第1篇 肯尼迪就职美国总统英语演讲稿
肯尼迪就职演讲稿(英文版)
vice president johnson, mr. speaker, mr. chief justice, president eisenhower, vice president nixon, president truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens:
we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. for i have sworn before you and almighty god the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.
the world is very different now. for man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of god.
we dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
this much we pledge -- and more.
to those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. united there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
to those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. we shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. but we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
to those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
to our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge: to convert our good words into good deeds, in a new alliance for progress, to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. but this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the americas. and let every other power know that this hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
to that world assembly of sovereign states, the united nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
we dare not tempt them with weakness. for only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
but neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
so let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.
let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
let both sides unite to heed, in all corners of the earth, the command of isaiah -- to "undo the heavy burdens, and [to] let the oppressed go free."¹
and, if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor -- not a new balance of power, but a new world of law -- where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.
all this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. but let us begin.
in your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. since this country was founded, each generation of americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. the graves of young americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation,"² a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, north and south, east and west, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? will you join in that historic effort?
in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. i do not shrink from this responsibility -- i welcome it. i do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. the energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
and so, my fellow americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
my fellow citizens of the world, ask not what america will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
finally, whether you are citizens of america or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. with a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking his blessing and his help, but knowing that here on earth god's work must truly be our own.
肯尼迪就职演讲稿(中文版)
我们今天庆祝的并不是一次政*的胜利，而是一次自由的庆典;它象征着结束，也象征着开始;意味着更新，也意味着变革。因为我已在你们和全能的上帝面前，作了跟我们祖先将近一又四分之三世纪以前所拟定的相同的庄严誓言。
现今世界已经很不同了，因为人在自己血肉之躯的手中握有足以消灭一切形式的人类贫困和一切形式的人类生命的力量。可是我们祖先奋斗不息所维护的革命信念，在世界各地仍处于争论之中。那信念就是注定人权并非来自政府的慷慨施与，而是上帝所赐。
我们今天不敢忘记我们是那第一次革命的继承人，让我从此时此地告诉我们的朋友，并且也告诉我们的敌人，这支火炬已传交新一代的美国人，他们出生在本世纪，经历过战争的锻炼，受过严酷而艰苦的和平的熏陶，以我们的古代传统自豪，而且不愿目睹或容许人权逐步被褫夺。对于这些人权我国一向坚贞不移，当前在国内和全世界我们也是对此力加维护的。
