CAP Oath v Air Force Oath

[Smithsonia]

Does this bother any one else, because it bothers me. The Civil Air Patrol Promotion
Oath is below. Below that is the Air Force Officers Oath.

My problem is that we are required by Oath to Obey the Orders Of Officers appointed over us.
Not obey "Lawful Orders." Not Obey Orders that are "right", "correct", "principled"... obey all orders, period.

However, Air Force Officers, on the other hand, "will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office." Leaving room for Lawful, or Correct because faithful is less that "Obey."

To me this is a rather large hole in somebody's head, possibly mine. SO if ordered I can be made to
water board? AND, give the excuse - "Just following Orders." I like the Air Force Oath. I do not like the
CAP Oath. Don't forget their are officers appointed over us who are - Project Officers and people with modest
skills, experience, and/or ability to reason through a particular issue/problem.

CAP Oath
I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and
regulations of the 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.

Air Force Officer's Oath
I, (state your full name) /// having been appointed a Captain in the United States Air Force /// do solemnly swear /// 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 which I am about to enter /// so help me God.

[Major Carrales]

Does this bother any one else, because it bothers me. The Civil Air Patrol Promotion
Oath is below. Below that is the Air Force Officers Oath.

My problem is that we are required by Oath to Obey the Orders Of Officers appointed over us.
No obey "Lawful Orders." Not Obey Orders that are "right", "correct", "principled"... obey all orders, period.

However, Air Force Officers, on the other hand, "will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office." Leaving room for Lawful, or Correct because faithful is less that "Obey."

To me this is a rather large hole in somebody's head, possibly mine. SO if ordered I can be made to
water board? AND, just give the excuse - "Just following Orders." I like the Air Force Oath. I do not like the
CAP Oath.

CAP Oath
I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and
regulations of the 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.

Air Force Officer's Oath
I, (state your full name) /// having been appointed a Captain in the United States Air Force /// do solemnly swear /// 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 which I am about to enter /// so help me God.

I had published the CAP Promotion oath in my newsletter years ago, however most people mostly have never heard of it. 

No one can show me where it was codified in CAP regs.  They were released and then forgotten.

[AlphaSigOU]

It first popped up in an email or ICL from HWSNBN. I think it's either in 39-2 or 35-5.

[Major Carrales]

It first popped up in an email or ICL from HWSNBN. I think it's either in 39-2 or 35-5.

Are they really?  I don't recall seeing them.  If they are there then I guess we should be following them.

[Smithsonia]

I believe that the Promotion Oath is "encouraged" to be given by the Commander. Unless I have missed it somewhere -- There is nothing that compels one to utter it or take it. That said, this is real and I suppose that it can become a "deal" too. I just
can't imagine why someone didn't catch it sooner.

[D2SK]

You are affirming that you will comply with the orders of officers appointed over you according to regulations.

What's the problem with that?

You know, after spending some time on this website, respectfully, you guys complain a lot.

[Rotorhead]

You know, after spending some time on this website, respectfully, you guys complain a lot.

Although Smithsonia is a friend of mine, I have to agree that, overall, you are correct.

While we're on the subject, though....why is it that that Oath of Office for Commander in Chief--the guy with more responsibility--is substantially shorter than CAP's version of an oath?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

vs.

"I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and
regulations of the 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."

[RiverAux]

Your squadron commander may order you to waterboard someone, but you are not required to do so as I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be in accordance with CAP regulations.  If you read a bit further in the oath, we are required to follow orders in accordance with CAP regulations.  Even if in accordance with CAP regulation, a CAP order is not a LAWFUL order in my book since we are not required BY LAW to follow any CAP order.

Besides if a CAP member orders someone to break the real law I am 100% confident that no one will get kicked out of CAP (which is the only real punishment for not following a CAP order) for refusing the order. 

[Major Carrales]

You are affirming that you will comply with the orders of officers appointed over you according to regulations.

What's the problem with that?

You know, after spending some time on this website, respectfully, you guys complain a lot.

You noticed this?  There is a good chance that some 50% or more of the people who post here have some grievance with CAP (be it an institutional critique or with some individual or with some very local CAP matter that exists only to their experience) and vocalize/vent some 92% of the time.

