As I was reading over the article I noticed that all of them make mention of the President of the United States, with the exception of the U.S. Army. What is the reason for that? Are those in that particular line of the armed forces not as important? I found it almost insulting. Maybe I’m just too sensitive, but it seems to me that each person who serves our country and risks their life should be honored by the Father of our nation. After all, it is for him, and all of us, that they lost their life in service.
As I researched the above article, I found according to the article sponsored by The Department of Defense: "Effective April 17, 2012, the Department of Defense standardized the flag presentation verbiage for military funeral honors ceremonies. The following verbiage will be used when presenting the American flag during the funeral service:
'On behalf of the President of the United States, (the United States Army; the United States Marine Corps; the United States Navy; or the United States Air Force), and a grateful Nation, please accept this flag as a symbol of our appreciation for your loved one's honorable and faithful service.'
The United States Coast Guard is invited to use the same verbiage" I find it interesting in less than two years, they have changed the verbiage, eliminating 'President' from the United States Army flag presentation. Why, I wonder. Dian
First, I posted this artifact in response to the assertion made during our last class meeting that President Obama had changed the wording in the military funeral protocol in presenting the flag to the principle survivor present at the interment. This assertion is based on an email rumor about which you can read here - http://www.moaablogs.org/battleofthebilge/2011/10/military-funeral-protocol-change-fu/.
The President of The United States (POTUS) made no such change. The proliferation of the email rumor riled many who are already predisposed to being angry with the President and is a prime example of what we've been discussing in class as an automatic attitudinal response.
Second, Dian, after a search and a subsequent phone call regarding April 17, 2012's memorandum, the only source I can find on this is from the National Funeral Directors Association (http://nfda.org/additional-tools-veterans/3098-dept-of-defense-issues-standardized-flag-presentation-text.html) where the memorandum is quoted. Even the Military Officers' Association of America quotes this source instead of something from the DoD. A memorandum announces a proposition for future consideration, this one indicated that "the flag presentation verbiage for military funeral honors ceremonies conducted by the Department of Defense will be standardized." I can find no further Department of Defense action on this memorandum. It appears the NFDA may have jumped the gun, taking the memorandum as law.
Third, Jo Deann, as of 1999 the US Navy did not include verbiage referring to the POTUS. It's not until the artifact published above in response to the email rumor in January of this year, where there can be found a change including "On behalf of the President of the United States." The absence of this phrase in the Army's protocol has never been an item of contention nor some kind of political commentary on the POTUS. It is simply the verbiage used, and always has been used, in the ceremony, assuming, perhaps, that the POTUS falls under the moniker of citizen. Your finding the absence of the phrase as "almost insulting", or indicative that those of the US Army are not as important is symptomatic of an automatic attitude. Remember, the branches of the US Military, while cohesive in the defense of this nation, are arduously independent fraternal orders steeped in their own cultures, rituals, and internal loyalties.
Thank you for taking the time to clarifying that. Being the daughter, sister, mother and mother-in-law to individuals who have served our country in war time I am one who always get a lump in my throat when I see a flag, sing the national anthem or attend a military service. When it comes to the president one thing we need to keep in mind is the candidate we vote for may not win every time but we need to honor the office of which they hold.
Thank you for that clarification. Having a strong tie to the military with several family members serving during various times of war any thing we can do to show gratitude and respect is well deserved. In regards to POTUS we as citizens need to take an active part in the political process and whoever gets elected show respect for the office in which they hold.
I admit that I am in no way educated enough to have an opinion on if Obama is a "good" president or a "bad" president. I do know enough to know that a lot of people are so close minded when talking about presidents, and right now Obama specifically. With that, they're also close minded when it comes to Congress, laws, bills, and even a lot of stuff in this article like the military it is mentioning. So many people have opinions or complaints and they don't know a thing about it.
Do we need to be prepared to argue points from this paper?
ReplyDeleteThat's a great idea.
