愛(ài)德華.肯尼迪《美國(guó)的真相與和解》英語(yǔ)演講稿

1、愛(ài)德華.肯尼迪美國(guó)的真相與和解英語(yǔ)演講稿Edward M. Kennedy: Truth and Tlerance in AmericaThank yu very much Prfessr Kmbay fr that generus intrductin. And let me say, that I never epected t hear such kind wrds frm Dr. Falwell. S in return, I have an invitatin f my wn. n January 20th, 1985, I hpe Dr. Falwell will say a pr

2、ayer at the inauguratin f the net Demcratic President f the United States. Nw, Dr. Falwell, Im nt eactly sure hw yu feel abut that. Yu might nt appreciate the President, but the Demcrats certainly wuld appreciate the prayer.Actually, a number f peple in Washingtn were surprised that I was invited t

3、speak here - and even mre surprised when I accepted the invitatin. They seem t think that its easier fr a camel t pass thrugh the eye f the needle than fr a Kennedy t cme t the campus f Liberty Baptist Cllege. In hnr f ur meeting, I have asked Dr. Falwell, as yur Chancellr, t permit all the students

4、 an etra hur net Saturday night befre curfew. And in return, I have prmised t watch the ld Time Gspel Hurning.I realize that my visit may be a little cntrversial. But as many f yu have heard, Dr. Falwell recently sent me a membership in the Mral Majrity - and I didnt even apply fr it. And I wnder if

5、 that means that Im a member in gd standing.Falwell: SmewhatSmewhat, he says.This is, f curse, a nnplitical speech which is prbably best under the circumstances. Since I am nt a candidate fr President, it wuld certainly be inapprpriate t ask fr yur supprt in this electin and prbably inaccurate t tha

6、nk yu fr it in the last ne.I have cme here t discuss my beliefs abut faith and cuntry, tlerance and truth in America. I knw we begin with certain disagreements; I strngly suspect that at the end f the evening sme f ur disagreements will remain. But I als hpe that tnight and in the mnths and years ah

7、ead, we will always respect the right f thers t differ, that we will never lse sight f ur wn fallibility, that we will view urselves with a sense f perspective and a sense f humr. After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had t be taught t lk first t the beam in their wn eyes, and nly then

8、 t the mte in their neighbrs eyes.I am mindful f that cunsel. I am an American and a Cathlic; I lve my cuntry and treasure my faith. But I d nt assume that my cnceptin f patritism r plicy is invariably crrect, r that my cnvictins abut reliand any greater respect than any ther faith in this pluralist

9、ic sciety. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but wh amng us can claim a mnply n it?There are thse wh d, and their wn wrds testify t their intlerance. Fr eample, because the Mral Majrity has wrked with members f different denminatin, ne fundamentalist grup has denunced Dr. Jerry Falwel

10、l fr hastening the ecumenical church and fr “yking tgether with Rman Cathlics, Mrmns, and thers.” I am relieved that Dr. Falwell des nt regard that as a sin, and n this issue, he himself has becme the target f narrw prejudice. When peple agree n public plicy, they ught t be able t wrk tgether, even

11、while they wrship in diverse ways. Fr truly we are all yked tgether as Americans, and the yke is the happy ne f individual freedm and mutual respect.But in saying that, we cannt and shuld nt turn aside frm a deeper and mre pressing questin - which is whether and hw religin shuld influence gvernment.

12、 A generatin ag, a presidential candidate had t prve his independence f undue religius influence in public life, and he had t d s partly at the insistence f evangelical Prtestants. Jhn Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is n religius blc vting f any kind.” nly twenty yea

13、rs later, anther candidate was appealing t an evangelical meeting as a religius blc. Rnald Reagan said t 15 thusand evangelicals at the Rundtable in Dallas: “ I knw that yu cant endrse me. I want yu t knw I endrse yu and what yu aany Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbl f a dangerus breakdw

14、n in the separatin f church and state. Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is nt a simplistic and rigid cmmand. Separatin f church and state cannt mean an abslute separatin between mral principles and plitical pwer. The challenge tday is t recall the rigin f the principle, t define its purpse, an