[RiverAux]

Are you kidding? Its nowhere near that high.  Try visiting the only active CG Aux board.  Thats where you see that almost all posters are "disgruntled former members".  Here we've only got a couple of people who can be counted on to only put up negative posts. 

[Major Carrales]

Are you kidding? Its nowhere near that high.  Try visiting the only active CG Aux board.  Thats where you see that almost all posters are "disgruntled former members".  Here we've only got a couple of people who can be counted on to only put up negative posts.

Are you sure...?  What about the schmendricks that, every three or four weeks, post up a topic about "American Flag Patches."  Or the people who think that CAP is incapable of having meaningful training or programs (self loathing) and stark knocking everything from the CAP Chaplaincy to OPSEC training (Ask Ned about how he has suffered the slings and arrows about Anti-Suicide Awareness in CAP)?  Or the insipid commentary (all negative) when a new reg comes out? Or when people start to suggest conspiracy where none is (Anti-Vanguard threads read a bell)? 

In fact, witht eh stink of irony, this post is in itself is a form of complaint about complaining.


Are you kidding?  Complaining makes up a great percentage of what happens here.  Then they lock the topic before any compromises can be reached. Nice chatty posts were people from different sections of the country start share comradeship are locked for being non-CAP related.

It has gone down a bit, but just wait a bit.

CAPTALK's Soul is one of complaint.  Why else talk about anything.

[heliodoc]

Even for some of us "negative posters" who really like to read SOME CAPers who TRY too hard to be an organization they are not

CAP is a fine Search and Recover organization. IT is is not, however a"true" military organization.  BUT we would be best served if the CAP NHQ truly would pattern itself after the RM and get ORGANIZED

Organized as far as 39-1, "Officer Oath's" etc

Again...... a FINE organization with with some true growing pains trying to be military and the like...65 years isn't too long to get it "write"  Now how about rewriting the Oath???

[Major Carrales]

Again...... a FINE organization with with some true growing pains trying to be military and the like...65 years isn't too long to get it "write"  Now how about rewriting the Oath???

The oath is only about two years old (Circa 2007).  Before then, there was no such thing as a promotion oath.  There was only an oath of application.

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux, Rotorhead. etc.

The way that the Oath is constructed... the onus is on the Officer who does NOT obey the order because of a legal or regulation problem with the order... not the person who is issuing the command. Meaning as an officer under this oath, I am to obey, unless I suppose, I can immediately supply the legal reason or regulation. In the military it is the responsibility of the officer to deliver a legal order. That way no one questions if the order is legal. In our case, every order becomes suspect as it is on the order-ee to respond and obey.

It really should be the responsibility of the Ordering Officer. I've had it come up twice so far. Once I gave an order to a bunch of cadets that another and junior officer countermanded and for good reason (it was unsafe and I am grateful for the officer who set it straight. I ordered double time in the rain so to get them off the drill pad faster. Better they get a little more wet than break a bone in a slip and fall.) another time, I countermand a superior because of a regulation, which took me about a week to find... but as it was specifically against regulations but not often quoted or well known, and I couldn't site it specifically at the time... he was grateful that I caught his mistake or violation.

In both cases we were working this out in a collegial basis and there was no discredit or disrespect shown or taken. BUT, the CAP oath is more strict than the way we usually work in CAP. More strict than in the military versions of same oaths and frankly it is not a good clause. If there is a complaint - It is not with CAP per se' it is with the man or woman who wrote the thing.

[heliodoc]

^^^

Sorry about that, Sir

But again after 65 years of existence, this is one thing CAP would TRY to get right EVEN if 2 years old

I do not recall an Oath back in the 1970's as a cadet, so to speak but there was one. so what's all the excitement about Oaths now being CAP Senior Officers?" 

Been in 4 yrs now as a SM and did not need one in 2005?

Been in the field too much these last 2 years as a forester and wildland fire type that I personally did not pay too much attention.  But I will still reiterate, what is all the excitement about reading an Oath after promos?

Seems like a LITTLE too much pomp and circumstance for so little.....

Sooooo for two years.......... well 

[Rotorhead]

If there is a complaint - It is not with CAP per se' it is with the man or woman who wrote the thing.

Would that be Tony Pineda?

