2024年2月15日发(作者:婚礼女方父亲致辞简短大气)
爱德华.肯尼迪《美国的真相与和解》英语演讲稿
Edward M. Kennedy: Truth and Tolerance in America
Thank you very much Professor Kombay for that generous
introduction. And let me say, that I never expected to hear such
kind words from Dr. Falwell. So in return, I have an invitation
of my own. On January 20th, 1985, I hope Dr. Falwell will say a
prayer at the inauguration of the next Democratic President of the
United States. Now, Dr. Falwell, I’m not exactly sure how
you feel about that. You might not appreciate the President, but
the Democrats certainly would appreciate the prayer.
Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprid that
I was invited to speak here -- and even more surprid when I
accepted the invitation. They em to think that it’s easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy
to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College. In honor of our
meeting, I have asked Dr. Falwell, as your Chancellor, to permit
all the students an extra hour next Saturday night before curfew.
And in return, I have promid to watch the Old Time Gospel Hour
next Sunday morning.
I realize that my visit may be a little controversial. But as
1 / 17
many of you have heard, Dr. Falwell recently nt me a membership
in the Moral Majority -- and I didn't even apply for it. And
I wonder if that means that I'm a member in good standing.
[Falwell: Somewhat]
Somewhat, he says.
This is, of cour, a nonpolitical speech which is probably
best under the circumstances. Since I am not a candidate for
President, it would certainly be inappropriate to ask for your
support in this election and probably inaccurate to thank you for
it in the last one.
I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country,
tolerance and truth in America. I know we begin with certain
disagreements; I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening
some of our disagreements will remain. But I also hope that tonight
and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right
of others to differ, that we will never lo sight of our own
fallibility, that we will view ourlves with a n of
perspective and a n of humor. After all, in the New Testament,
even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in
their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbor’s
eyes.
I am mindful of that counl. I am an American and a Catholic;
2 / 17
I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that
my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or
that my convictions about religion should command any greater
respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe
there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim
a monopoly on it?
There are tho who do, and their own words testify to their
intolerance. For example, becau the Moral Majority has worked
with members of different denomination, one fundamentalist group
has denounced Dr. [Jerry] Falwell for hastening the ecumenical
church and for 〞yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons,
and others.〞 I am relieved that Dr. Falwell does not regard that
as a sin, and on this issue, he himlf has become the target of
narrow prejudice. When people agree on public policy, they ought
to be able to work together, even while they worship in diver
ways. For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the
yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.
But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from
a deeper and more pressing question -- which is whether and how
religion should influence government. A generation ago, a
presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue
religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at
3 / 17
the insistence of evangelical Protestants. John Kennedy said at
that time: 〞I believe in an America where there is no religious
bloc voting of any kind.〞 Only twenty years later, another
candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious
bloc. Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the
Roundtable in Dallas: 〞 I know that you can’t endor me.
I want you to know I endor you and what you are doing.〞
To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a
dangerous breakdown in the paration of church and state. Yet this
principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command.
Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute paration
between moral principles and political power. The challenge today
is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpo,
and refine its application to the politics of the prent.
The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with
the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular
religious views. In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double
land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a
public roll -- an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against
the Jews. And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the
thirteen original Colonies. Massachutts exiled Roger Williams
and his congregation for contending that civil government had no
4 / 17
right to enforce the Ten Commandments. Virginia harasd Baptist
teachers, and also established a religious test for public rvice,
writing into the law that no 〞popish followers〞 could hold any
office.
But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and
Non-Conformists all rallied to the cau and fought valiantly for
the American commonwealth -- for John Winthrop’s 〞city
upon a hill.〞 Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratified and
then amended, the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from
any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of
Rights.
Indeed the framers themlves profesd very different faiths:
Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a
Calvinist. And although he had earlier oppod toleration, John
Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and
so did George Washington. Thomas Jefferson said his proudest
achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration
of Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious
Freedom. He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First
Amendment very clearly: 〞The God who gave us life gave us liberty
at the same time.〞
The paration of church and state can sometimes be
5 / 17
frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be
tempted to misu government in order to impo a value which they
cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that
temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s
freedom is at risk. Tho who favor censorship should recall that
one of the first books ever burned was the first English
translation of the Bible. As President Einhower warned in 1953, 〞Don’t join the he right to say ideas, the
right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to
others is unquestioned -- or this isn’t America.〞 And if
that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned
against any other book or any other belief. Let us never forget:
Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s
percuted minority.
The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation
first saw it. In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among
dozens of denominations. Today there are hundreds -- and perhaps
even thousands of faiths -- and millions of Americans who are
outside any fold. Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that
all of them are right; but it does mean that there are areas where
government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe,
to think, to read, and to do. As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the
6 / 17
nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, 〞Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor
can the state impo it."
