Okay, seeing as how there was a little veering from the Chief Discussion to discuss the pledge, I thought it might need its own thread.
Here is where we seem to stand:
This federal law indicates that persons in uniform should remain silent and render the salute during the pledge.
QuoteTITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
§ 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.
I suspect that this is only meant for when the Pledge is rendered outside since the AFI on this issue says the following:
Quote
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 34-12012.18. Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all should be rendered by standing at attention and facing the flag. When not in uniform, persons should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, with the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and
render the military salute if outdoors and indoors if in formation and wearing appropriate headdress. If indoors and without headdress, military members should stand at attention, remain silent, and face the flag. Military members in uniform do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
In other words, if you're inside in formation during the pledge you don't salute and don't say the pledge. This would seem to contradict the federal law cited above which requires the salute, BUT take a look at a related law just a few sections away from the earlier one:
Quote
TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 10
§ 10. Modification of rules and customs by President
Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation.
Presumably, this AFI which differs from the other federal law is done in accordance with this law. I doubt the AF would knowingly contradict the federal law so lets assume that the AFI is ok in saying they don't have to salute indoors, etc..
But, that still leaves the question of what CAP is supposed to do hanging, or does it?
CAPP-3 says the following:
QuoteTHE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
Honors to the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance are similar to those rendered during the playing of the National Anthem or "To the Colors," which will be covered later.
1. You do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance while in military formation or during military ceremonies.
2. At protocol functions, social or sporting events:
a. When in uniform outdoors, you stand at attention, face the flag, remain silent, and salute.
b. When in uniform indoors, you stand at attention, face the flag, but do not salute.
3. When in civilian clothes (indoors or outdoors) you should stand at attention, face the flag, remove headdress with right hand, place your right hand holding the headdress, over your heart and recite the Pledge. If no headdress is worn, place
right hand over heart and recite the Pledge.
CAPP 151 says the following:
Quote
(3) Pledge of Allegiance. Honors to the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance are similar to those rendered during the playing of the National Anthem or "To the Colors."
(a) Military Formations or Ceremonies. You do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance while in military formation.
(b) Outdoors. When in military-style uniform, you stand at attention, face the flag, remain silent, and salute.
(c) Indoors. When in military-style uniform, stand at attention, face the flag, but do not salute. You may recite the pledge indoors.
(d) Civilian Dress. When in civilian clothes (indoors or outdoors), you should stand at attention, face the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance while holding your right hand over your heart. (Men should r emove headdress and hold with right
hand over their heart.)
So, what is the situation? When in a military formation CAP members do definetely not recite the pledge. However, every time I have done the pledge it is during a meeting and I wouldn't call standing up in front of your chair or behind a table being in formation.
But, we've got an apparent problem: CAPP 151 says you may recite the pledge indoors, presumably while not in military formation. CAPP-3 doesn't say whether or not you may say the pledge in that situation but do agree with the AFI that you don't salute (which the federal law would seem to require).
So, is CAP in violation of the federal law? Well, the federal code defines uniformed services in several places and it very clearly does not include CAP in any of them. It did not define it in this particular law so I assume the other definitions are valid and for the purposes of this law, we are not considered "uniformed." due to our AF affiliation. Keep in mind that we are only considered AF Aux when on AFAMs. So, even by this stretch we would only be considred to break the federal law if we said the pledge while on an AFAM (which I've never seen done).
Now, for the sake of argument, lets say that CAP can be considered uniformed for the purposes of the law for the pledge, and lets assume we're going to say it on an AFAM. Is it still breaking the law? One might argue that since the AF has to approve CAP regulations relating to its conduct as the AF Aux we can assume the AF has approved these CAP regulations and by extension they may be covered by the same exemption that allows the AF to not salute indoors. So, it may be okay for CAP to say the Pledge if required by an AF approved regulation.
Enough of a stretch for you?
All that being said, we probably should revise our regs to match the AF and just not say the Pledge as part of normal CAP activities. Seems a tad unpatriotic, but we should be consistent about it.
In the meantime our default position should be to follow the CAP regulations and if your unit wants to say the pledge indoors, go ahead and say it so long as you're not in a formation.
Added Allegiance to thread title - MIKE
I think we should just follow the AF example on this matter. I do not see what the big deal is. The problem I see is that we have alot of Commanders who have no military background and so they do things in their squadrons in a much more civilian manner.
Lets just follow the AFI on this, that way we mirror what the AF does and we don't set ourselves apart.
My unit CC likes having the squadron say the Pledge during the opening ceremony formation. He also likes having the unit Chaplain give a religious invokation.
My view is that neither should be done, but other than slip a copy of CAPP 3 and 151 in his briefcase I'm keeping my mouth shut. If I were to say anything I'm pretty sure the answer I'd get would be something akin to, "when you're the commander of your own unit, you can do what you like, until then...."
Quote from: Psicorp on January 01, 2007, 11:44:01 PM
My unit CC likes having the squadron say the Pledge during the opening ceremony formation. He also likes having the unit Chaplain give a religious invokation.
My view is that neither should be done, but other than slip a copy of CAPP 3 and 151 in his briefcase I'm keeping my mouth shut. If I were to say anything I'm pretty sure the answer I'd get would be something akin to, "when you're the commander of your own unit, you can do what you like, until then...."
How about just stand quietly and respectfully as a courtesy to those who wish to do this. Doesn't mean you necessarily have to agree with it, but it is common courtesy to your other CAP Officers and Cadets.
QuoteLets just follow the AFI on this, that way we mirror what the AF does and we don't set ourselves apart.
If you mean that we should change the CAP reg to match, then I agree. But if you mean start doing it that way without changing the CAP regulation, then I would disagree. There is no presumption that when an AF and CAP regulation conflict that CAP is obligated to follow the AF regulation.
QuoteMy unit CC likes having the squadron say the Pledge during the opening ceremony formation.
If that is during a real, standing in ranks formation, he would be in the wrong.
Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on January 01, 2007, 11:54:35 PM
Quote from: Psicorp on January 01, 2007, 11:44:01 PM
My unit CC likes having the squadron say the Pledge during the opening ceremony formation. He also likes having the unit Chaplain give a religious invokation.
