肯尼迪于1960年對大休斯頓部長協(xié)會的演講

肯尼迪于1960年對大休斯頓部長協(xié)會的演講 英文版

Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck,

I'm grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 campaign; the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power—the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms—an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues—for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured—perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President—should he be Catholic—how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been—and may someday be again—a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. That is the kind of America in which I believe.

And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it—its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in—and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a divided loyalty, that we did not believe in liberty, or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened—I quote—"the freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches—when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom—and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey—but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition—to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools—which I attended myself. And instead of doing this, do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here. And always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed Church-State separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you?

But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the State being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution, at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland, and the independence of such statesmen as De Gaulle and Adenauer.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views—in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.

But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency—practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution—so help me God.

肯尼迪于1960年對大休斯頓部長協(xié)會的演講 中文版

米扎牧師、雷克牧師：

非常感謝你們盛情邀請我來談談自己的觀點。

盡管所謂宗教問題是今晚的主要話題，但我想從一開始就強調，我們在1960年的選舉中還有許多重大問題要面對：那些不再尊重我們權力的人對我們的總統(tǒng)和副總統(tǒng)的侮辱性對待，我在西佛吉尼亞州見到的饑餓兒童，付不起醫(yī)療費的老人;被迫放棄農場的家庭，一個有太多貧民窟和太少學校的美國，以及一個遲遲不能涉足月球和外太空的美國。這些都是可能左右本屆競選的實際問題。而這些都不是宗教問題，因為戰(zhàn)爭、饑餓、無知和絕望并不知道什么是宗教壁壘。

但是因為我是天主教徒，而從未有過天主教徒當選總統(tǒng)，所以本屆競選中的實際問題變得模糊不清，這在某些不負責任的地區(qū)或許是有意為之。因此，我顯然有必要再次說明，問題不在于我信仰哪種宗教(因為這應該只對我個人具有重要性)，而在于我信任哪種美國。

我信任的美國應當是政教絕對分離;應當是沒有天主教教長會告訴總統(tǒng)(如果總統(tǒng)是天主教徒)如何行動，也沒有新教牧師會告訴其教民選舉誰;應當是沒有教會或教會學校得到任何公共資金或政治性優(yōu)惠;應當是沒有人僅僅因為其宗教信仰不同于對其有任命權的總統(tǒng)或不同于對其有選擇權的人而被拒絕擔任公職。

我信任的美國應當是在公務上既非天主教、新教，也非猶太教;應當是沒有公務人員就公共政策請示羅馬教皇、全國教會理事會或任何其他神職機構，或者接受其指示;應當是沒有宗教團體試圖將其意志直接或間接地強加于廣大民眾或公職人員的公務行為;應當是宗教自由不可分割，即違背一種宗教的行為當視為違背所有宗教的行為。

盡管今年的懷疑對象可能是天主教徒，但其他年份的懷疑對象則曾經是猶太教徒，或者是貴格教徒、唯一神派教徒或浸禮教徒，而且可能有朝一日再來一次。例如，佛吉尼亞州的浸禮教傳教士騷亂催生了杰斐遜區(qū)的宗教自由法案。今天我可能是受害者，而明天的受害者就可能是你，如此輪回，直到我們和諧社會的整體結構在巨大的民族劫難中四分五裂。

最后，我信任的美國應當是宗教排他現(xiàn)象有朝一日會終結;應當是平等對待所有人和所有宗教;應當是人人都有平等的權利選擇加入或不加入某宗教;應當是沒有擁護天主教的投票，沒有反對天主教的投票，也沒有任何形式的集團投票;應當是天主教徒、新教教徒和猶太教徒(包括普通信徒和牧師級信徒)摒棄過去那種妨礙工作的鄙視和分裂的態(tài)度，轉而弘揚美國的兄弟情誼理念。這就是我所信任的那種美國。

這代表著我所信任的總統(tǒng)職務，這一重要職務必須是既不會因充當任一宗教集團的工具而蒙受恥辱，也不會因擅自阻止任一宗教團體的成員擔任該職務而黯然失色。我信任的總統(tǒng)應當是其宗教觀點是他自己的私人事務，他既不會將其宗教觀點強加于國家，也不會作為任職的條件接受國家強加給他的宗教觀點。

我不會擁護暗中破壞《第一修正案》中保證宗教自由之規(guī)定的總統(tǒng)。我們的制衡制度也不允許他這樣做。我也不會擁護那些通過以宗教作為任職檢驗標準(即便是以間接方式)來暗中破壞《憲法》第六條的人。他們如果不同意這種保護法案，就應當站出來公開爭取將其廢除。