[Major Carrales]

^^^

Sorry about that, Sir

But again after 65 years of existence, this is one thing CAP would TRY to get right EVEN if 2 years old

I do not recall an Oath back in the 1970's as a cadet, so to speak but there was one. so what's all the excitement about Oaths now being CAP Senior Officers?" 

Been in 4 yrs now as a SM and did not need one in 2005?

Been in the field too much these last 2 years as a forester and wildland fire type that I personally did not pay too much attention.  But I will still reiterate, what is all the excitement about reading an Oath after promos?

Seems like a LITTLE too much pomp and circumstance for so little.....

Sooooo for two years.......... well

I agree with the idea that we should have a correct oath.  I know the Cadet oath by heart, although I was never a cadet.  It outlines what they are to do. 

Most promotion ceremonies in our unit are somber affairs, a person is recognized and given the "emblem" of their rank and office. 

Anyone who envisions that the whole of the unit gathers in a formation, dresses the rows and columns and then awaits the necessary bugle call to call the formation to attention lives in a realm of fantasy. 

Ours is very much a frontier post.

[Rotorhead]

^^^

Sorry about that, Sir

But again after 65 years of existence, this is one thing CAP would TRY to get right EVEN if 2 years old

I do not recall an Oath back in the 1970's as a cadet, so to speak but there was one. so what's all the excitement about Oaths now being CAP Senior Officers?" 

Been in 4 yrs now as a SM and did not need one in 2005?

Been in the field too much these last 2 years as a forester and wildland fire type that I personally did not pay too much attention.  But I will still reiterate, what is all the excitement about reading an Oath after promos?

Seems like a LITTLE too much pomp and circumstance for so little.....

Sooooo for two years.......... well

I agree with the idea that we should have a correct oath.  I know the Cadet oath by heart, although I was never a cadet.  It outlines what they are to do. 

Most promotion ceremonies in our unit are somber affairs, a person is recognized and given the "emblem" of their rank and office. 

Anyone who envisions that the whole of the unit gathers in a formation, dresses the rows and columns and then awaits the necessary bugle call to call the formation to attention lives in a realm of fantasy. 

Ours is very much a frontier post.

If that defines "frontier," then I'd wager that most CAP units are "frontier" posts.

[Major Carrales]

If there is a complaint - It is not with CAP per se' it is with the man or woman who wrote the thing.

Would that be Tony Pineda?

And, because of the CAP Political climate of that time, everything good or bad that was proposed from CAPNHQ at that time is viewed through an undying haze of suspicion. 

While there were problems inherent at that time at CAP NHQ, remember these edicts had to be voted for and codified by vote.  Lots of folks could not stand the "US CIVIL AIR PATROL" tapes, yet I was watching when they were brought up "off the menu" and not one bird colonel protested nor voted "nay."

Any idea how many people serving on the National Board in 2007 are still in command today?

As for the oaths, I never say them voted on and if they are codified in CAP's regulations, then I guess we should do them.

[Eclipse]

If there is a complaint - It is not with CAP per se' it is with the man or woman who wrote the thing.

Would that be Tony Pineda?

Blasphemer!

The name of He Who Shall Remain Nameless has been spoken.  Who shall cast the First Stone?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erthun0Pauc

[Major Carrales]

^^^

Sorry about that, Sir

But again after 65 years of existence, this is one thing CAP would TRY to get right EVEN if 2 years old

I do not recall an Oath back in the 1970's as a cadet, so to speak but there was one. so what's all the excitement about Oaths now being CAP Senior Officers?" 

Been in 4 yrs now as a SM and did not need one in 2005?

Been in the field too much these last 2 years as a forester and wildland fire type that I personally did not pay too much attention.  But I will still reiterate, what is all the excitement about reading an Oath after promos?

Seems like a LITTLE too much pomp and circumstance for so little.....

Sooooo for two years.......... well

I agree with the idea that we should have a correct oath.  I know the Cadet oath by heart, although I was never a cadet.  It outlines what they are to do. 

Most promotion ceremonies in our unit are somber affairs, a person is recognized and given the "emblem" of their rank and office. 

Anyone who envisions that the whole of the unit gathers in a formation, dresses the rows and columns and then awaits the necessary bugle call to call the formation to attention lives in a realm of fantasy. 

Ours is very much a frontier post.

If that defines "frontier," then I'd wager that most CAP units are "frontier" posts.