My view is that neither should be done, but other than slip a copy of CAPP 3 and 151 in his briefcase I'm keeping my mouth shut. If I were to say anything I'm pretty sure the answer I'd get would be something akin to, "when you're the commander of your own unit, you can do what you like, until then...."
How about just stand quietly and respectfully as a courtesy to those who wish to do this. Doesn't mean you necessarily have to agree with it, but it is common courtesy to your other CAP Officers and Cadets.
That is exactly what I have been doing, sir, and is what I will continue to do.
Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on January 01, 2007, 11:54:35 PM
How about just stand quietly and respectfully as a courtesy to those who wish to do this. Doesn't mean you necessarily have to agree with it, but it is common courtesy to your other CAP Officers and Cadets.
With respect Major Cranford, I could not disagree with you more. How about looking at the big picture here? With respect to prayer, CAP should not use the tyranny of the majority to force one set of beliefs on others.
There are many-many problems in telling somebody to "stand quietly and respectfully as a courtesy" as you suggest.
First and foremost, it is totally one sided. Will others return the courtesy and stand quietly and respectfully in a CAP (military style) formation while somebody performs a Muslim ritual? A Buddhist chant? A Jewish blessing? A Wiccan blessing? A Satanic ritual? In my experience, most likely not, and those who won't will be very vocal about it too. Should CAP endorse any of these over the others?
Almost a hundred years ago in Minor v. Board of Education of Cincinnati, Judge Alphonso Taft, in an unpublished opinion stated the ideal of our people as to religious freedom is one of "absolute equality before the law, of all religious opinions and sects . . . The government is neutral, and, while protecting all, it prefers none, and it disparages none." This ideal is what I believe the United States of America is about and it includes respect for those who believe, as well as those who do not believe. CAP should practice this ideal.
Organizational (CAP) sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the organization who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the group, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the group. Remember, there is no requirement that any member of CAP adhere to any specific religious belief, and in fact, to any religious belief at all. We welcome persons of all religious and non-religious persuasions.
As such, we must not forget that there are people of all religious beliefs in our ranks, as well as those who do not believe. The proper thing to do in CAP is to recognize the real conflict of conscience faced by a member who has to choose whether to skip formations and moral leadership classes (which are not optional for cadets) or conform to the organizationally sponsored practice of prayer, in an environment where the risk of compulsion is especially high. CAP does not have the right to choose my religious practice for me. That right is reserved to me and my family. Try telling the parents of a non-Christian cadet that s/he must "stand quietly and respectfully as a courtesy to others" for a Christian prayer at the opening and closing of each meeting. I guarantee that there will be one less cadet in CAP.
Frankly, a very careful reading of the Constitution and the case law on this topic will reveal that the Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from an individual as the price for participation in state sponsored activities. CAP receives millions of taxpayer dollars per year. As such, CAP at the least, operates under the color of government approval. Remember, CAP was created by the state, by an act of Congress. So, again, it is easily arguable that when CAP acts, it does so with the color of governmental authority behind it. State sponsored religion is inappropriate.
Finally, there is no such thing as a "non-sectarian" prayer. It is a contradiction in terms like "grape-nuts." It is really neither one. True prayer has to come out of some sectarian tradition. And if it could somehow be made truly "non-sectarian," it would not be prayer. Moreover, prayer reflects the missional purposes of a particular religion. Therefore, how can there be, by definition, prayer that is "non-proselytizing"? Such prayers have the same banal effect as letters bearing the salutation "To Whom It May Concern."
Children are impressionable. They can be easily confused when the religious traditions of their home life conflict with the traditions to which they are exposed at school or CAP meetings. Religious instruction should be left to the home and to religious institutions, thus freeing children particularly those of minority persuasions from the pressures to conform to the majority, at least in religious expression. The right to choose and practice one's religion is one of the most sacred of rights we have. CAP, as a non-religious organization, has no place preferring one religion over another or even over no religion at all.
However well intended, the reasoning of those who support prayers at opening or closing formations or during moral leadership classes is flawed. CAP should not be in the business of endorsing any particular religion. It is not CAP's place to endorse the religious practices of the majority culture. Prayer is a private matter, to be taught in the places that are most competent for such instruction—the religious institutions of our communities and at home with our families.
So, with respect Sir—no, I will not "stand quietly and respectfully as a courtesy to others" as doing so is not respectful to everyone and that's not how I was taught to respect my fellow CAP members.
Lt Col James A. Garlough, CAP
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 06, 2007, 08:44:03 AM
Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on January 01, 2007, 11:54:35 PM
How about just stand quietly and respectfully as a courtesy to those who wish to do this. Doesn't mean you necessarily have to agree with it, but it is common courtesy to your other CAP Officers and Cadets.
With respect Major Cranford, I could not disagree with you more. How about looking at the big picture here? With respect to prayer, CAP should not use the tyranny of the majority to force one set of beliefs on others.
So the tyranny of the minority should be allowed to force their beliefs on others?
You know, the biggest guy wins the arm-wrestling contest. I know it sounds terribly crass and not-so-bleeding in heart, but don't you think post-modern society has given enough? People are too nervous to say "Merry Christmas," they are angered by the phrase "In God We Trust" on the penny, and of course, all this hooplah about the pledge. (Interesting how those who oppose Christmas have never volunteered to work on the holiday, nor do they have any problem taking advantage of Christmas sales. They've never surrendered their cash to anyone I know either, in protest of the phrase on their coins....)
What about the majority's right to the same free speech as that which the minority claims? Two free speech claims......so put 'em to a vote. Winner take all (but of course, such a course of action is *too simple* because the minority couldn't pull the numbers. Enter activist groups.)
Just food for thought...and of course, let's be sure to be careful about using specific examples of court cases. The Dred Scott Decision comes to mind, and we all can agree that such a court decision surely wasn't the outcome of an enlightened society that folks could've hoped for.... :)
If CAP wants to say the pledge, so be it. Sit there and be as quiet as I would be when folks dravel on about how wrong it is to say God. Give a little, take a little. Majority wins and if we don't like it, we have three options: deal with it, leave it, or get a majority and beat it.
(And btw......NO.....I'm
not a Republican. Surprise! You don't have to be a red-stater to see hilarity in society or CAP...) :)
Mike:
If you read my post carefully, you'll note that I was responding to the issue raised by Lt Kahler (Psicorp) concerning his squadron's chaplain giving an invocation at the opening of their meetings. I did not say anything about the pledge of allegiance.
