Is San Francisco politician Jane Kim right for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
San Francisco politician Jane Kim refuses to say Pledge of Allegiance
Jane Kim is a newly elected member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. She represents District 6 which includes the low-income Tenderloin District as well as the upscale condos in the city’s trendy South of Market.
Kim has refused to join in with the other supervisors to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during meetings.
She says she has a problem with the words "with liberty and justice for all." (video)
Kim told the San Francisco Examiner: “I don’t believe we are a nation with liberty and justice for all — yet. So a lot of my work is motivated by wanting to be a part of achieving that ideal.”
Kim claims she is a loyal American despite her refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Kim told the Examiner, “I think I am very loyal the country. I’ve expressed my patriotism through my years of doing organizing work, being a civil-rights lawyer and being a public servant now.”
Board of Supervisors President David Chiu told ABC-7 News that he "absolutely supports Supervisor Kim's perspective…. I know her as someone who is absolutely patriotic, who loves her country," Chiu said.
District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener told the San Francisco Examiner that he is OK with Kim’s silence but he will continue to recite the pledge himself, “To me, it’s a way about reminding myself about our country and the liberties and democracy that we enjoy. But there are many, many ways of reminding ourselves of why we love our country.”
Is it against the Board’s rules for Kim not to say the pledge?
The Examiner notes that the rules say: “The President shall lead the Board and the audience in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.”
But the paper reports that there is no rule that would require anyone to say it It is considered free one’s free speech rights to not say it, according to the Examiner.
SFist writer Jay Barmann took this take on the controversy: "Reinforcing the public's perception of the Board of Supervisors as a group of whiny liberal high school kids who go to battle, and occasionally try to one-up each other with how forward-thinking and/or blasphemous they can be, newly elected District 6 rep Jane Kim has taken a stand against reciting the Pledge of Allegiance that is sure to garner her some nice, negative national press attention. Way to fill Daly's shoes..."
Barmann was referring to the former District 6 supervisor Chris Daly, who was known for his far-left views. Daly said the Pledge of Allegiance at board meetings but he omitted the words "under God."
What do you think of Supervisor Jane Kim's refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
Leave your comments below.
Comments
Whether Jane Kim wants to say the pledge or not is entirely up to her. This is America! Saying the pledge, or wearing a flag pin doesn't make you 'more' patriotic. That kind of logic is childish.
But REFUSING to say the pledge when you're a government official does say something about your beliefs.
Apparently she want to serve the government, but does not wish to pledge allegiance to it. So the question, why serve in the first place?
Yes refusing to say the pledge DOES sy that about you.Only in a stoopid liberals' logic could refusing make you patriotic.*eyeroll*
First of all "This fellow" is a she, a tribute to your keen observation and profound cultural sensitivity skills. Second, on what facts did you base your statement that "this fellow follows the principles" and that "most others" don't? Must be the crowd you're drinking Cool-Aid with....
With District 6 crime out of control and the other pressing budget problems, why does Supervisor Kim, as her first agenda Item call for a hearing on Bed Bugs? Yes they are a problems but compared to the out of control violent crime, drug dealing, gangs, and the zillion so called quality of life crime issue does she insist on such silly things?
Barmann is right! Kim is just another whiny leftist SF Supe jockeying for the title of "Most Liberal" and the ensuing publicity. Saying that you're patriotic but you can't bring yourself to recite the Pledge is like saying "I like being married but I can't say I do". Oh I forgot, liberals don't believe in marriage either!
u have to be kidding me??? I glad she not in my state....Hey Jane Kim...America LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT no one is making you stay
What a coinsident ?? Did't we had earlier problem with a another Jane ?? Remember Jane F o n d a ??
It's interesting that she mentions on camera that one of her reasons for not saying it is that she has issues with some of our government's actions, and when asked to elaborate, she refuses to. You can't have it both ways, Ms. Kim. If you're going to take a stand, take a stand, otherwise you're just standing for nothing.
How does any city get such unpatriotic self-centered fools in office? Leave it to S.F., which only "prides" itself and parades its permanent adolescence, to accept idiots for leadership roles. And Supervisor Scott Wiener says "he is OK with Kim’s silence but he will continue to recite the pledge himself," is really twisted, since it sounds like he is justifying taking the pledge. This is how we define "liberalism" in America. Very sad.
When this topic comes up, I challenge anyone who strongly thinks the Pledge should be requi9red to argue with the following. I have yet to have any replies.
I submit that the pledge is not the right thing to do, if we want to give kids and citizens in general a sense of patriotism. Anyone remember the SCOTUS decision in '43?
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Justice Jackson's opinion piece says it all.
Note that this case against recital of the pledge was brought for religious reasons (and before the anti-communist religious extremists inserted their religious propaganda)
WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
QUOTE (note 4 of Jackson's opinion)
To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.
...
Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self- interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men.
...
(cont'd)
Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
...
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
...
freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
...
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
...
To many it is deeply distasteful to join in a public chorus of affirmation of private belief.
...
Any spark of love for country which may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example of persuasion, not in force and compulsion, that the real unity of America lies
Typical comment , from a typical San Fran politician .
Say the pledge, don't say the pledge, it's up to the individual. However - any government official that refuses to say the pledge needs to find another job.
Her "we haven't achieved liberty and justice yet" justification is suspect.. The pledge is an idea, and a goal to strive for. If indeed she is striving for that goal she should be leading the pledge. Her explaination doesn't follow any line of reason. There's some other motivation for this.
As a Canadian I think you have a better justice system in the U.S., in that it springs from the people and not from an aristocracy, but "justice for all" is a state that does not yet exist for the people living on this continent. Rather, if you have money you can have justice in both Canada and the U.S., and otherwise you're so screwed. She obviously wants to make a point, and if all public servants had the courage to point out to what's fundamentally wrong with the system, we'd all be living in real democracies.
http://www.examiner.com/government-in-vancouver/supreme-court-tells-gove...
With the current moron and his attorney general...we are sadly a monkey run zoo that needs to bring back public hangings for those that do not enforce our justice system..and for them that lie cheat and steal...us into bankrupsey...and call it civil rights..Vote the monkeys out in 2012!!
IMO- it is up to her to recite or not the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a freedom of speech issue which is protected by constitutional law. Similar to flag burning, she is not forced to say the words. Now on an emotional level, should she do it, well, it probably would be a good thing for her to say the words and maybe omit (or remain silent for the words she does not agree with), but this is on her. See the wonderful thing about politics is that it's like this- do what you want and face the music later. If this is a big enough issue and her constituents are offended, well, maybe she doesn't get re-elected for another term. There you have it. Stick to your principles and be cognizent of the poterntial consequences.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!