让每一个国家知道，不管它盼我们好或盼我们坏，我们将付出任何代价，忍受任何重负，应付任何艰辛，支持任何朋友，反对任何敌人，以确保自由的存在与实现。
这是我们矢志不移的事--而且还不止此。
对于那些和我们拥有共同文化和精神传统的老盟邦，我们保证以挚友之诚相待。只要团结，则在许多合作事业中几乎没有什么是办不到的。倘若分裂，我们则无可作为，因为我们在意见分歧、各行其是的情况下，是不敢应付强大挑战的。
对于那些我们欢迎其参与自由国家行列的新国家，我们要提出保证，绝不让一种形成的殖民统治消失后，却代之以另一种远为残酷的暴政。我们不能老是期望他们会支持我们的观点，但我们却一直希望他们能坚决维护他们自身的自由，并应记取，在过去，那些愚蠢得要骑在虎背上以壮声势的人，结果却被虎所吞噬。
对于那些住在布满半个地球的茅舍和乡村中、力求打破普遍贫困的桎梏的人们，我们保证尽最大努力助其自救，不管需要多长时间。这并非因为***会那样做，也不是由于我们要求他们的选票，而是由于那样做是正确的。自由社会若不能帮助众多的穷人，也就不能保全那少数的富人。
对于我国边界以内的各姐妹共和国，我们提出一项特殊的保证：要把我们的美好诺言化作善行，在争取进步的新联盟中援助自由人和自由政府来摆脱贫困的枷锁。但这种为实现本身愿望而进行的和平革命不应成为不怀好意的国家的俎上肉。让我们所有的邻邦都知道，我们将与他们联合抵御对美洲任何地区的侵略或颠覆。让其它国家都知道，西半球的事西半球自己会管。
至于联合国这个各主权国家的世界性议会，在今天这个战争工具的发展速度超过和平工具的时代中，它是我们最后的、最美好的希望。我们愿重申我们的支持诺言;不让它变成仅供谩骂的讲坛，加强其对于新国弱国的保护，并扩大其权力所能运用的领域。
最后，对于那些与我们为敌的国家，我们所要提供的不是保证，而是要求：双方重新着手寻求和平，不要等到科学所释出的危险破坏力量在有意或无意中使全人类沦于自我毁灭。
我们不敢以示弱去诱惑他们。因为只有当我们的武力无可置疑地壮大时，我们才能毫无疑问地确信永远不会使用武力。
可是这两个强有力的国家集团，谁也不能对当前的趋势放心--双方都因现代武器的代价而感到不胜负担，双方都对于致命的原子力量不断发展而产生应有的惊骇，可是双方都在竞谋改变那不稳定的恐怖均衡，而此种均衡却可以暂时阻止人类最后从事战争。
因此让我们重新开始，双方都应记住，谦恭并非懦弱的征象，而诚意则永远须要验证。让我们永不因畏惧而谈判。但让我们永不要畏惧谈判。
让双方探究能使我们团结在一起的是什么问题，而不要虚耗心力于使我们分裂的问题。
让双方首次制订有关视察和管制武器的真诚而确切的建议，并且把那足以毁灭其它国家的漫无限制的力量置于所有国家的绝对管制之下。
让双方都谋求激发科学的神奇力量而不是科学的恐怖因素。让我们联合起来去探索星球，治理沙漠，消除疾病，开发海洋深处，并鼓励艺术和商务。
让双方携手在世界各个角落遵循以赛亚的命令，去“卸下沉重的负担……(并)让被压迫者得自由。”
如果建立合作的滩头堡能够遏制重重猜疑，那么，让双方联合作一次新的努力吧，这不是追求新的权力均衡，而是建立一个新的法治世界，在那世界上强者公正，弱者安全，和平在握。
凡此种种不会在最初的一百天中完成，不会在最初的一千天中完成，不会在本政府任期中完成，甚或也不能在我们活在地球上的毕生期间完成。但让我们开始。
同胞们，我们事业的最后成效，主要不是掌握在我手里，而是操在你们手中。自从我国建立以来，每一代的美国人都曾应召以验证其对国家的忠诚。响应此项召唤而服军役的美国青年人的坟墓遍布全球各处。
现在那号角又再度召唤我们--不是号召我们肩起武器，虽然武器是我们所需要的;不是号召我们去作战，虽然我们准备应战;那是号召我们年复一年肩负起持久和胜败未分的斗争，“在希望中欢乐，在患难中忍耐”;这是一场对抗人类公敌--暴政、贫困、疾病以及战争本身--的斗争。
我们能否结成一个遍及东西南北的全球性伟大联盟来对付这些敌人，来确保全人类享有更为富裕的生活?你们是否愿意参与这历史性的努力?
在世界的悠久历史中，只有很少几个世代的人赋有这种在自由遭遇最大危机时保卫自由的任务。我决不在这责任之前退缩;我欢迎它。我不相信我们中间会有人愿意跟别人及别的世代交换地位。我们在这场努力中所献出的精力、信念与虔诚、将照亮我们的国家以及所有为国家服务的人，而从这一火焰所聚出的光辉必能照明全世界。
所以，同胞们：不要问你们的国家能为你们做些什么，而要问你们能为国家做些什么。
全世界的公民：不要问美国愿为你们做些什么，而应问我们在一起能为人类的自由做些什么。
最后，不管你是美国的公民或世界它国的公民，请将我们所要求于你们的有关力量与牺牲的高标准拿来要求我们。我们唯一可靠的报酬是问心无愧，我们行为的最后裁判者是历史，让我们向前引导我们所挚爱的国土，企求上帝的保佑与扶携，但我们知道，在这个世界上，上帝的任务肯定就是我们自己所应肩负的任务。
第2篇 美国总统悼念爱德华·肯尼迪英语演讲稿
one of the most accomplished americans ever to serve our democracy
remarks by the president
on the passing of senator edward m. kennedy
blue heron farm
chilmark, massachusetts
9:57 a.m. edt
the president: i wanted to say a few words this morning about the passing of an extraordinary leader, senator edward kennedy.
over the past several years, i've had the honor to call teddy a colleague, a counselor, and a friend. and even though we have known this day was coming for some time now, we awaited it with no small amount of dread.
since teddy's diagnosis last year, we've seen the courage with which he battled his illness. and while these months have no doubt been difficult for him, they've also let him hear from people in every corner of our nation and from around the world just how much he meant to all of us. his fight has given us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers john and robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you -- and goodbye.
the outpouring of love, gratitude, and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in american history touched so many lives. his ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity, in families that know new opportunity, in children who know education's promise, and in all who can pursue their dream in an america that is more equal and more just -- including myself.
