vendors.
Our Commanding General cannot change this organization's status. Regardless of oaths, uniforms, or internal policies and regulations.
If "Joe Tentpeg" wants to join a military lite organization, we should steer them to one of the State Defense Forces.
Quote from: sparks on June 05, 2007, 10:53:57 AM
The senior program already has structure loosely based on military principles. Replacing the current program with a rigid military structure would be a mistake. That would satisfy a few but chase aware many others whodidn't join CAP to be part of the USAF "Lite".
Sparks, I agree with you in part. Although, a little more rigidity wouldn't hurt. To us and our posterity, it would behoove CAP to place more emphasis on recruiting professional volunteers with mission essential skills than amateur "wanna-bes" (never liked that term) who are or are not joining the USAF "Lite".
I don't think that an oath of office is really all that important to those ends, but I think that it may plant a seed of obligation in the minds of those with integrity who may be walking a fine line of commitment and just need a nudge.
Contrary to what our regulations and manuals would like us to believe, we do not really have the training capability that we need to bring our new members up to speed in a
efficient and
sufficient manner. What does that leave you with? Old amateurs teaching new amateurs old haphazard ways of doing things through "on-the-job" training under the auspice, "That is the way it has always been done."
I long for the day that CAP is looked upon reverently by those outside our organization (and within) with any clue about our history or what we do, but it is going to take the thought and commitment of those of us within to help change the waning perceptions. It is going to take the actions of our "leadership" to evolve CAP into a 21st century organization with a 21st century mission and clear and distinct goals. Otherwise, the oath and everything we currently take seriously is going to become meaningless, because we will have become obsolete.
Are the oaths (whatever form they take) really going to improve all this? Probably not. It is going to take leaders who are committed to the organization and not their own political agenda or legendary aspirations. Uniform changes, more ribbons, vehicle paint schemes, more ribbons, specialty badges, more ribbons, reverse flag patches, more ribbons and new oaths reek of a hound marking his firehydrant rather than leading his pack and hunting his game.
Quote from: 12211985 on June 05, 2007, 02:45:40 PM
First you FIX THE ORGANIZATION, then establish the oath. Jeebus!
Indeed, but we are really waisting our time, because we are all just "preaching to the choir."
The information was imparted to me by a high staff member on the full time staff at NHQ when I questioned if the Oaths were ral or not. I really don't care one why or another. Just will not use them until they are published from NHQ. Do as you what.
Quote from: cap53 on June 05, 2007, 04:30:40 PM
The information was imparted to me by a high staff member on the full time staff at NHQ when I questioned if the Oaths were ral or not. I really don't care one why or another. Just will not use them until they are published from NHQ. Do as you what.
I have submitted the question to the Knowledge base.
Quote from: Major Carrales on June 05, 2007, 04:32:48 PM
Quote from: cap53 on June 05, 2007, 04:30:40 PM
The information was imparted to me by a high staff member on the full time staff at NHQ when I questioned if the Oaths were ral or not. I really don't care one why or another. Just will not use them until they are published from NHQ. Do as you what.
I have submitted the question to the Knowledge base.
Good way to go, Maj.
Quote from: ncc1912 on June 05, 2007, 04:25:58 PM
Contrary to what our regulations and manuals would like us to believe, we do not really have the training capability that we need to bring our new members up to speed in a efficient and sufficient manner. What does that leave you with? Old amateurs teaching new amateurs old haphazard ways of doing things through "on-the-job" training under the auspice, "That is the way it has always been done."
I long for the day that CAP is looked upon reverently by those outside our organization (and within) with any clue about our history or what we do, but it is going to take the thought and commitment of those of us within to help change the waning perceptions. It is going to take the actions of our "leadership" to evolve CAP into a 21st century organization with a 21st century mission and clear and distinct goals. Otherwise, the oath and everything we currently take seriously is going to become meaningless, because we will have become obsolete.
Are the oaths (whatever form they take) really going to improve all this? Probably not. It is going to take leaders who are committed to the organization and not their own political agenda or legendary aspirations. Uniform changes, more ribbons, vehicle paint schemes, more ribbons, specialty badges, more ribbons, reverse flag patches, more ribbons and new oaths reek of a hound marking his firehydrant rather than leading his pack and hunting his game.
Quote from: 12211985 on June 05, 2007, 02:45:40 PM
First you FIX THE ORGANIZATION, then establish the oath. Jeebus!
Indeed, but we are really waisting our time, because we are all just "preaching to the choir."