The real transgression occurs when religion wants government
to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives.
The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt
when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree.
Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may
be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cas, like
Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal
to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the
state.
But there are other questions which are inherently public in
nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where
religion and religious values can and should speak to our common
conscience. The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example. It
is a moral issue; it will be decided by government, not by each
individual; and to give any effect to the moral values of their
creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy.
The Catholic bishops and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right
to stand for the nuclear freeze, and Dr. Falwell has every right
to stand against it.
7 / 17
There must be standards for the exerci of such leadership,
so that the obligations of belief will not be debad into an
opportunity for mere political advantage. But to take a stand at
all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to
stand in a long and honored tradition. Many of the great
evangelists of the 1800s were in the forefront of the abolitionist
movement. In our own time, the Reverend William Sloane Coffin
challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam. Pope John XXIII
renewed the Gospel’s call to social justice. And Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. who was the greatest prophet of this century,
awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial
gregation.
Their words have blesd our world. And who now wishes they
had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [II] to quiet his
voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in
Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry,
and tho who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons
of our time?
President Kennedy, who said that 〞no religious body should
ek to impo its will,〞 also urged religious leaders to state
their views and give their commitment when the public debate
involved ethical issues. In drawing the line between impod will
8 / 17
and esntial witness, we keep church and state parate, and at
the same time we recognize that the City of God should speak to
the civic duties of men and women.
There are four tests which draw that line and define the
difference.
First, we must respect the integrity of religion itlf.
People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the
word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been fally
invoked to sanction prejudice -- even slavery -- to condemn labor
unions and public spending for the poor. I believe that the
prophecy, 〞The poor you have always with you〞 is an indictment,
not a commandment. And I respectfully suggest that God has taken
no position on the Department of Education -- and that a balanced
budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis,
and not heavenly appeals.
Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue;
but not every public issue involves religious values. And how
ironic it is when tho very values are denied in the name of
religion. For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to
feed the hungry, but that mission is an explicit mandate given to
us in the 25th chapter of Matthew.
Second, we must respect the independent judgments of
9 / 17
conscience.
Tho who proclaim moral and religious values can offer
counl, but they should not casually treat a position on a public
issue as a test of fealty to faith. Just as I disagree with the
Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits -- which I oppo -- so
other Catholics can and do disagree with the hierarchy, on the
basis of honest conviction, on the question of the nuclear freeze.
Thus, the controversy about the Moral Majority aris not only
from its views, but from its name -- which, in the minds of many,
ems to imply that only one t of public policies is moral and
only one majority can possibly be right. Similarly, people are and
should be perplexed when the religious lobbying group Christian
Voice publishes a morality index of congressional voting records,
which judges the morality of nators by their attitude toward
Zimbabwe and Taiwan.
Let me offer another illustration. Dr. Falwell has
written--and I quote: 〞To stand against Israel is to stand
against God.〞 Now there is no one in the Senate who has stood more
firmly for Israel than I have. Yet, I do not doubt the faith of
tho on the other side. Their error is not one of religion, but
of policy. And I hope to be able to persuade them that they are
wrong in terms of both America’s interest and the justice
10 / 17
of Israel’s cau.
Respect for conscience is most in jeopardy, and the harmony
of our diver society is most at risk, when we re-establish,
directly or indirectly, a religious test for public office. That
relic of the colonial era, which is specifically prohibited in the
Constitution, has reappeared in recent years. After the last
election, the Reverend James Robison warned President Reagan no
to surround himlf, as president before him had, 〞with the
counl of the ungodly.〞 I utterly reject any such standard for
any position anywhere in public rvice. Two centuries ago, the
victims were Catholics and Jews. In the 1980s the victims could
be atheists; in some other day or decade, they could be the members
of the Thomas Road Baptist Church. Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it
as unworthy and un-American when some people said or hinted that
Jimmy Carter should not be president becau he was a born again
Christian. We must never judge the fitness of individuals to govern
on the bas[is] of where they worship, whether they follow Christ
or Mos, whether they are called 〞born again〞 or 〞ungodly.〞
Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all
of us avoid the temptation to be lf-righteous and absolutely
certain of ourlves. And if that temptation ever comes, let us
recall Winston Churchill’s humbling description of an
11 / 17
intolerant and inflexible colleague: 〞There but for the grace of
God goes God.〞
Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the
integrity of public debate.
In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may
oppo the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons.
They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the
Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions
their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore
all agreements only increa the chance of war. I do not believe
that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public
debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the
opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume
that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze
will do, whether it is fal or true.
The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral
-- with equal restraints on the United States and the Soviet Union.