Allow me to correct that error:
CAPP 151, the only guidance on the subject I am aware of in CAP, provides that the reciting of the pledge is allowed indoors.
Military tradition and military regulations provide that the reciting of the pledge is not performed by personnel in military uniform. Thus the eternal question; is CAP enough military to be required to follow military tradition in this matter?
Yet there's a contradiction in the military regulations also, as in one place they say not to recite the pledge while in uniform, yet in another they say not to recite the pledge in a military formation. One presumes that while standing in a military formation, generally, the personnel would be wearing a uniform, so why the need for the two separate regulations? Shouldn't the probation against the pledge while in uniform cover all situations while in uniform, including formations?
However, the simple bottom line for CAP is to follow CAP rules, regulations and guidance. Therefore, since CAPP 151 states that reciting of the Pledge indoors is acceptable, I have no problem with CAP members reciting the pledge of allegiance indoors in a class, or even in an indoor formation.
I shall hold this opinion until National reviews the regulations/guidance on this matter and decides to change the regulations. For me, it is much less of a stretch to recite the pledge of allegiance in CAP (arguably a state created, non-religious entity) than it is to require individuals to pray at non-optional CAP meetings.
Prayer should be reserved for worship services conducted by chaplains for members voluntary attendance, or during private counseling sessions between the chaplain and members of his/her own faith who wish to pray during such sessions.
I have no problem with prayer at all, as long as no individual is forced to do it or participate in it at a non-optional activity.
So, to answer your specific issues:
So the tyranny of the minority should be allowed to force their beliefs on others?
No, they should not.
You know, the biggest guy wins the arm-wrestling contest.
That does not make the biggest guy always right.
I know it sounds terribly crass and not-so-bleeding in heart, but don't you think post-modern society has given enough?
No, I don't. Not in the context you present the question. Post modern society is very juvenile in many ways. Part of growing-up, even for a society, is learning to adopt more mature attitudes than simply "majority wins." I believe I expressed that pretty eloquently in my last post.
People are too nervous to say "Merry Christmas," they are angered by the phrase "In God We Trust" on the penny, and of course, all this hooplah about the pledge.
Surprisingly, here's where we will agree in part. If you believe in Christmas and I don't, and you casually say "Merry Christmas" to me in passing, that is your right. Members of post-modern society should be mature enough to accept the greeting in the spirit it is offered, from one person to another. Similarly, post–modern society members should also be mature enough to understand that I may not return the same greeting. The proper response is "Thank you" from a non-believer, not a diatribe on how your expressing your greeting is wrong However, once the greeting is forced on others in an organizational context we may disagree on its appropriateness. As long is the greeting is offered from one individual to another in a social context, it's fine.
(Interesting how those who oppose Christmas have never volunteered to work on the holiday.
You'd be very wrong about that. I personally worked every Christmas and Easter holiday for many years to give others time off to spend with family. It is not unreasonable for those who do not participate in Christmas to volunteer to give time off to those who do. However, I will not do it anymore. Why you ask? Because the same courtesy was not extended to me for the holidays that are meaningful to me, the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving. I got VERY tired of the Christmas crowd demanding every Christmas off while not returning the favor. Hypocrisy is not pretty Mike.
nor do they have any problem taking advantage of Christmas sales.
A sale is a sale. That's a silly example.
They've never surrendered their cash to anyone I know either, in protest of the phrase on their coins....)
You're wrong about that also. There are groups of people who live outside the economic system in this country and still barter for what they need. There are also people who only use checks and credit cards and thus have no need to ever possess or use cash. They are a tiny minority, but they exist. Whether or not people agree with the presence of the words "In God We Trust" on currency, generally, there are few other ways for people to exchange vaue in our society. So, some people work to have the words removed. Will they succeed? Who knows, but it is their right to try.
What about the majority's right to the same free speech as that which the minority claims?
Here again, we agree, in-part. The majority has the same right of free speech as the minority, except when one group uses organizational coercion to stifle that free speech. Insofar as religion is concerned, CAP has no business promoting one version over another in any way. Private speech—discussions about why one religion rocks over another one, efforts to persuade others that your religion is the best, are perfectly fine, until the organization chooses one. Once CAP endorses a religion, it becomes a religious organization and that is not acceptable. CAP should not be seen to endorse any religion at all. Unfortunately, invocations at meetings during formations offered by Christian chaplains can easily be seen as official endorsement of one religion.
Two free speech claims......so put 'em to a vote. Winner take all (but of course, such a course of action is *too simple* because the minority couldn't pull the numbers. Enter activist groups.)
Again, you get it wrong here. A mature society knows that "majority wins" is a very immature way to conduct affairs. If the majority won in every issue in America, we'd be living in a very different place. A place where women would have no rights and could not vote, where gays and lesbians would be placed in camps and exterminated, where religion would be the dominate force in our nation and non-believers in the majority faith would be treated as enemies of the state. Thankfully, we've grown past these things. Have there been growing pains, are there growing pains...of course. But, we're learning that in some things, the majority is not the best way to go.
Just food for thought...and of course, let's be sure to be careful about using specific examples of court cases. The Dred Scott Decision comes to mind, and we all can agree that such a court decision surely wasn't the outcome of an enlightened society that folks could've hoped for....
Certainly. However, Dred Scott v. Sanford makes my point also. If majority were allowed to win in America, it is arguable that Christianity would be the dominate force in our government. Were that the case, it is arguable that slavery might make a comeback. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.
The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
There's much more. Thank God one leader, and then a large group, stood up and put an end to slavery. Many people died to end slavery in America, at a time when the majority was for slavery. Had the majority been allowed to rule, America would be a very different place today.
If CAP wants to say the pledge, so be it.
I don't disagree. In the proper context in CAP the pledge is fine. (My private opinion about the addition of "Under God" in 1954 shall remain out of this rather lengthy reply.)
Sit there and be as quiet as I would be when folks dravel on about how wrong it is to say God. Give a little, take a little. Majority wins and if we don't like it, we have three options: deal with it, leave it, or get a majority and beat it.
Again Sir, a pretty immature attitude.