the kennedy name is synonymous with the democratic party. and at times, ted was the target of partisan campaign attacks. but in the united states senate, i can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. his seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth, and good cheer. he could passionately battle others and do so peerlessly on the senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintain warm friendships across party lines.
and that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished americans ever to serve our democracy.
his extraordinary life on this earth has come to an end. and the extraordinary good that he did lives on. for his family, he was a guardian. for america, he was the defender of a dream.
i spoke earlier this morning to senator kennedy's beloved wife, vicki, who was to the end such a wonderful source of encouragement and strength. our thoughts and prayers are with her, his children kara, edward, and patrick; his stepchildren curran and caroline; the entire kennedy family; decades' worth of his staff; the people of massachusetts; and all americans who, like us, loved ted kennedy.
end
10:00 a.m. edt
第3篇 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 surprised that i was invited to speak here -- and even more surprised when i accepted the invitation. they seem 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 promised to watch the old time gospel hour next sunday morning.
i realize that my visit may be a little controversial. but as many of you have heard, dr. falwell recently sent 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 course, 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 lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense 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 counsel. i am an american and a catholic; 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 those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance. for example, because 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 himself 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 diverse 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 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 endorse me. i want you to know i endorse you and what you are doing.”
to many americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation 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 separation between moral principles and political power. the challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.
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. massachusetts exiled roger williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the ten commandments. virginia harassed baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, 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 cause 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 themselves professed very different faiths: washington was an episcopalian, jefferson a deist, and adams a calvinist. and although he had earlier opposed 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 separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. they may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose 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. those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first english translation of the bible. as president eisenhower warned in 1953, “don’t join the book burners...the 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 persecuted 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 nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, “law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose 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 cases, 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.
there must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased 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 segregation.
their words have blessed 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 those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time?
president kennedy, who said that “no religious body should seek to impose 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 imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, 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 itself.
people of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their lord. in our own history, religion has been falsely 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 those 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 conscience.
those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, 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 oppose -- 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 arises not only from its views, but from its name -- which, in the minds of many, seems to imply that only one set 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 senators 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 those 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 of israel’s cause.
respect for conscience is most in jeopardy, and the harmony of our diverse 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 himself, as president before him had, “with the counsel of the ungodly.” i utterly reject any such standard for any position anywhere in public service. 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 because 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 moses, 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 self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves. and if that temptation ever comes, let us recall winston churchill’s humbling description of an 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 oppose 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 increase 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 false 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 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 seek 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 false 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 those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense... 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 those who exercise their right to disagree.
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 essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.
those who favor e.r.a [equal rights amendment] are not “antifamily” or “blasphemers.” and their purpose 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 surprised 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 “pharisees”; many of them are both civil libertarians and believers, who think that families should pray more at home with their children, and attend church and synagogue more faithfully. and people are not sexist because they stand against abortion, and they are not murderers because they believe in free choice. nor does it help anyone’s cause to shout such epithets, or to try and shout a speaker down -- which is what happened last april when dr. falwell was hissed 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 applause from the harvard audience came in defense of dr. falwell’s right to speak.
in short, i hope for an america where neither "fundamentalist" nor "humanist" will 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 lesser american because 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 those standards 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 assembly. 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 those 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, or country...the 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 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 purpose and our prayer, yours and mine -- for ourselves, for our country, and for all the world.
第4篇 马丁.路德.金被刺杀当晚罗伯特.肯尼迪英语演讲稿
assassination of martin luther king, jr.
ladies and gentlemen: i'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because i have some very sad news for all of you -- could you lower those signs, please? -- i have some very sad news for all of you, and, i think, sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world; and that is that martin luther king was shot and was killed tonight in memphis, tennessee.
martin luther king dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. he died in the cause of that effort. in this difficult day, in this difficult time for the united states, it's perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. for those of you who are black -- considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible -- you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.
we can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization -- black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. or we can make an effort, as martin luther king did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion and love.
for those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, i would only say that i can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. i had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.
but we have to make an effort in the united states, we have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.
my favorite poem, my favorite poet was aeschylus. and he once wrote:
"even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
comes wisdom
through the awful grace of god."
what we need in the united states is not division; what we need in the united states is not hatred; what we need in the united states is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.
so i ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of martin luther king -- yeah, it's true -- but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love -- a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which i spoke.
we can do well in this country. we will have difficult times. we've had difficult times in the past. and we will have difficult times in the future. it is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
but the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
let us dedicate ourselves to what the greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.
thank you very much.