I am six hours away from Wing Headquarters, three hours away from Group head quarters and National Headquarters. We are seldom visited by anyone over the rank of Major who holds a post at Group.

We have been as resourceful in getting what we have as people were at Fort Laramie back before the true frontier closed in 1890.  Our position from our various HQs are metaphorically as distant as Dodge City would have been from Washington City in frontier times.

Brownsville is more isolated.

The atmosphere is serious and mission centered, however, I think it more a kin to a frontier post than to anything close to the source of command.

There is a good chance that most CAP units share that "frontier" sentiment.  Is that a good or bad thing?  Good if local units have latitude (with in regulations) to operate, bad if a Wing wants to micromanage resources.

[PHall]

Does this bother any one else, because it bothers me. The Civil Air Patrol Promotion
Oath is below. Below that is the Air Force Officers Oath.

My problem is that we are required by Oath to Obey the Orders Of Officers appointed over us.
Not obey "Lawful Orders." Not Obey Orders that are "right", "correct", "principled"... obey all orders, period.

However, Air Force Officers, on the other hand, "will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office." Leaving room for Lawful, or Correct because faithful is less that "Obey."

To me this is a rather large hole in somebody's head, possibly mine. SO if ordered I can be made to
water board? AND, give the excuse - "Just following Orders." I like the Air Force Oath. I do not like the
CAP Oath. Don't forget their are officers appointed over us who are - Project Officers and people with modest
skills, experience, and/or ability to reason through a particular issue/problem.

CAP Oath
I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and
regulations of the 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.

Air Force Officer's Oath
I, (state your full name) /// having been appointed a Captain in the United States Air Force /// do solemnly swear /// 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 which I am about to enter /// so help me God.

Okay, just one short question. Why is this an issue?

[heliodoc]

Frontier post? 

Is that like leading edge technology  or "git along little dogeys?"

"Cuz some things in CAP still move along like a Conestoga wagon......... without the the team of horses

And as Bill Murray once put it...... "That the facts, Jack!!"

[Major Carrales]

Okay, just one short question. Why is this an issue?

My speculation would be that my dear friend wanted to point it out because it caused him a bit of internal questioning when he came across it and was soliciting our opinions. 

[O-Rex]

I know for a fact that the intent of the oath was to lend a bit more "umph" to CAP senior officer promotions, which often consists of checking e-services, ordering from VG, and showing up to your next unit meeting with the new tinsel. 

Not to mention that the oath of application on the back of the for 12 reads like an extended warranty agreement.

I wouldn't get wrapped around the axle with the verbage.....

[MSG Mac]

Although Smithsonia is a friend of mine, I have to agree that, overall, you are correct.

While we're on the subject, though....why is it that that Oath of Office for Commander in Chief--the guy with more responsibility--is substantially shorter than CAP's version of an oath?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

vs.

"I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and
regulations of the 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."

The President's oath is shorter because he is not required to obey anybody's orders. Only to execute his duties in accordance to the Constitution. Big difference when you don't have to answer to anybody.

[Rotorhead]

The President's oath is shorter because he is not required to obey anybody's orders. Only to execute his duties in accordance to the Constitution. Big difference when you don't have to answer to anybody.

Dick Nixon?

Is that you?

[Smithsonia]

What I am trying to point out is:
1. Oaths mean what they say, or they don't. Intent is not the issue. I am (you are too) swearing before God and your Squadron Mates that you believe this Oath. If I have a problem with meaning, then don't care about intent because intent is not expressed in the Oath... Meaning is.

2. I don't have any nefarious purpose pointing this out. I am not trying to change CAP. However, Obey means obey and interpret for meaning and intention does not mean the same as obey. As far as I can tell CAP is; unlike the Oath given to military officers, FBI agents, the President of the United States, Secretary of Defense, Naval Academy Cadets, and the Department of Defense Civilian Employees - the only one required to plainly and simply Obey.

3. If it makes no difference to you, then it is OK with you. I asked if this Oath bothers you? - Mostly the response seems to be "I don't care." If it means nothing, then why have this oath, at all? Why have any oath that means nothing or about which people do not care?