(And btw......NO.....I'm not a Republican. Surprise! You don't have to be a red-stater to see hilarity in society or CAP...)
Gee, and I thought everyone with an opinion that differed from mine was a Republican who drives an old pick-up with a rifle rack and confederate flag in back. *Please note the sarcasm here. I don't actually believe the statement above.* I would like to see a more enlightened response to my post than simply "majority rules so be quiet!"
Regards,
Lt Col James A. Garlough, CAP
folks, lets keep the religion out of the pledge thread. The role of religon in CAP would make an excellent topic in another thread.
Indeed. I find this extremist secular activism offensive.
It is also in complete contravention with organizational standards, the founding documents and philosophy of our nation.
I think this entire thread has run it's course.
If the moderator wishes to create another thread, that's fine. However, the two topics are related in many ways.
Certainly the coercive nature of them both is related. There are similar good faith arguments for both and against both in the context of CAP activities.
There are also arguments for and against the pledge on religious grounds. The argument being that the pledge without "under God" is totally secular and appropriate in governmental contexts, and the opposing side that states "under God" reaffirms that man and government are answerable to a higher power.
All of these discussions tend to inflame people's passions and they both frustrate CAP leaders on occasion.
I certainly will never forget the initially pleasant afternoon work-party at the squadron hangar, spent cleaning up and organizing. During the work-party two different individual members approached me; one to discuss the pledge (the cadets had asked to do it in formations) and one to discuss religion (the chaplain was closing moral leadership classes with a Christian prayer). Some days, being a squadron commander in CAP can be a difficult business.
So, I'd welcome a new thread, but the topics are related in many ways.
Lt Col James Garlough, CAP
This thread is about whether CAP regulations regarding the pledge are in contravention of federal law and whether or not it would make sense to have our regs match the AF and prohibit the pledge while in uniform at all times.
Quote from: aveighter on January 06, 2007, 11:18:10 PM
Indeed. I find this extremist secular activism offensive.
It is also in complete contravention with organizational standards, the founding documents and philosophy of our nation.
I think this entire thread has run it's course.
Sir:
If you carefully re-read my posts, I am not engaging in secular activism. I find your accusation that I am doing so extraordinarily offensive.
It is comments like yours that serve to shut down any reasonable discourse about difficult topics. If you disagree, that's fine. Make a reasoned argument and sign your name to it. Mature people can agree to disagree.
However, until you prove otherwise I will reiterate that I was not asked nor required to adhere to any religious faith to join CAP and I believe that pushing any religion by CAP is inappropriate. Outside of CAP, or even at CAP religious services run by CAP chaplains, I don't care what anyone does or believes. My entire point is that neither should CAP. Thus, prayer offered at inappropriate times is...inappropriate.
As for my arguments being in "complete contravention of organizational standards, the founding documents and philosophy of our nation" you are quite wrong Sir.
1. Again, CAP was not founded on religious principals or for a religious purpose. CAP has no business pushing any form of religion on members at times when they are not completely free to decline to participate.
2. The founding documents provide for religious freedom in this Nation. That means all persons must be free to practice their religion free from government interference and coercion. The only practical way to achieve this and to respect everyone is for our governmental institutions to not engage in any manner of religious practice, leaving the individual free to believe and practice as they wish.
3. I'm not sure what Nation you live in Sir, but I certainly don't recall America being a theocracy. I was taught that religious freedom was the philosophy of this Nation, not the coercive tyranny of the majority.
Thank you for making my point that the majority should not rule in this matter.
Lt Col James A. Garlough, CAP
Quote from: RiverAux on January 06, 2007, 11:24:02 PM
This thread is about whether CAP regulations regarding the pledge are in contravention of federal law and whether or not it would make sense to have our regs match the AF and prohibit the pledge while in uniform at all times.
Although another poster brought up religion, and I replied to their post, allow me to answer your question on the pledge directly. I'll split the question if you don't mind and then answer the two questions:
1. Are CAP regulations regarding the pledge in contravention of federal law?
Certainly not deliberately so. However, as a very broad generalization (generalizing generally gets you in trouble, but forgive in this context) federal Codes apply to federal agencies. Arguably, CAP is not a federal agency. So, is CAP's regulation in contravention of federal law—probably not. However, CAP regulations are certainly different than the spirit and intent of the federal regulations, thus leading to the second part of the question.
2. Would make sense to have our regs match the AF and prohibit the pledge while in uniform at all times.
I believe so. The spirit of the flag code and military regulations and the fact that the USAF still controls our CAP/USAF type uniform thorough the Uniform Committee lead me to believe that a good operating practice would be to follow military convention n this area. Thus a recommendation to National to bring CAP regulations into conformity with military regulations is a good idea.
That's a short answer to a more complex discussion, but it coveys the essence of my thoughts on the matter of the pledge.
Lt Col James A. Garlough, CAP
Hi James,
I really don't think that within a forum, a battle of words ever leads to a change of heart in parties that don't see eye to eye. Perhaps this is why I chose not to write a full-fledged essay in response to your diatribe. If something can't be nailed down within a few paragraphs, folks quickly move on to another thread. Love it...hate it...welcome to the culture of the online forums.
I would also expect any person as enlightened as you feel you are to be very cautious in declaring someone "immature." Of course, I have my opinions about your responses, but I consider it "mature" to avoid labels. I'm also not one to compare records and boast in order to assert my place in your eyes (to such an extent that I don't even need to flaunt my rank.) Find me in e-services to discover my very secure level of experience if need be.
Sorry, but it's 4:00 p.m. (my time) and my wife...er, parents seemingly have to put my "juvenile" self to nighty-night.
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 07, 2007, 12:07:32 AM
Hi James,
I really don't think that within a forum, a battle of words ever leads to a change of heart in parties that don't see eye to eye. Perhaps this is why I chose not to write a full-fledged essay in response to your diatribe. If something can't be nailed down within a few paragraphs, folks quickly move on to another thread. Love it...hate it...welcome to the culture of the online forums.
I would also expect any person as enlightened as you feel you are to be very cautious in declaring someone "immature." Of course, I have my opinions about your responses, but I consider it "mature" to avoid labels. I'm also not one to compare records and boast in order to assert my place in your eyes (to such an extent that I don't even need to flaunt my rank.) Find me in e-services to discover my very secure level of experience if need be.