IMHO this is one of the best posts on this board in a long time (including and especially the last sentence!). And yes, by the way, I AM wasting time on here instead of doing something productive!! :)
But there are a LOT of good ideas out there on how to improve CAP, and a lot of these ideas can be implemented without major decrees or blessings from above. I'd like to see all of us (myself included) spend more of our energies on here focusing on those ideas. Who's actually tried some of the things we see posted on here? Did it work for you like it worked for the originators of the idea? That would be benifical disucssion, to me at least.
Just to keep this post on topic, the whole "oath" deal strikes me as just another "safety pledge" kind of thing from National, as well as another vehicle to push the "USCAP" name change on us. A hassle we'll have to put up with (those of us who acutaly bother to comply with it), but ultimately something that really won't help us in a tangible way.
It is hard for me to say what I think on how requiring an "oath" will affect the organization as a whole or even individually. I like the idea in concept.
I like the idea that someones word actually means something. A man's word is his bond afterall, although that practice seems to have been tossed to the wayside in more recent generations.
I like the idea of someone standing in front of all those they work for or with and stating that they will take responsibility for whatever they are doing.
The oath, in a way, is the precursor to your reputation, and hopefully those swearing (or affirming) it will acknowledge there is more to being whatever they are than being a name on paper.
I like the idea that if someone doesn't do what they swore (or affirmed) to do, you can tell them that they gave you their word they would do it.
I also like the additional "pomp and circumstance" reciting an oath adds to a ceremony. If you invite family, friends, etc to a promotion ceremony and the commander says, "Here you go, here's your epaulet sleeves." It removes the dignity of that action and belittles the accomplishment.
I'm still undecided as to whether or no I like the actual phrasing of the oaths posted, but I think that should they decide on them, a lot of thought and careful consideration should be used to find the right words to express what their affirmation really is.
I am not a fan of oaths and pledges that are just adapted from one already in existence. i.e. take the AF commissioning oath, or oath of enlistment and put "cadet" in front of everything...
Quote from: MidwaySix on June 03, 2007, 03:57:19 PM
It seems like one of the un-resolved issues in this thread is the the problem that some people have with the, "So help me God." in the oath.
Folks who take issue with the G-word may opt out of that last part, as "So help me God." is an OPTIONAL part of the officer oath. I came across this when I was researching my blog post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegience)
Sorry to cite wikipedia, I would have rather cited the AFI, but I've seen this corroborated online other places.
So those of you who prefer not to use the G-word should simply ask the person administering the oath to strike the last line, and everyone can move on.
I hope this reduces heartburn for the folks affected.
The blog post can be found here:
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/05/ive_written_abo.html (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/05/ive_written_abo.html)
s/v,
- Midway Six
Negative, Ghostrider...
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 31 > § 502 says:
QuoteEach person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000502----000-.html
It doesn't say "may take the following oath" - it says "shall." There's nothing in Federal Law that says any parts of the Oath, except for the "or affirm" option listed, that are optional.
So, to drop the "so help me god" part is a violation of federal law - which seems a heck of a way to start your military career.
Sorry,
I just got an email from NHQ and the Oaths are indeed valid. I misunderstood what was said to me. I guess that happens when you get OLD. They still don't look like they should
Quote from: ddelaney103 on June 05, 2007, 08:54:53 PM
Quote from: MidwaySix on June 03, 2007, 03:57:19 PM
It seems like one of the un-resolved issues in this thread is the the problem that some people have with the, "So help me God." in the oath.
Folks who take issue with the G-word may opt out of that last part, as "So help me God." is an OPTIONAL part of the officer oath. I came across this when I was researching my blog post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegience)
Sorry to cite wikipedia, I would have rather cited the AFI, but I've seen this corroborated online other places.
So those of you who prefer not to use the G-word should simply ask the person administering the oath to strike the last line, and everyone can move on.
I hope this reduces heartburn for the folks affected.
The blog post can be found here:
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/05/ive_written_abo.html (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/05/ive_written_abo.html)
s/v,
- Midway Six
Negative, Ghostrider...
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 31 > § 502 says:
QuoteEach person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000502----000-.html
It doesn't say "may take the following oath" - it says "shall." There's nothing in Federal Law that says any parts of the Oath, except for the "or affirm" option listed, that are optional.
So, to drop the "so help me god" part is a violation of federal law - which seems a heck of a way to start your military career.
