Pledge of Allegiance

[RiverAux]

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.

TITLE 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:

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:
 

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pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be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:

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."

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:

(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

[DrJbdm]

 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.

[Psicorp]

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...."

[Major_Chuck]

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.

[RiverAux]

Lets 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. 

My 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. 

[Psicorp]

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.

[JamesG5223]

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

[Monty]

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...) 

[JamesG5223]

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

[RiverAux]

folks, lets keep the religion out of the pledge thread.  The role of religon in CAP would make an excellent topic in another thread. 

[aveighter]

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.

[JamesG5223]

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

[RiverAux]

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. 

[JamesG5223]

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     

[JamesG5223]

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

[Monty]

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.

[JamesG5223]

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

[RiverAux]

federal 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.

[Psicorp]

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.

[aveighter]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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