Sorry, but it's 4:00 p.m. (my time) and my wife...er, parents seemingly have to put my "juvenile" self to nighty-night.
*LOL* Very well done Mike.
I am aware that on-line forums generally don't change people's minds. But, sometimes, a post offers an opportunity for people to think about issues confronting the group.
The issues of the pledge and religion in CAP are both difficult and complex. There are no easy answers to these issues. Certainly leaders in CAP should give some thought to these issues and be prepared to discuss them reasonably with members who may have opposing views.
As for name calling, you're good. Please note; I did not call you immature. I don't know you well enough to make that kind of judgment. However, I did say that some of the attitudes you expressed about society were immature. A subtle distinction to be sure, but nonetheless that's how I read your post. You nicely managed to call my post a "diatribe" and to insinuate that I think I'm some kind of "enlightened" being. You didn't go very far to avoid labels.
As for rank in my posts, CAPR 110-1 requires that e-mail, chat groups, bulletin boards, list-servers or similar communications must include the name of the person involved in the communication and, as applicable, their CAP rank or CAP position of employment. Just trying to comply with the regulations.
These are tough issues Mike, and I am open to other's views. However, I have to tell you that I have personally seen 30 cadets of a minority religious group break ranks and threaten to quit because the chaplain insisted on giving a Christian prayer at the closing of moral leadership.
I have also had cadets tell me that it was against their religious practice to say the pledge of allegiance so their parents told them they had to quit.
Regardless of your or my personal opinion about these issues, they are tough issues that CAP leaders face. Maybe not every day, but they do come up. We owe the members of CAP more than just lip service on these issues, no matter what our individual thoughts are.
Hope your wife...er, parents tucked you in well.
Night.
James
Quotefederal Codes apply to federal agencies
No, it is a federal law that applies to everybody. The question is whether the "in uniform" portion applies to CAP or not which I discussed in the original post.
Col Garlough,
I couldn't agree with you more, sir, however I have learned what battles to fight and more importantly where to fight them and with whom.
I've dealt with the religion issue on an extreme level while living in Alabama; I'm certain everyone can recall the spectacle that was former State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who proudly proclaimed that there was a higher authority in the State of Alabama than the State Consitution.
I'm very much in favor, if prayer is deemed to be necessary by those in charge, to a moment of silence. This is very inclusive and doesn't place any one religion over another, including those with no religious affiliation. Our Chaplain has begun doing this over the past couple of meetings and it is something I can definately live with (and no, I never did say a word to anyone other than my first post here).
As far as the Pledge, National needs to decide which is correct and appropriate...to recite it in uniform and in formation or in uniform only while not in formation. This is something that should not be left to individual units, it should be a clear cut policy.
While I am an ardent Patriot, I am also a Libertarian and as such somethings strike me more as amusing and a bit frustrating rather than upsetting. The Pledge and prayer are two of those that fit in the first catagory. It is also interesting to think that as the U.S. Air Force Auxilliary, we should follow military and federal guidelines on these issues, but as a the corporation Civil Air Patrol, the Powers That Be can pretty much decide whatever they like.
I highly respect my immediate leadership (unit through Wing), and as such I respect their wishes and decisions until such time as they cross a line I cannot abide by. It is my hope that never occurs.
QuoteHowever, until you prove otherwise I will reiterate that I was not asked nor required to adhere to any religious faith to join CAP and I believe that pushing any religion by CAP is inappropriate. Outside of CAP, or even at CAP religious services run by CAP chaplains, I don't care what anyone does or believes. My entire point is that neither should CAP. Thus, prayer offered at inappropriate times is...inappropriate.
Your arguments are specious. You know full well there is no religious requirement for participation in CAP. Religious expression in CAP, consistent with CAP rules, regulations and guidelines is quite appropriate. If these rules, regulations and guidelines have been violated you have a point. If so, please explain. Otherwise, your opinion, while interesting, is irrelevant.
Quote1. Again, CAP was not founded on religious principals or for a religious purpose. CAP has no business pushing any form of religion on members at times when they are not completely free to decline to participate.
Again, specious. Please name three members who do not understand what CAP was founded for. The functions of the Chaplain service, in accordance with the aforementioned rules, regulations and guidelines do not constitute pushing a form of religion on anyone. If you feel intimidated I would suggest a healthy dose of Dr. K's All Purpose and Spine Fortifying Elixir. Unless, of course, you can cite a specific offense in which case I shall support you in your quest for salvation (in the most non-religious context to be sure).
Quote2. The founding documents provide for religious freedom in this Nation. That means all persons must be free to practice their religion free from government interference and coercion. The only practical way to achieve this and to respect everyone is for our governmental institutions to not engage in any manner of religious practice, leaving the individual free to believe and practice as they wish.
Oh oh! Speciousness alert! There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. And there is a practical way to achieve this. While the rest of us are engaging in our constitutionally protected freedom of religion (consistent with etc., etc.) those wishing to maintain the purity of their secular activism may leave the room. Again I say, if you have a specific allegation of misconduct regarding these matters in your squadron, please show us.
Quote3. I'm not sure what Nation you live in Sir, but I certainly don't recall America being a theocracy. I was taught that religious freedom was the philosophy of this Nation, not the coercive tyranny of the majority.
At last, here is a point of semi-agreement, although I would refer you to the American Heritage Dictionary for a definition what theocracy actually means. One of the foundational precepts of the nation is, indeed, religious freedom. The Judaeo-Christian philosophical understandings form the moral basis of our culture and it's laws. They are enshrined in the founding documents, writings of the founders and almost every public monument and building in the capitol including the Supreme Court, the congress and the opening exhortations of those bodies. This is hardly a coercive tyranny of the majority. It is a reflection of a society and it's institutions which, by the way, include the CAP and the Armed Forces of the United States. I once raised my right hand and swore an oath before the Almighty regarding the constitution. All perfectly legal. And so are the activities of the Chaplain service when expressed in accordance with the rules, regulations so on and so forth.
If you don't like it, well, I support your right to not like it. I support your right to not participate. I support your right to stew in your juices until tender. But, your continued protestations are merely another manifestation of the current wave of activist secular extremism infesting many levels of society.