Maybe, well ok no maybe about it. BUT I know each time I swore in (initial and 2 reenlistments) we were told we did not have to say so help us God.
Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
So, to take the written law literally. I must then say my name is "XXXXXXXX"? I think not. In the common law, an affirmation is a legally binding substitute for an oath. Naturally you would drop the "God" clause because it relates only to the "solemnly swear " part of the oath.
Capt. Lord
Quote from: cap53 on June 05, 2007, 10:39:05 PM
Sorry,
I just got an email from NHQ and the Oaths are indeed valid. I misunderstood what was said to me. I guess that happens when you get OLD. They still don't look like they should
CAP53, Can you share that message here?
-Seattlesarge
Quote from: ddelaney103 on June 05, 2007, 08:54:53 PM
It doesn't say "may take the following oath" - it says "shall." There's nothing in Federal Law that says any parts of the Oath, except for the "or affirm" option listed, that are optional.
So, to drop the "so help me god" part is a violation of federal law - which seems a heck of a way to start your military career.
I must have violated federal law when I enlisted...
Quote from: DeputyDog on June 06, 2007, 06:41:07 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on June 05, 2007, 08:54:53 PM
It doesn't say "may take the following oath" - it says "shall." There's nothing in Federal Law that says any parts of the Oath, except for the "or affirm" option listed, that are optional.
So, to drop the "so help me god" part is a violation of federal law - which seems a heck of a way to start your military career.
I must have violated federal law when I enlisted...
Me too, does this mean my service in the Corps don't count? Do I get those years back?
No you can't get those years back. Time in the Marine Corps is considered wasted. If you were in USAF, that is a different matter and those years count.
Bill, I just spit Coca-Cola all over my monitor. :o :D
Quote from: BillB on June 06, 2007, 05:54:26 PM
No you can't get those years back. Time in the Marine Corps is considered wasted. If you were in USAF, that is a different matter and those years count.
Yes but at least time in the Marine Corps counts as time served in the military ;D
Quote from: stillamarine on June 06, 2007, 08:54:00 PM
Quote from: BillB on June 06, 2007, 05:54:26 PM
No you can't get those years back. Time in the Marine Corps is considered wasted. If you were in USAF, that is a different matter and those years count.
Yes but at least time in the Marine Corps counts as time served in the military ;D
Ouch!
It makes me wonder why this became an issue in the first place and the necessity of it. Surely there has to be a logical explanation.
I've been tasked with making our squadron compliant, so I'm wondering if it's something that just needs to be signed and thrown into a file, or have someone raise their right hand and repeat after me. Who has to officiate the different levels of oaths too?
^^ Wait to make the unit compliant after we see the policy letters or REGS! Until it is posted at NHQ it really "does not exist". I am sure they will have detailed instructions on how to be compliant, because CAP NHQ (TP) would not make us do something without telling us how to do it, right?
Quote from: mikeylikey on June 07, 2007, 11:42:04 AM
^^ Wait to make the unit compliant after we see the policy letters or REGS! Until it is posted at NHQ it really "does not exist". I am sure they will have detailed instructions on how to be compliant, because CAP NHQ (TP) would not make us do something without telling us how to do it, right?
Bingo! They'll need to update Form 12 to include the new oath of membership, or create a specific form recording the oath for squadron files.
Jeezus Ke-rist... more paperwork to contend with! (the admin officer's lament ;D)
I very much doubt that there will be paperwork associated with this. After all, its not like its some sort of legal document that they need to have on file.
Quote from: mikeylikey on June 07, 2007, 11:42:04 AM
^^ Wait to make the unit compliant after we see the policy letters or REGS! Until it is posted at NHQ it really "does not exist". I am sure they will have detailed instructions on how to be compliant, because CAP NHQ (TP) would not make us do something without telling us how to do it, right?
Oh, I completely agree. There seem to be many instances of the cart before the horse, as has been said in here many times before.
We were sent an email from our group level a month or so ago stating that we are prohibited from driving CAP vehicles over 60mph as a blanket rule with no stated exceptions. I respectfully sent a reply through my chain of command to see how we would deal with impeding traffic and/or other safety and legal issues to no avail. A reply I received said that the increase in fatalities of passenger vans increases at higher speeds, which is true according to statistics, but that has to do with seatbelt usage and poor defensive driving, not speed as a sole factor.
I have yet to get a CAP DL and will not do so at this point.
The speed restriction came from Group, not Wing?