第5篇 约翰·肯尼迪《我们选择登月》英语演讲稿
n this 1962 speech given at rice university in houston, texas, president john f. kennedyreaffirmed america's commitment to landing a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s.the president spoke in philosophical terms about the need to solve the mysteries of spaceand also defended the enormous expense of the space program.
president pitzer mr. vice president, governor, congressman thomas, senator wiley, andcongressman miller, mr. webb, mr. bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies andgentlemen:
i appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and i will assureyou that my first lecture will be very brief.
i am delighted to be here and i'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.
we meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a state noted forstrength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, ina decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. the greater ourknowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive andworking today, despite the fact that this nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despitethat, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still faroutstrip our collective comprehension.
no man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. stated in theseterms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced manhad learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. then about 10 years ago, under thisstandard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. only five years agoman learned to write and use a cart with wheels. christianity began less than two years ago.the printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power. newtonexplored the meaning of gravity. last month electric lights and telephones and automobilesand airplanes became available. only last week did we develop penicillin and television andnuclear power, and now if america's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching venus, we will haveliterally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
this is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old,new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. surely the opening vistas of space promise highcosts and hardships, as well as high reward.
so it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait.but this city of houston, this state of texas, this country of the united states was not built bythose who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. this country was conquered bythose who moved forward--and so will space.
william bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the plymouth bay colony, said that allgreat and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must beenterprised and overcome with answerable courage.
if this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest forknowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. the exploration of space willgo ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and nonation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race forspace.
those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrialrevolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and thisgeneration does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. we mean tobe a part of it--we mean to lead it. for the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moonand to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostileflag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. we have vowed that we shall not seespace filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge andunderstanding.
yet the vows of this nation can only be fulfilled if we in this nation are first, and, therefore, weintend to be first. in short, our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace andsecurity, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, tosolve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world'sleading space-faring nation.
we set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to bewon, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. for space science, likenuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. whether it will become aforce for good or ill depends on man, and only if the united states occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifyingtheater of war. i do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse ofspace any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but i do saythat space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating themistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
there is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. its hazards arehostile to us all. its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity forpeaceful cooperation many never come again. but why, some say, the moon? why choosethis as our goal? and they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? why, 35 years ago,fly the atlantic? why does rice play texas?
we choose to go to the moon. we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the otherthings, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve toorganize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one thatwe are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win,and the others, too.
it is for these reasons that i regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from lowto high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbencyin the office of the presidency.
in the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and mostcomplex exploration in man's history. we have felt the ground shake and the air shatteredby the testing of a saturn c-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the atlas whichlaunched john glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with theiraccelerators on the floor. we have seen the site where five f-1 rocket engines, each one aspowerful as all eight engines of the saturn combined, will be clustered together to make theadvanced saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at cape canaveral as tall asa 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field.
within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. some 40 of them weremade in the united states of america and they were far more sophisticated and supplied farmore knowledge to the people of the world than those of the soviet union.
the mariner spacecraft now on its way to venus is the most intricate instrument in thehistory of space science. the accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile fromcape canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the 40-yard lines.
transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. tiros satellites have givenus unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires andicebergs.
we have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. and they may beless public.
to be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. but we do notintend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.
the growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universeand environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new toolsand computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. technical institutions,such as rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.
and finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great numberof new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. space and related industries aregenerating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this state, andthis region, will share greatly in this growth. what was once the furthest outpost on the oldfrontier of the west will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space.houston, your city of houston, with its manned spacecraft center, will become the heart of alarge scientific and engineering community. during the next 5 years the national aeronauticsand space administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area,to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1billion from this center in this city.
to be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. this year's space budget is three timeswhat it was in january 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eightyears combined. that budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, thoughsomewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. space expenditures will soonrise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for everyman, woman and child in the united states, for we have given this program a high nationalpriority--even though i realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for wedo not now know what benefits await us. but if i were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shallsend to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in houston, a giant rocketmore than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some ofwhich have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times morethan have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finestwatch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control,communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, andthen return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles perhour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is heretoday--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we mustbe bold.
i'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute.
however, i think we're going to do it, and i think that we must pay what needs to be paid. idon't think we ought to waste any money, but i think we ought to do the job. and this will bedone in the decade of the sixties. it may be done while some of you are still here at school atthis college and university. it will be done during the terms of office of some of the people whosit here on this platform. but it will be done. and it will be done before the end of thisdecade.
and i am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as partof a great national effort of the united states of america.
many years ago the great british explorer george mallory, who was to die on mount everest, wasasked why did he want to climb it. he said, "because it is there."
well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, andnew hopes for knowledge and peace are there. and, therefore, as we set sail we ask god'sblessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man hasever embarked.
thank you.