You don't want anyone forcing religion on you. (Still waiting on that example)
We don't want you forcing your soviet style secularism on the rest of us.
And as for you, young Lt. Psicorp, a note of revelation. The Founding Fathers themselves proudly proclaimed that there was a higher authority than the State of Alabama, it's state constitution, (even before there was a state with constitution) the United States, the colonies, the King so on and so forth. I'll give you a hint, the opening words with which they declared such an outrageous position (in your opinion) went something like "When in the course of human events......"We hold these truths to be self-evident.......". Any guesses?
Tags - MIKE
Quote from: RiverAux on January 07, 2007, 01:29:59 AM
The question is whether the "in uniform" portion applies to CAP or not which I discussed in the original post.
Yes, that is the original question you posted, and it is a very good question, and in all honesty, one for which I do not have a ready answer.
My "gut" reaction is that the "uniform" portion of the regulations does not apply to CAP, and that even if it does, there's really no effective enforcement mechanism, unlike in the military.
In my experience and as a practical matter, many CAP unit leaders when dealing with the cadet program fall back on their comparable previous experience in life which is often the scout model. As a scout, you do say the pledge in uniform and in formation. Those who have ROTC or Academy training often fall back on that model, where the pledge is not recited—although when I was in ROTC we did recite the pledge in the classroom, in uniform—so I'm not sure how well understood these regulations are in the military either.
Please allow me the courtesy of some time to do some checking. I'll see what the prevailing opinion is at National about the applicability of the USAF uniform regulations to CAP. I do recall that there is some verbiage in the regulations, but cannot quote it off the top of my head.
Good question Sir. I will get back to you.
Well I can tell you that the AF regulation does not apply to CAP at all. Just read the intro where it describes to whom it applies. In fact, no AF regulation applies to CAP members. The AF regulations concerning CAP are all about how the AF deals with CAP but do not actually apply to us. We may use them as a guideline when CAP regs are unclear on an issue, but we don't have to.
What I was saying is that CAP should change its regulations to match the AF way of dealing with the pledge.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 08, 2007, 02:50:47 AM
What I was saying is that CAP should change its regulations to match the AF way of dealing with the pledge.
On that point I agree with you. As we are in the business of training future leaders, at the least we should set a proper example for their future. That way, what we teach as pledge protocol will be the same as the military. Sometimes, even though CAP is a civilian organization, it is best that we follow the military model and or rules.
WARNING – This is long. Grab a soda and hiking boots first.
aveighter: Your arguments are likewise specious.
That's a nice four dollar word—specious. Means "apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible." Please show me how my discussion of this issue lacks merit. Except for the fact that nobody's mind will be changed, my opinions on this subject are as valid as anyone else.
You said: "You know full well there is no religious requirement for participation in CAP."
Yup, that's exactly what I said. Thank you for agreeing to my basic point.
You also said: "Religious expression in CAP, consistent with CAP rules, regulations and guidelines is quite appropriate. If these rules, regulations and guidelines have been violated you have a point."
Ay, there's the rub. Your argument is that if it does not violate CAP regulations, then it is fine. My argument is that it is wrong to coerce individuals into religious observance or participation simply by virtue of participation in CAP, whether it violates regulations or not.
In this, I believe the CAP regulations need to be reviewed. Your appeal to common practice and providing a red herring in the form of "regulations" is far more specious than I could ever be.
CAP's non-discrimination statement provides that we will not discriminate on the basis of religion. Yet, we do that very thing. As I've stated before, it is perfectly reasonable for a chaplain to offer the opportunity for religious observance and/or worship at a CAP activity as long as such opportunity is truly voluntary. Holding prayer, or even a moment of silence during a non-optional CAP activity like a formation or moral leadership class makes the prayer non-voluntary, and therein lays the problem. Simple, succinct and straightforward—prayer offered during a non-optional activity is not voluntary, and thus not OK.
Now, don't say that people are free to leave or not participate, because they are not. Breaking ranks in a formation is frowned upon at best and would cause a disciplinary action at worst. Moral leadership classes are a required part of the cadet program. Cadets are not free to leave these classes or to choose not to participate in them. Also the simple act of leaving one of these events would be embarrassing. In this matter that's an unacceptable position in which to place our members.
Now for a huge surprise for you: I wholeheartedly support the chaplaincy in CAP. I found the chaplain to be one of my most valued advisors as a CAP commander. I cannot count the number of times that bringing the wise and learned counsel of a chaplain into difficult personnel issues led to a satisfactory resolution for the matter at hand.
And, I fully support the right of any group of CAP members to gather and pray at meetings (during breaks or any other unstructured time), or after the meeting, or before the meeting. I just do not endorse prayer when it is placed into the structure of the program where it does not belong.
Again Sir, placing prayer into non-optional parts of the CAP program is coercive and sends the wrong message to those whose beliefs differ from those expressed in the "prayer" or to those for whom public prayer is inappropriate.
Any official action by CAP that indicates to any member that their belief is somehow less than the belief of others is wrong. Wrong because it sends the ancillary message to members of the organization who are non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the group, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the group. That's not what CAP is about.
You cite nothing more than the same old saw of "if there's no regulation against it, it's fine" and "majority rules." Both arguments are specious (to use your word) and both are fatally flawed as I have pointed out in the preceding posts.
Thank you also for the suggestion that I take a dose of "Dr. K's All Purpose and Spine Fortifying Elixir." Allow me to offer the same suggestion to you. Here's how I propose you do it:
At your next CAP meeting when you conduct your opening formation, post the colors and the orders for the day, make the announcements and then announce that there will be an invocation and/or moment of silence for five minutes led by the chaplain in the next room for those who wish to participate, immediately following formation. Then dismiss the formation, and allow those who wish to join the chaplain to do so.
Under that scenario, I have no problem whatsoever with the inclusion of non-denominational prayer in the meetings at all. Why? Because in the scenario I have painted above, participation is completely voluntary. No coercive affect and no possibility of offending anyone. Those who wish to pray are given the opportunity to do so, free from interference by CAP or anyone else. Their beliefs are respected. Those who don't wish to participate are given a graceful exit wherein no inference can be made about their belief or lack thereof in any way. Is your spine strong enough to do that? Is your spine strong enough to protect all members of your squadron while offering a reasonable and free opportunity for religious observance?