Quote from: Psicorp on June 07, 2007, 01:27:25 PM
The speed restriction came from Group, not Wing?
Yep.
So, because your group set the speed limit at 60 your not going to get a CAP DL ???
Quote from: jaybird512 on June 07, 2007, 01:23:19 PM
We were sent an email from our group level a month or so ago stating that we are prohibited from driving CAP vehicles over 60mph as a blanket rule with no stated exceptions.
HAHAHHA......I know for a fact that if you drive under 60MPH on some interstate highways in some states that have speeds above 70MPH, you may actually get a tciket! Reference OKLAHOMA. I was pulled over and given a verbal warning for going "too slow", I never knew they could do that!
Quote from: Flying Pig on June 07, 2007, 02:54:19 PM
So, because your group set the speed limit at 60 your not going to get a CAP DL ???
At this point, no. I've sent very respectful emails just for my own clarification and I can't personally hold myself to the rule when I believe that it conflicts with the Texas Traffic Code. I'm just not going to put myself in the situation.
TXDOT studies show that differences in speed higher, or lower are what cause differences in conditions. Also, the increase in fatalities in the vans cited for the memo were not related only to speed, they had to do with tire pressure, load distribution, seat belt usage, etc...
The two statutes that have relevance deal with impeding traffic, and the requirement for slower traffic to keep right. It seems to limit us to the rightmost lane unless the car in front of us is going 59 mph or lower in a state with 70 and 80mph speed limits.
Yes, I am a cop.
It may have to do with insurance. What is the speed limit for tour vans and limos in Tx. Could they have based it on that?
Quote from: Flying Pig on June 07, 2007, 03:42:13 PM
It may have to do with insurance. What is the speed limit for tour vans and limos in Tx. Could they have based it on that?
It could be insurance related, but I don't see how insurance would effect only one group in the wing. Again, I don't want to sound disrespectful to what comes down to an order issued and which has to be obeyed.
Texas mostly did away with different speed limits for different types of vehicles a few years ago. Now everyone is equal at 70 in most places and even higher in west Texas.
Quote from: mikeylikey on June 07, 2007, 03:06:15 PM
HAHAHHA......I know for a fact that if you drive under 60MPH on some interstate highways in some states that have speeds above 70MPH, you may actually get a tciket! Reference OKLAHOMA. I was pulled over and given a verbal warning for going "too slow", I never knew they could do that!
They get you under the clause of "not maintaining traffic pace." It's funny, but in a lot of places the traffic pace exceeds the speed limit, but people get pulled for the traffic pace issue.
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 07, 2007, 04:49:09 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on June 07, 2007, 03:06:15 PM
HAHAHHA......I know for a fact that if you drive under 60MPH on some interstate highways in some states that have speeds above 70MPH, you may actually get a tciket! Reference OKLAHOMA. I was pulled over and given a verbal warning for going "too slow", I never knew they could do that!
They get you under the clause of "not maintaining traffic pace." It's funny, but in a lot of places the traffic pace exceeds the speed limit, but people get pulled for the traffic pace issue.
Totally agree. In my work as an EMT, Ive had an Ambulance on a 65mph Interstate, been rolling at 80-90 with lights and still didnt pass anyone.
Reminds me of driving in Atlanta on the I-285 loop. The posted speed limit all around the loops is 55 mph. You will literally get killed (or kill someone else) doing 55 mph. I found out that my truck has a governor on it. At 96 mph the engine quits...and I felt like I was keeping up with traffic (at least until the truck slowed to 85 and the engine came back on).
Quote from: jaybird512 on June 07, 2007, 04:12:59 AM
It makes me wonder why this became an issue in the first place and the necessity of it. Surely there has to be a logical explanation.
How much of what NHQ does is logic based? Especially when it comes to uniforms, decorations, renaming the corporation, etc. , etc., etc. :)
Quote from: ELTHunter on June 08, 2007, 12:54:45 AM
How much of what NHQ does is logic based? Especially when it comes to uniforms, decorations, renaming the corporation, etc. , etc., etc. :)
I believe there is great concern over our shrinking membership numbers, especially since most of us realize that the numbers on paper are far larger than the force we can actually field.
This has resulted in a certain amount of grasping at straws in the name of retention, even before recruiting.
What we need first is an organization-wide strategic vision & goals, concurrently with an agreement with USAF, DHS and the rest as to what exactly we're going to do.
Yup. Rather than being "as big as possible," I think we'd be better off being "as big as we need to be."