15、d refine its applicatin t the plitics f the present.The funders f ur natin had lng and bitter eperience with the state, as bth the agent and the adversary f particular religius views. In clnial Maryland, Cathlics paid a duble land ta, and in Pennsylvania they had t list their names n a public rll -

16、an minus precursr f the first Nazi laws against the Jews. And Jews in turn faced discriminatin in all f the thirteen riginal Clnies. Massachusetts eiled Rger Williams and his cngregatin fr cntending that civil gvernment had n right t enfrce the Ten Cmmandments. Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, an

17、d als established a religius test fr public service, writing int the law that n “ppish fllwers” culd hld any ffice.But during the Revlutin, Cathlics, Jews, and Nn-Cnfrmists all rallied t the cause and fught valiantly fr the American cmmnwealth - fr Jhn Winthrps “city upn a hill.” Afterwards, when th

18、e Cnstitutin was ratified and then amended, the framers gave freedm fr all religin, and frm any established religin, the very first place in the Bill f Rights.Indeed the framers themselves prfessed very different faiths: Washingtn was an Episcpalian, Jeffersn a deist, and Adams a Calvinist. And alth

19、ugh he had earlier ppsed tleratin, Jhn Adams later cntributed t the building f Cathlic churches, and s did Gerge Washingtn. Thmas Jeffersn said his prudest achievement was nt the presidency, r the writing the Declaratin f Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute f Religius Freedm. He stated t

20、he visin f the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The Gd wh gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”The separatin f church and state can smetimes be frustrating fr wmen and men f religius faith. They may be tempted t misuse gvernment in rder t impse a value which they cann

21、t persuade thers t accept. But nce we succumb t that temptatin, we step nt a slippery slpe where everynes freedm is at risk. Thse wh favr censrship shuld recall that ne f the first bks ever burned was the first English translatin f the Bible. As President Eisenhwer warned in 1953, “Dnt jin the bk bu

22、rners.the right t say ideas, the right t recrd them, and the right t have them accessible t thers is unquestined - r this isnt America.” And if that right is denied, at sme future day the trch can be turned against any ther bk r any ther belief. Let us never frget: Tdays Mral Majrity culd becme tmrr

23、ws persecuted minrity.The danger is as great nw as when the funders f the natin first saw it. In 1789, their fear was f factinal strife amng dzens f denminatins. Tday there are hundreds - and perhaps even thusands f faiths - and millins f Americans wh are utside any fld. Pluralism bviusly des nt and

24、 cannt mean that all f them are right; but it des mean that there are areas where gvernment cannt and shuld nt decide what it is wrng t believe, t think, t read, and t d. As Prfessr Larry Tribe, ne f the natins leading cnstitutinal schlars has written, “Law in a nn-thecratic state cannt measure reli

25、gius truth, nr can the state impse it.The real transgressin ccurs when religin wants gvernment t tell citizens hw t live uniquely persnal parts f their lives. The failure f Prhibitin prves the futility f such an attempt when a majrity r even a substantial minrity happens t disagree. Sme questins may

26、 be inherently individual nes, r peple may be sharply divided abut whether they are. In such cases, like Prhibitin and abrtin, the prper rle f religin is t appeal t the cnscience f the individual, nt the cercive pwer f the state.But there are ther questins which are inherently public in nature, whic

27、h we must decide tgether as a natin, and where religin and religius values can and shuld speak nscience. The issue f nuclear war is a cmpelling eample. It is a mral issue; it will be decided by gvernment, nt by each individual; and t give any effect t the mral values f their creed, peple f faith mus

28、t speak directly abut public plicy. The Cathlic bishps and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right t stand fr the nuclear freeze, and Dr. Falwell has every right t stand against it.There must be standards fr the eercise f such leadership, s that the bligatins f belief will nt be debased int an pp

29、rtunity fr mere plitical advantage. But t take a stand at all when a questin is bth prperly public and truly mral is t stand in a lng and hnred traditin. Many f the great evangelists f the 1800s were in the frefrnt f the ablitinist mvement. In ur wn time, the Reverend Wffin challenged the mrality f