You said: "There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion."
I agree wholeheartedly. Persons of proselytizing religious orders are free to proselytize in most contexts on our society, and I have no problem with that. However, time and place restrictions are also part of our culture and are reasonable expressions of society's recognition that there is a proper time and a place for everything. You would not go to a church service and practice your rock guitar during the service, now would you? Of course not. That would not be the right time nor place and a person doing that would rightly be asked to stop or leave. That's how it should be. Same applies to religious observance—there's a proper time and place.
As I have made clear above and in previous posts, where I have a problem with organized religious observance is when a non-religious organization, or governmental organization, (i.e., CAP) sponsors religious practice in a manner that is coercive and non-voluntary.
As for a practical way to conduct religious observance, I believe the framework I expressed above covers the bill nicely and does not place any member into a position where simply by virtue of having to break ranks and leave a public space they are forced into an embarrassing situation where their actions declare their non-interest.
Since you need examples of improper behavior, here are a couple that occur at many CAP units every week. Every time a unit chaplain stands in front of a formation and offers a "non-denominational" prayer, we violate the spirit of our own non-discrimination statement. Whenever a prayer is offered in a moral leadership class we violate the spirit of our own non-discrimination statement.
You said: "If you don't like it, well, I support your right to not like it. I support your right to not participate. I support your right to stew in your juices until tender. But, your continued protestations are merely another manifestation of the current wave of activist secular extremism infesting many levels of society."
Thank you for your support. My continued discussion is simply a reflection of my desire to be sensitive to the beliefs of all persons. I am not a secular activist. I do not spend my time advocating secular humanism over other forms of religion. I simply draw a sharp line between my government's and public institution's endorsement of religion and the private expression thereof. Your continued labeling of my comments as an attack is reflective of Christianity's attitude that any rules limiting their desire to spread the message is secular humanism and unacceptable.
If I was a secular activist, I'd require that the state never engage in any kind of religious practice. I'd argue that the chaplaincy in the military uses tax dollars and as such it is impermissible. I'd argue that churches and other religious institutions should pay taxes just like every other business in America. I'd argue that public religious expression itself is impermissible. I have stated none of these things and in point of fact, I have expressed the opposite. I simply wish to assure that all members of CAP are treated equally and that no person should feel coerced into practicing any form of religious observance by any official action of CAP.
However, I have discussed this matter with people who share your sentiments before. We won't change each other's minds on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
I also must congratulate you on your non-name calling and lack of labeling. Nothing in my comments above is reflective of Soviet style anything. Your effort to label me a communist through comparison to the old Soviet empire is laughable and pretty typical of people who are losing the argument. If you cannot win the argument, attack the messenger. Nice aveighter. And incredibly offensive.
For the record the Soviet model was to simply prohibit all religion. The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. I do not support that in any way. I support religious freedom. I do not support religious coercion by our government and non-religious institutions.
As for your comments to young Lt. Psicorp, I have another challenge for you aveighter. I'm fine with the Supreme Court of Alabama displaying the Ten Commandments...if...and only if...there is a photograph of the Ka`bah - i.e. the small building toward which the Muslim adherents direct themselves while offering their prayers, on display also, and a statue of the Buddah, and a Mezuzah on the outer door of each government building, and a DreamCatcher, a statue of Moroni, the Triquetra, Shiva, Cha'I, Seraph, Yab-Yum, Keris, Shou, Sheela-na-gig and dozens of other religious symbols displayed also. That'd make things more equal wouldn't it?
After all, wasn't America founded on principals of religious freedom for all? Or is it just religious freedom for Christians aveighter? As a practical matter, it is not possible to have every courtroom and public building in America display all of these symbols for faith. So, perhaps it is best to leave them all in the places of worship where their significance can be celebrated and honored. And in so doing, we might even accidentally respect those who do not believe in religion at all.
Time and place restrictions are not anti-religion aveighter. To everything there is a season....
Your mileage is likely to vary.
James
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 08, 2007, 08:09:42 AM
Mike: Your arguments are likewise specious.
James, "Mike" is a moderator that fixed the quote "tags" in aveighter's post. AFAIK, aveighter isn't named Mike, nor would anyone wish you "tags".
And good grief guys, quit the petty bickering like a couple of school kids. Try to lead by example and show the cadets how
adults act. Good grief...
Cheers,
Quote from: shorning on January 08, 2007, 08:15:46 AM
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 08, 2007, 08:09:42 AM
Mike: Your arguments are likewise specious.
James, "Mike" is a moderator that fixed the quote "tags" in aveighter's post. AFAIK, aveighter isn't named Mike, nor would anyone wish you "tags".
And good grief guys, quit the petty bickering like a couple of school kids. Try to lead by example and show the cadets how adults act. Good grief...
Cheers,
Thank you for the heads-up on the errors Steve, they are corrected now. LOL, I certainly misread that "tag" thing. Some days!
As for bickering, I didn't realize we were. I have presented arguments for my position, and while I disagree with him, aveighter has advocated his position.
At this point, I believe I have made my point and I really don't have a lot more to say on the religion topic, until CAP gets sued for religious discrimination that is. That is probably what it will take to change regulations/behavior in this matter.
On the pledge—I am still doing my homework to give a more complete answer, as I said I would. I hope to have a better answer for the current state of things in a couple of days. That said, I agree that in the matter of the pledge, that we should follow military conventions when in formation/uniform so we don't teach the cadets incorrect behavior (by military standards).
James
Quote from: shorning on January 08, 2007, 08:15:46 AM
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 08, 2007, 08:09:42 AM
Mike: Your arguments are likewise specious.
James, "Mike" is a moderator that fixed the quote "tags" in aveighter's post. AFAIK, aveighter isn't named Mike, nor would anyone wish you "tags".
And good grief guys, quit the petty bickering like a couple of school kids. Try to lead by example and show the cadets how adults act. Good grief...
Cheers,
And because there are so many "Mikes" in CAP, note the use of my nickname and it's uniqueness, due in no small part to the fact that there are far fewer Montys out there in CAP than Mikes. 9 times out of 10, the folks that really know me use it. (And because I know myself pretty well, I refer to myself as *Monty* in the third person too...)