Someone determines the requirements, and then tasks each Wing to provide certain capabilities. Wings divvy these taskings amongst their units, and then units recruit to that level. And then stop - mission accomplished.
Much of our QA problem on members could be solved if we limited who we let walk in the door in the first place.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 08, 2007, 02:56:54 AM
Quote from: ELTHunter on June 08, 2007, 12:54:45 AM
How much of what NHQ does is logic based? Especially when it comes to uniforms, decorations, renaming the corporation, etc. , etc., etc. :)
I believe there is great concern over our shrinking membership numbers, especially since most of us realize that the numbers on paper are far larger than the force we can actually field.
This has resulted in a certain amount of grasping at straws in the name of retention, even before recruiting.
What we need first is an organization-wide strategic vision & goals, concurrently with an agreement with USAF, DHS and the rest as to what exactly we're going to do.
I think you're summed it all up in one post. I'm not concerned so much about the numbers as the number of people we have who can do the job. If you set your standards high, recruit qualified people, and train them to a higher degree of proficiency, then we can begin to get a more definite role in DHS and polish up everything else. If we lose a few in the process who should've never been involved in the first place then that's ok.
It has finally come full circle. If missions, needs and requirements are clearly identified it will be easier to decide whether an "oath" is appropriate or flight suits, or mess dress uniforms etc. The way things are now we have a mix of guesswork and regulations that the National Commander changes on a whim. At one time I thought CAP was chasing ELT's, CN/CD and an occasional assist to the local sheriff. Now I'm not so sure.
By the way, did we ever get a clear answer on how to administer the oaths? Someone said they got an email from NHQ that they were official, but no guideline on the how...
Has anyone actually seen a copy of the directive from National Headquarters on these new oaths? Can we get it posted please?
Where's the beef?
-SeattleSarge
Quote from: SeattleSarge on June 09, 2007, 05:17:38 AM
Where's the beef?
-SeattleSarge
In my belly, and boy was it heavenly.
Quote from: ELTHunter on June 08, 2007, 12:54:45 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on June 07, 2007, 04:12:59 AM
It makes me wonder why this became an issue in the first place and the necessity of it. Surely there has to be a logical explanation.
How much of what NHQ does is logic based? Especially when it comes to uniforms, decorations, renaming the corporation, etc. , etc., etc. :)
Very, VERY true. I would say the same applies to anything to do with any branch of armed forces, any governmental agency, office or body and a WHOLE bunch of laws (local, state and federal).
Quote from: Dragoon on June 08, 2007, 04:01:12 PM
Yup. Rather than being "as big as possible," I think we'd be better off being "as big as we need to be."
Someone determines the requirements, and then tasks each Wing to provide certain capabilities. Wings divvy these taskings amongst their units, and then units recruit to that level. And then stop - mission accomplished.
Much of our QA problem on members could be solved if we limited who we let walk in the door in the first place.
That's any interesting prospect and I assume you mean who you let apply or who gets approved for membership. In addition to the current regulations in this regard, what else would you add that might be good in terms of helping to "police" the new membership.
Quote from: SARMedTech on June 09, 2007, 10:34:30 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on June 08, 2007, 04:01:12 PM
Yup. Rather than being "as big as possible," I think we'd be better off being "as big as we need to be."
Someone determines the requirements, and then tasks each Wing to provide certain capabilities. Wings divvy these taskings amongst their units, and then units recruit to that level. And then stop - mission accomplished.
Much of our QA problem on members could be solved if we limited who we let walk in the door in the first place.
That's any interesting prospect and I assume you mean who you let apply or who gets approved for membership. In addition to the current regulations in this regard, what else would you add that might be good in terms of helping to "police" the new membership.
I don't think we should necessarily "police" the membership, but just be a little more cautious in who we let in. I remember the website of the CAP guy who had the big Chevy painted red, and sounded like some kind of rabid militaristic survivalist. We don't need people like that.
We should pay more attention to what people are looking for when they first attend a meeting, and recommend other avenues if they're looking into some kind of shoot-em-up, knife in teeth, "living off wild animals that you killed with your bare hands" kind of organization. That's not what we are, and we shouldn't entertain any fantastic ideas of that kind.
We should also explain the requirements of membership, such as uniforms, regular meeting attendance, and job performance. If people know that from first meeting, and they're not inclined to work with the team, they probably won't come back anyway. Which means we don't have problems with them in the first place.