Of course it is not REQUIRED that the Commander administer this Oath. Instead, the Commander is "encouraged" to administer the Oath. There is also no requirement that I could find that the Promoted Member repeat or swear to this Oath. So again, why is there an Oath? In this I wouldn't say that it is Mickey Mouse... but more like Minnie Mouse. I've asked my commander to forgo my promotion ceremony, so to avoid my repeating this oath. If no one cares but me... It should not be an issue.

If you don't mean it - then don't swear it and don't "Oath" it. If CAP can't say what it means then don't say anything. In this matter, I have said precisely what I mean and what I intend.

[RiverAux]

I still don't see what the problem is with swearing that you will follow orders that are in accordance with CAP regulations.  How is that putting anyone in a bad situation? 

[Strick]

So  should I use the oath when promting people?

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux;
I got an Alert for a SAReval today. It stated the following. FOLLOW DIRECTIONS PRECISELY AND SEND THE FOLLOWING: NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE, CAP ID, SAR assignment, 101 CARD. to ( an email address.)

So if you look at this it reads one way only. It doesn't say answer the following questions, or send the following information to... it says what it says. So, and I am not being a wise acre about this - It says send the following:
Followed by the words NAME, ADDRESS, ETC. TO obey I would have simply copied this message and sent it on without adding anything, as in my information.

My issue is obey and "you get my meaning so help me and interpret what I mean" are not compatible. We all are faithful to orders, or at least try to be. Many times that is different than obey. Today I chose to interpret for meaning and reply in a timely manner. BUT, I never know if that is being compliant. Ambiguity? This comes up all the time... it is just most don't take notice. Today, there was no human being to ask so I had to interpret and manage.

[RiverAux]

Okay, I fully understand that I can be very nitpicky about stuff, but that is just ridiculous. 

Say we used the AF Oath instead as you suggested, then that wouldn't solve your problem as it would have been a lawful order to reply with NAME, ADDRESS, ETC.

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux;
Well you can see the issue, sloppy text, bad writing, illogical application, poor editing, incorrect word choice.
As it came from the NOC and was contained in an alert... I can't tell you what they actually meant, just what I did. In this example, I didn't obey - I faithfully discharged.

Since it comes up all the time... you'll have to fathom the depths of compliance, understanding, obedience, interpretation, and when and when NOT (or how and how not) to resolve the issues - on your own. I was pointing it to your attention, not resolving it for you. I said that it bothered me. I gave examples. I said what I will do or have done, etc. I can't answer for anyone else. This isn't a test of the emergency mutiny system.

I think that you should do what you think best about taking or giving the Oath. For me --

I have "mental reservations" about the Oath. But, I have no "purpose of evasion". I have been above-board and straight about both. Faithfully Execute or Discharge IS DIFFERENT than Obey. One speaks to the spirit (faithfully discharge) of an order and the other speaks to the letter of a command (obey). If the Air Force trusts 19 year olds with faithfully discharge... we shouldn't have to live with obey.

So, I can state this again for you, but this should do. AND if you are still confused? Oh, let me make that an order - "RiverAux, You Will Understand Immediately!". That'll clear it all up for you. 

Afterall - "eats, shoots, and leaves," is completely different than "eats shoots and leaves." SO it is important to retain some ability for interpretation and thereby faithfully discharging... without perverting or corrupting an order or command.

[aveighter]

We are doomed.  Doomed as an organization, a nation, a society, a culture........

Absolutely screwed.

[swamprat86]

You can and should submit your recommendations of changes to the oath if you have such reservations about it and push to replace the current one.  Otherwise, we are just spinning wheels

[ZigZag911]

Am I correct in my belief that this debate is about an "oath":

1) composed by or at the direction of the former Nat'l CC
2) is not official
3) is not required by CAP regulation
4) differs from the written oath on senior member application
    for membership
5) never needs to be sworn, used or administered?

[Grumpy]

Grrrr.... some people just have too much time on their hands.  I fall into that catigory too.

[Larry Mangum]

As a point of interest, the oath is in CAPR 35-5, paragraph 1.7.b.  But as stated above it simply states "that Commanders are encouraged". 

From my viewpoint, this is not an issue worth spending a lot of effort on, when a person joins CAP; they have already agreed to follow the members appointed above them. If this is an issue then they never should have joined. 

I will say though, that I am also in agreement with Ed, that words mean something and that when we are not careful with what we say or write, we open ourselves up for misinterpretation.