Oaths of Office

[mikeylikey]

^^  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!

[Eclipse]

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

Repeating now... 

[RogueLeader]

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.

[Major Carrales]

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...

[Major Lord]

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

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

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

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

[Hawk200]

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.

[afgeo4]

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.

[Psicorp]

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".   

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.

[SARMedTech]

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".   

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!

[RogueLeader]

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.

[Major Lord]

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".   

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

[Eagle400]

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.  

[RogueLeader]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[Major Lord]

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

[mikeylikey]

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?

[MIKE]

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?

[Eclipse]

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.

[aveighter]

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.

[SeattleSarge]

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.