30、the war in Vietnam. Ppe Jhn III renewed the Gspels call t scial justice. And Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wh was the greatest prphet f this century, awakened ur natin and its cnscience t the evil f racial segregatin.Their wrds have blessed ur wrld. And wh nw wishes they had been silent? Wh wuld bid P

31、pe Jhn Paul II t quiet his vice against the ppressin in Eastern Eurpe, the vilence in Central America, r the crying needs f the landless, the hungry, and thse wh are trtured in s many f the dark plitical prisns f ur time?President Kennedy, wh said that “n religius bdy shuld seek t impse its will,” a

32、ls urged religius leaders t state their views and give their cmmitment when the public debate invlved ethical issues. In drawing the line between impsed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, and at the same time we recgnize that the City f Gd shuld speak t the civic duties f

33、 men and wmen.There are fur tests which draw that line and define the difference.First, we must respect the integrity f religin itself.Peple f cnscience shuld be careful hw they deal in the wrd f their Lrd. In ur wn histry, religin has been falsely invked t sanctin prejudice - even slavery - t cndem

34、n labr unins and public spending fr the pr. I believe that the prphecy, ”The pr yu have always with yu” is an indictment, nt a cmmandment. And I respectfully suggest that Gd has taken n psitin n the Department f Educatin - and that a banstitutinal amendment is a matter f ecnmic analysis, and nt heav

35、enly appeals.Religius values cannt be ecluded frm every public issue; but nt every public issue invlves religius values. And hw irnic it is when thse very values are denied in the name f religin. Fr eample, we are smetimes tld that it is wrng t feed the hungry, but that missin is an eplicit mandate

36、given t us in the 25th chapter f Matthew.Secnd, we must respect the independent judgments f cnscience.Thse wh prclaim mral and religius values can ffer cunsel, but they shuld nt casually treat a psitin n a public issue as a test f fealty t faith. Just as I disagree with the Cathlic bishps n tuitin t

37、a credits - which I ppse - s ther Cathlics can and d disagree with the hierarchy, n the basis f hnest cnvictin, n the questin f the nuclear freeze.Thus, the cntrversy abut the Mral Majrity arises nt nly frm its views, but frm its name - which, in the minds f many, seems t imply that nly ne set f pub

38、lic plicies is mral and nly ne majrity can pssibly be right. Similarly, peple are and shuld be perpleed when the religius lbbying grup Christian Vice publishes a mrality inde f cngressinal vting recrds, which judges the mrality f senatrs by their attitude tward Zimbabwe and Taiwan.Let me ffer anther

39、 illustratin. Dr. Falwell has written-and I qute: “T stand against Israel is t stand against Gd.” Nw there is n ne in the Senate wh has std mre firmly fr Israel than I have. Yet, I d nt dubt the faith f thse n the ther side. Their errr is nt ne f religin, but f plicy. And I hpe t be able t persuade

40、them that they are wrng in terms f bth Americas interest and the justice f Israels cause.Respect fr cnscience is mst in jepardy, and the harmny f ur diverse sciety is mst at risk, when we re-establish, directly r indirectly, a religius test fr public ffice. That relic f the clnial era, which is spec

41、ifically prhibited in the Cnstitutin, has reappeared in recent years. After the last electin, the Reverend James Rbisn warned President Reagan n t surrund himself, as president befre him had, “with the cunsel f the ungdly.” I utterly reject any such standard fr any psitin anywhere in public service.

42、 Tw centuries ag, the victims were Cathlics and Jews. In the 1980s the victims culd be atheists; in sme ther day r decade, they culd be the members f the Thmas Rad Baptist Church. Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it as unwrthy and un-American when sme peple said r hinted that Jimmy Carter shuld nt be pres

43、ident because he was a brn again Christian. We must never judge the fitness f individuals t gvern n the basis f where they wrship, whether they fllw Christ r Mses, whether they are called “brn again” r “ungdly.” Where it is riral values t public life, let all f us avid the temptatin t be self-righte

44、us and abslutely certain f urselves. And if that temptatin ever cmes, let us recall Winstn Churchills humbling descriptin f an intlerant and infleible clleague: “There but fr the grace f Gd ges Gd.”Third, in applying religius values, we must respect the integrity f public debate.In that debate, fait

