Pledge of Allegiance

[JamesG5223]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[JamesG5223]

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.

[JamesG5223]

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

[shorning]

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,

[JamesG5223]

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

[Monty]

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

[Psicorp]

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...".
 

[lordmonar]

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.

[JamesG5223]

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

[JamesG5223]

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

[lordmonar]

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).

[aveighter]

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.   

[rebowman]

Doesn't the United States Flag Code apply to the entire United States?

The Flag Code specify prohibits reciting the pledge while in uniform.

[lordmonar]

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.