The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the Russians,
but demands full and effective verification. The nuclear freeze
does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes
that human beings in each great power already have in their
fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of
12 / 17
radioactive rubble the earth which God has made.
There is no morality in the mushroom cloud. The black rain of
nuclear ashes will fall alike on the just and the unjust. And then
it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this
atomic age -- which is to ek a world that is neither red nor dead.
I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy
grounds, or moral ones. But we should not be forced to discuss
phantom issues or fal charges. They only deflect us form the
urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from
becoming a planet destroyed.
And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms
race is more divine punishment than human problem, or that in any
event, the final days are near. As Pope John said two decades ago,
at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: 〞We must beware of
tho who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with
we must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always
forecasting disasters, as though the end of the earth was at hand.〞
The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth
is still here; and if we wish to keep it, a prophecy of doom is
no alternative to a policy of arms control.
Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of tho who
exerci their right to disagree.
13 / 17
We sorely test our ability to live together if we readily
question each other’s integrity. It may be harder to
restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they
go to the deepest wellsprings of our being. But the more our
feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is
our obligation to grant the sincerity and esntial decency of our
fellow citizens on the other side.
Tho who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not 〞antifamily〞 or 〞blasphemers.〞 And their purpo is not 〞an
attack on the Bible.〞 Rather, we believe this is the best way to
fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but
all people are created equal. Indeed, my mother, who strongly
favors E.R.A., would be surprid to hear that she is anti-family.
For my part, I think of the amendment’s opponents as wrong
on the issue, but not as lacking in moral character
I could multiply the instances of name-calling, sometimes on
both sides. Dr. Falwell is not a 〞warmonger.〞 And 〞liberal
clergymen〞 are not, as the Moral Majority suggested in a recent
letter, equivalent to 〞Soviet sympathizers.〞 The critics of
official prayer in public schools are not 〞Pharies〞; many of
them are both civil libertarians and believers, who think that
families should pray more at home with their children, and attend
14 / 17
church and synagogue more faithfully. And people are not xist
becau they stand against abortion, and they are not murderers
becau they believe in free choice. Nor does it help
anyone’s cau to shout such epithets, or to try and shout
a speaker down -- which is what happened last April when Dr. Falwell
was hisd and heckled at Harvard. So I am doubly grateful for your
courtesy here this evening. That was not Harvard’s finest
hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applau from the
Harvard audience came in defen of Dr. Falwell’s right to
speak.
In short, I hope for an America where neither
"fundamentalistnor "humanistwill be a dirty word, but
a fair description of the different ways in which people of good
will look at life and into their own souls.
I hope for an America where no president, no public official,
no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesr American
becau of religious doubt -- or religious belief.
I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn
brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever
light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.
I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and
vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard tho standards
15 / 17
of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy
and diversity.
Twenty years ago this fall, in New York City, President Kennedy
met for the last time with a Protestant asmbly. The atmosphere
had been transformed since his earlier address during the 1960
campaign to the Houston Ministerial Association. He had spoken
there to allay suspicions about his Catholicism, and to answer
tho who claimed that on the day of his baptism, he was somehow
disqualified from becoming President. His speech in Houston and
then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our
national life. Now, three years later, in November of 1963, he was
appearing before the Protestant Council of New York City to
reaffirm what he regarded as some fundamental truths. On that
occasion, John Kennedy said: 〞The family of man is not limited
to a single race or religion, to a single city, he
family of man is nearly 3 billion strong. Most of its members are
not white and most of them are not Christian.〞 And as President
Kennedy reflected on that reality, he restated an ideal for which
he had lived his life -- that 〞the members of this family should
be at peace with one another.〞
That ideal shines across all the generations of our history
and all the ages of our faith, carrying with it the most ancient
16 / 17
dream. For as the Apostle Paul wrote long ago in Romans: 〞If it
be possible, as much as it lieth in you, live peaceable with all
men.〞
I believe it is possible; the choice lies within us; as fellow
citizens, let us live peaceable with each other; as fellow human
beings, let us strive to live peaceably with men and women
everywhere. Let that be our purpo and our prayer, yours and mine
-- for ourlves, for our country, and for all the world.
17 / 17
本文发布于:2024-02-15 17:09:17,感谢您对本站的认可!
本文链接:https://www.wtabcd.cn/zhishi/a/170798815749133.html
版权声明:本站内容均来自互联网,仅供演示用,请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系,我们将在24小时内删除。
本文word下载地址:爱德华.肯尼迪《美国的真相与和解》英语演讲稿.doc
本文 PDF 下载地址:爱德华.肯尼迪《美国的真相与和解》英语演讲稿.pdf
留言与评论(共有 0 条评论) |