45、h is n substitute fr facts. Critics may ppse the nuclear freeze fr what they regard as mral reasns. They have every right t argue that any negtiatin with the Sviets is wrng, r that any accmmdatin with them sanctins their crimes, r that n agreement can be gd enugh and therefre all agreements nly incr

46、ease the chance f war. I d nt believe that, but it surely des nt vilate the standard f fair public debate t say it. What des vilate that standard, what the ppnents f the nuclear freeze have n right t d, is t assume that they are infallible, and s any argument against the freeze will d, whether it is

47、 false r true.The nuclear freeze prpsal is nt unilateral, but bilateral - with equal restraints n the United States and the Sviet Unin. The nuclear freeze des nt require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and effective verificatin. The nuclear freeze des nt cncede a Sviet lead in nuclear w

48、eapns, but recgnizes that human beings in each great pwer already have in their fallible hands the verwhelming capacity t remake int a pile f radiactive rubble the earth which Gd has made.There is n mrality in the mushrm clud. The black rain f nuclear ashes will fall alike n the just and the unjust.

49、 And then it will be t late t wish that we had dne the real wrk f this atmic age - which is t seek a wrld that is neither red nr dead.I am perfectly prepared t debate the nuclear freeze n plicy grunds, r mral nes. But we shuld nt be frced t dissues r false charges. They nly deflect us frm the urgent

50、 task f deciding hw best t prevent a planet divided frm becming a planet destryed.And it des nt advance the debate t cntend that the arms race is mre divine punishment than human prblem, r that in any event, the final days are near. As Ppe Jhn said tw decades ag, at the pening f the Secnd Vatican Cu

51、ncil: “We must beware f thse wh burn with zeal, but are nt endwed with much sense. we must disagree with the prphets f dm, wh are always frecasting disasters, as thugh the end f the earth was at hand.” The message which eches acrss the years is very clear: The earth is still here; and if we wish t k

52、eep it, a prphecy f dm is n alternative t a plicy f arms cntrl.Furth, and finally, we must respect the mtives f thse wh eercise their right t disagree.We srely test ur ability t live tgether if we readily questin each thers integrity. It may be harder t restrain ur feelings when mral principles are

53、at stake, fr they g t the deepest wellsprings f ur being. But the mre ur feelings diverge, the mre deeply felt they are, the greater is ur bligatin t grant the sincerity and essential decency f ur fellw citizens n the ther side.Thse wh favr E.R.A Equal Rights Amendment are nt “antifamily” r “blasphe

54、mers.” And their purpse is nt “an attack n the Bible.” Rather, we believe this is the best way t fi in ur natinal firmament the ideal that nt nly all men, but all peple are created equal. Indeed, my mther, wh strngly favrs E.R.A., wuld be surprised t hear that she is anti-family. Fr my part, I think

55、 f the amendments ppnents as wrng n the issue, but nt as lacking in mral chauld multiply the instances f name-calling, smetimes n bth sides. Dr. Falwell is nt a “warmnger.” And “l(fā)iberal clergymen” are nt, as the Mral Majrity suggested in a recent letter, equivalent t “Sviet sympathizers.” The critic

56、s f fficial prayer in public schls are nt “Pharisees”; many f them are bth civil libertarians and believers, wh think that families shuld pray mre at hme with their children, and attend churchre faithfully. And peple are nt seist because they stand against abrtin, and they are nt murderers because t

57、hey believe in free chice. Nr des it help anynes cause t shut such epithets, r t try and shut a speaker dwn - which is what happened last April when Dr. Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard. S I am dubly grateful fr yur curtesy here this evening. That was nt Harvards finest hur, but I am happy

58、t say that the ludest applause frm the Harvard audience came in defense f Dr. Falwells right t speak.In shrt, I hpe fr an America where neither fundamentalist nr humanist will be a dirty wrd, but a fair descriptin f the different ways in which peple f gd will lk at life and int their wn suls.I hpe fr an America where n president, n public fficial, n individual will ever be deemed a greater r lesser American because f religius dubt - r reli