"Tags" didn't come from me either. :)
-Monty
Quote from: aveighter on January 08, 2007, 12:44:59 AM
And as for you, young Lt. Psicorp, a note of revelation. The Founding Fathers themselves proudly proclaimed that there was a higher authority than the State of Alabama, it's state constitution, (even before there was a state with constitution) the United States, the colonies, the King so on and so forth. I'll give you a hint, the opening words with which they declared such an outrageous position (in your opinion) went something like "When in the course of human events......"We hold these truths to be self-evident.......". Any guesses?
Respectfully, Sir, there is a world of difference between the declaration that men were inspired by a higher authority to draft our written laws and the declaration that our written laws are meaningless if they contrast with the individual's belief structure who's job it is to interepret and uphold those laws.
Further, Sir, the words you quoted continue with:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
and,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Contrary to popular belief, the main drafter of that beautifuly written document (as well as several other of our Founding Fathers) was a Deist; that is one who believes in what is commonly referred to as the "Clockmaker God", who creates, sets into motion, and then abandons. Hence the reference to the "laws of nature" and "nature's God". There is very little in the way of dogma associated with Deism. Further still, Sir, "Creator" is quite generic word usage. The only thing I know for fact is that I was created by my parents who want me to live, be free, and happy.
It is known that the men and women in our Armed Forces encompass every faith and belief, from Agnostic to Zorastrianism (some even have their dog tags read "Orthodox Jedi"). All have sworn to uphold our laws which enable everyone to practice their own personal religious/spiritual beliefs or not as they so choose. That, I believe, is the greatest testament to our society/culture as there can be.
To believe that such diversity does not exist in our organization is self blinding, and to express that one person's belief is more valuable or important than another's to the point of telling someone that they can go stand outside if they don't like it is hypocritical in the extreme if one believes in the original premise that our Founding Fathers were inspired by a higher authority to write "... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind...".
Okay....talk about topic drift.
Bottom line.
If in your squadron you all stand at attention and say the pledge of allegiance....no one is going to call the FBI and have you all arrested!
If you just post the colors and say nothing....again....no problem.
Also if you start the meeting and don't post the colors, play the national anthem or say the pledge...again...no problems because there is no requirement to do any of these things.
We should be reinforcing respect to our country and our flag....this is a good thing....no one (except the Chief) is going to say anything about how you do that.
Quote from: Psicorp on January 08, 2007, 09:10:10 PM
Respectfully, Sir, there is a world of difference between the declaration that men were inspired by a higher authority to draft our written laws and the declaration that our written laws are meaningless if they contrast with the individual's belief structure who's job it is to interepret and uphold those laws.
Further, Sir, the words you quoted continue with:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
and,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Contrary to popular belief, the main drafter of that beautifuly written document (as well as several other of our Founding Fathers) was a Deist; that is one who believes in what is commonly referred to as the "Clockmaker God", who creates, sets into motion, and then abandons. Hence the reference to the "laws of nature" and "nature's God". There is very little in the way of dogma associated with Deism. Further still, Sir, "Creator" is quite generic word usage. The only thing I know for fact is that I was created by my parents who want me to live, be free, and happy.
It is known that the men and women in our Armed Forces encompass every faith and belief, from Agnostic to Zorastrianism (some even have their dog tags read "Orthodox Jedi"). All have sworn to uphold our laws which enable everyone to practice their own personal religious/spiritual beliefs or not as they so choose. That, I believe, is the greatest testament to our society/culture as there can be.
To believe that such diversity does not exist in our organization is self blinding, and to express that one person's belief is more valuable or important than another's to the point of telling someone that they can go stand outside if they don't like it is hypocritical in the extreme if one believes in the original premise that our Founding Fathers were inspired by a higher authority to write "... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind...".
Well said Jamie, well said! :clap: Ever consider a career as a lawyer?
Keep up the good work.
James
lordmonar said: "If in your squadron you all stand at attention and say the pledge of allegiance....no one is going to call the FBI and have you all arrested!"
True, but there are cadets and seniors whose religious beliefs will not allow them to salute the flag of any nation or recite the pledge (Jehovah's Witnesses ). That should be considered in the creation of CAP ceremonies.
My overall point relates to both religion and the pledge pretty equally; it is important to have ceremonies to open and close the meetings, if for no other reason than to "punctuate" the experience—to place a beginning and ending on it.
In the creation and maintenance of those ceremonies, it is important to work hard to find ways to respect the beliefs of all our members. It is also important to make them as close to actual AF military practice as possible to avoid having young people relearning after CAP.
I do agree with you that reinforcing our national identity through CAP is not only appropriate, but important. Certainly, we have all experienced flag ceremonies and recitations of the pledge as doing this, but they are not the only way.
One squadron, where I was a guest during their weekly meeting, opened with a military formation, where they posted the colors in silence while standing at attention and then they recited the cadet oath in unison. (Good way to get a handle on that memory work.) Then they made their announcements and dismissed into the evening's classes and activities. They didn't have a chaplain assigned, so I don't know how they would have handled the prayer issue, but the commander was doing a great job and their ceremony was well done. Anyway, just one observance.
Respect for the flag and for our country...absolutely. Respect for our members, imperative.
Regards,
James
If you have anyone who for religious purposes cannot or will not say the pledge...then just standing quietly is enough to show respect. I don't think anyone would have a religious objection to that.
It is impossible to create a ceremony that would fit everyone's beliefs.
At my squadron in Misawa....we did not do the pledge to open our meetings but the cadet oath (which the JW's would have a problem with too BTW).
My hat is off to you, young Lt. Kahler. Your effort at research and rebuttal shows you have some promise although your understanding of Mr. Jefferson is incorrect. He went to great lengths in many writings to disabuse the notion that he was a Deist. I can refer you to some of them if you are interested. They are quite specific.
Now, just for laughs. Who do you suppose wrote this section of the Virginia State Constitution?
"Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion - That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district with this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please."
Have an extra brownie if you got it right. ;)
Doesn't the United States Flag Code apply to the entire United States?
The Flag Code specify prohibits reciting the pledge while in uniform.
Quote from: rebowman on December 01, 2008, 08:22:56 PM
Doesn't the United States Flag Code apply to the entire United States?
The Flag Code specify prohibits reciting the pledge while in uniform.
It actually says "should" which in legal speak is a suggestion not a prohibition.