As a newbie, Im not familiar with membership requirements totally yet as far as staying in. I know there are some members in my new squadron that I met at the first meeting I attended and havent seen them since (a couple of months ago and we meet every week). Whats the process for "disenrollment." I know the CGAUX has a policy of "counselling" members who are not making sufficient progress towards boat crew membership in a time frame of two years. Other than disciplinary reasons, is there a way that a Squadron or Wing commander can disenroll someone for reasons of non-participation or just not living up to what they said they would do when they signed on?
Quote from: SARMedTech on June 10, 2007, 02:07:52 AM
As a newbie, Im not familiar with membership requirements totally yet as far as staying in. I know there are some members in my new squadron that I met at the first meeting I attended and havent seen them since (a couple of months ago and we meet every week). Whats the process for "disenrollment." I know the CGAUX has a policy of "counselling" members who are not making sufficient progress towards boat crew membership in a time frame of two years. Other than disciplinary reasons, is there a way that a Squadron or Wing commander can disenroll someone for reasons of non-participation or just not living up to what they said they would do when they signed on?
Sure there are ways and they can "disenroll" someone on those grounds... but they (used generally) won't. For CAP, membership = revenue.
Generally speaking, as long as a member pays dues to the squadron, wing or CAP NHQ, their absence and/or inadequacies will be tolerated by commanders.
Quote from: SARMedTech on June 09, 2007, 10:34:30 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on June 08, 2007, 04:01:12 PM
Yup. Rather than being "as big as possible," I think we'd be better off being "as big as we need to be."
Someone determines the requirements, and then tasks each Wing to provide certain capabilities. Wings divvy these taskings amongst their units, and then units recruit to that level. And then stop - mission accomplished.
Much of our QA problem on members could be solved if we limited who we let walk in the door in the first place.
That's any interesting prospect and I assume you mean who you let apply or who gets approved for membership. In addition to the current regulations in this regard, what else would you add that might be good in terms of helping to "police" the new membership.
Simple, all we have now is a "membership committee" that recommends whether or not he's a good guy, whatever that means. No criteria.
I think it would be interesting to only allow someone to join (or to transfer into a unit) if.
1. Either:
a. They have a skill you need, and they are willing to use it in support of the unit.
b. They are willing to fill a particular job for you - a job you need done, rather than the job they happen to want to do.
and
2. They demonstrate through a probationary period that yup, they are actually dedicated to working for CAP and successfully doing the job they signed up to do.
and finally
3. In the opinion of the commander and his membership committee, this person seems to be someone who would fit in well with the squadron team.
You know, kind of the way you hire folks for your office.
For example, let's say your squadron has a manning document that stated you needed 8 pilots for your aircraft (At least 4 of whom are mission pilots and at least 4 are cadet orientation pilots). And your unit has this many pilots already.
So, this pilot comes through the door. All he wants to do is fly. But you don't really NEED another pilot. So you say to him "Hey, I'm happy to have you come fly with us, but truthfully, I'm good with pilots. But I need an aerospace education officer. If you're willing to take that job as well as fly, you're in. And by the way, you're membership is subject to termination during first year if you don't perform the duties of the AE officer to the commander's satisfaction. If that's not to your liking, I can point you at several other units that might need a pilot."
Or imagine saying to the former cadet who wants to join your unit "I've got cadet programs types coming out my ears and don't really need another one. On the other hand, I'm short a personnel officer. If you are willing to do that, you're in. If not, I can point you at several other squadrons that might need the help."
It's a whole different focus - recruit to fill a slot rather than recruit just to get bigger, in the hopes that out of the masses you can find a few who actually want to do real work.
Taken from the NHQ website.......
QuoteCastle said he wants new members to become not only immediately involved in the program but also committed to it.
"Everyone needs to understand that we have a military command structure in CAP and expect people to do what they say they will do," he said.
He hopes that commitment will extend to current members when plans are in place for everyone to be sworn in again by reciting the CAP Oath of Office. "I had a small hand in revising the oath that's already on the back of the membership application," Castle said, "and I'd like to see it used in a formal ceremony where existing members renew their oath of commitment to CAP and new members stand up before their squadron to actually be sworn in."
This is the incoming Oklahoma Wing Commander. He creates our new OATH and he becomes a Wing Commander.
Those who don't want the Oath......please send your comments to him!
^BUMP
Has anyone heard anything else about this "CAP Oath" ?
Has anyone been given the 'real' oath at a promotion ceremony lately?
Nothing.