Oaths of Office

[RogueLeader]

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.

[NEBoom]

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.

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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...

[ddelaney103]

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

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

s/v,

- Midway Six

Negative, Ghostrider...

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 31 > § 502 says:

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."

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.

[cap53]

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

[stillamarine]

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

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

s/v,

- Midway Six

Negative, Ghostrider...

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 31 > § 502 says:

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."

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.

[Major Lord]

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

[SeattleSarge]

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

[DeputyDog]

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...

[stillamarine]

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?

[BillB]

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.

[SarDragon]

Bill, I just spit Coca-Cola all over my monitor.   

[stillamarine]

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 

[Hawk200]

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 

Ouch!

[jb512]

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?

[mikeylikey]

^^  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?

[AlphaSigOU]

^^  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  )

[RiverAux]

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. 

[jb512]

^^  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.

[Psicorp]

The speed restriction came from Group, not Wing?