我想要的總統(tǒng)應當是其公務行為對所有團體負責，卻不對任何團體承擔義務;應當是可以出席與其職位相適應的任何儀式、禮拜或宴會;應當是其總統(tǒng)就職誓言的履行，不受任何宗教宣誓、禮儀或義務的限制或左右。

這就是我所信任的美國，是我在南太平洋為之戰(zhàn)斗的美國，是我的兄弟在歐洲為之犧牲的美國。當時，無人提出我們可以有‘分裂的忠誠’，無人提出我們‘不信仰自由’，也無人提出我們屬于不忠誠的團體，而該團體威脅著‘我們的前輩為之犧牲的自由’。

實際上，這就是我們的前輩為之犧牲的美國。他們曾經逃到這里以躲避拒絕劣勢宗教成員任職的宗教檢驗誓言;他們曾經為維護《憲法》《權利法案》和《弗吉尼亞宗教自由法案》而戰(zhàn);他們曾經在我今天訪問的圣地阿拉莫戰(zhàn)斗。與鮑威和克羅基特并肩戰(zhàn)死的還有麥克卡弗蒂、貝利和凱里。但是，無人知道他們是不是天主教徒，因為在阿拉莫沒有宗教檢驗。

今晚，我請你們按照這種傳統(tǒng)來評判我。你們的評判可以根據(jù)我在國會工作14年的記錄，可以根據(jù)我反對一位駐梵蒂岡大使的公開立場、反對違反憲法資助教區(qū)學校的公開立場以及反對公立學校舉行任何聯(lián)合抵制活動(我自己也參加過這種活動)的公開立場。但是，請不要根據(jù)我們大家見過的這些宣傳冊和出版物來評判我，因為這些宣傳冊和出版物精心選錄了天主教會領導人的陳述，而且這些陳述往往是在外國，大多是在上幾個世紀。當然，這些宣傳冊和出版物總是略去美國主教在1948年所作的聲明，因為此聲明強烈主張政教分離，并且更貼切地反映幾乎每個美國天主教徒的觀點。

我認為這些選錄內容不會制約我的公務行為。那么，你們又為何以此來評判我呢?

但我要說，對于其他國家我完全反對國家被任何宗教集團(天主教或新教)所利用，用來強迫、禁止或騷擾其他任何宗教的自由活動。我希望你們和我一起，同樣強烈地譴責那些拒絕新教徒擔任總統(tǒng)職務的國家和那些拒絕天主教徒擔任總統(tǒng)職務的國家。與其引述那些宗教歧視者的劣行，倒不如引述愛爾蘭和法國這類國家的天主教會的記錄，以及阿登納和戴高樂這類政治家的獨立性。

但我要再次強調，這些是我個人的觀點。與常見報紙的報道方法相反，我不是天主教的總統(tǒng)候選人。我是民主黨的總統(tǒng)候選人，但恰巧也是天主教徒。

我不代表我的教會談論公共事務，教會也不代表我說話。作為總統(tǒng)無論有什么問題出現(xiàn)在我面前，無論是計劃生育問題、離婚問題、審查制度問題、賭博問題還是其他任何問題，我都會按照這些觀點做出我的決定，都會按照我的良知告訴我符合國家利益的方式做出決定，而不在乎外部的宗教壓力或要求。任何權威或懲罰威脅都不能讓我另作決定。

如果真有這樣的時刻，我不可能對某種沖突做出絲毫讓步，而我的職務要求我在違背良心和違背國家利益之間做出選擇，那么我就會辭去總統(tǒng)職務。而且，我希望任何有良心的公務員都會這樣做。

我不打算為這些觀點向批評我的人道歉，無論他們是信仰天主教還是信仰新教;我也不打算為了贏得這屆選舉而否定我的觀點或否定我的宗教。

如果我在實際問題上失敗了，我將回到我在參議院的位置，并且為我已經盡力而且得到了公正的裁決而感到滿意。

如果本屆選舉確定的基礎是4000萬美國人在其接受洗禮之日便失去了成為總統(tǒng)的機會，那么整個國家都將是輸家。在全世界天主教徒和非天主教徒的眼中是這樣，在歷史的眼中是這樣，在我們自己的人民眼中也是這樣。

但另一方面，如果我贏得選舉，我就會全心全意地履行總統(tǒng)就職誓言。或許我還可以加一句——這實際上與我在國會14年的誓言完全相同。毫無保留地說，我可以莊嚴宣誓，我將忠誠地履行美國總統(tǒng)的職務，將盡全力維護、保護和捍衛(wèi)《憲法》，上帝作證。