ReplyDeleteNo. Not really. Just kidding.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading over the article I noticed that all of them make mention of the President of the United States, with the exception of the U.S. Army. What is the reason for that? Are those in that particular line of the armed forces not as important? I found it almost insulting. Maybe I’m just too sensitive, but it seems to me that each person who serves our country and risks their life should be honored by the Father of our nation. After all, it is for him, and all of us, that they lost their life in service.
ReplyDeleteAs I researched the above article, I found according to the article sponsored by The Department of Defense: "Effective April 17, 2012, the Department of Defense standardized the flag presentation verbiage for military funeral honors ceremonies. The following verbiage will be used when presenting the American flag during the funeral service:
ReplyDelete'On behalf of the President of the United States, (the United States Army; the United States Marine Corps; the United States Navy; or the United States Air Force), and a grateful Nation, please accept this flag as a symbol of our appreciation for your loved one's honorable and faithful service.'
The United States Coast Guard is invited to use the same verbiage"
I find it interesting in less than two years, they have changed the verbiage, eliminating 'President' from the United States Army flag presentation. Why, I wonder. Dian
First, I posted this artifact in response to the assertion made during our last class meeting that President Obama had changed the wording in the military funeral protocol in presenting the flag to the principle survivor present at the interment. This assertion is based on an email rumor about which you can read here - http://www.moaablogs.org/battleofthebilge/2011/10/military-funeral-protocol-change-fu/.
ReplyDeleteThe President of The United States (POTUS) made no such change. The proliferation of the email rumor riled many who are already predisposed to being angry with the President and is a prime example of what we've been discussing in class as an automatic attitudinal response.
Second, Dian, after a search and a subsequent phone call regarding April 17, 2012's memorandum, the only source I can find on this is from the National Funeral Directors Association (http://nfda.org/additional-tools-veterans/3098-dept-of-defense-issues-standardized-flag-presentation-text.html) where the memorandum is quoted. Even the Military Officers' Association of America quotes this source instead of something from the DoD. A memorandum announces a proposition for future consideration, this one indicated that "the flag presentation verbiage for military funeral honors ceremonies conducted by the Department of Defense will be standardized." I can find no further Department of Defense action on this memorandum. It appears the NFDA may have jumped the gun, taking the memorandum as law.
Third, Jo Deann, as of 1999 the US Navy did not include verbiage referring to the POTUS. It's not until the artifact published above in response to the email rumor in January of this year, where there can be found a change including "On behalf of the President of the United States."
The absence of this phrase in the Army's protocol has never been an item of contention nor some kind of political commentary on the POTUS. It is simply the verbiage used, and always has been used, in the ceremony, assuming, perhaps, that the POTUS falls under the moniker of citizen. Your finding the absence of the phrase as "almost insulting", or indicative that those of the US Army are not as important is symptomatic of an automatic attitude. Remember, the branches of the US Military, while cohesive in the defense of this nation, are arduously independent fraternal orders steeped in their own cultures, rituals, and internal loyalties.
Thanks for clarification, and further enlightenment. Dian
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to clarifying that. Being the daughter, sister, mother and mother-in-law to individuals who have served our country in war time I am one who always get a lump in my throat when I see a flag, sing the national anthem or attend a military service.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the president one thing we need to keep in mind is the candidate we vote for may not win every time but we need to honor the office of which they hold.
Thank you for that clarification. Having a strong tie to the military with several family members serving during various times of war any thing we can do to show gratitude and respect is well deserved. In regards to POTUS we as citizens need to take an active part in the political process and whoever gets elected show respect for the office in which they hold.
ReplyDeleteI admit that I am in no way educated enough to have an opinion on if Obama is a "good" president or a "bad" president. I do know enough to know that a lot of people are so close minded when talking about presidents, and right now Obama specifically. With that, they're also close minded when it comes to Congress, laws, bills, and even a lot of stuff in this article like the military it is mentioning. So many people have opinions or complaints and they don't know a thing about it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification. I believe there were wrong assumptions made during class
ReplyDelete