- 目錄
第1篇 肯尼迪就職美國總統(tǒng)英語演講稿
肯尼迪就職演講稿(英文版)
vice president johnson, mr. speaker, mr. chief justice, president eisenhower, vice president ni_on, 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 e_pect 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 e_plore 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 e_plore 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 ma_imum danger. i do not shrink from this responsibility -- i welcome it. i do not believe that any of us would e_change 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.
肯尼迪就職演講稿(中文版)
我們今天慶祝的并不是一次政黨的勝利，而是一次自由的慶典;它象征著結(jié)束，也象征著開始;意味著更新，也意味著變革。因?yàn)槲乙言谀銈兒腿艿纳系勖媲?，作了跟我們祖先將近一又四分之三世紀(jì)以前所擬定的相同的莊嚴(yán)誓言。
現(xiàn)今世界已經(jīng)很不同了，因?yàn)槿嗽谧约貉庵|的手中握有足以消滅一切形式的人類貧困和一切形式的人類生命的力量?？墒俏覀冏嫦葕^斗不息所維護(hù)的革命信念，在世界各地仍處于爭論之中。那信念就是注定人權(quán)并非來自政府的慷慨施與，而是上帝所賜。
我們今天不敢忘記我們是那第一次革命的繼承人，讓我從此時此地告訴我們的朋友，并且也告訴我們的敵人，這支火炬已傳交新一代的美國人，他們出生在本世紀(jì)，經(jīng)歷過戰(zhàn)爭的鍛煉，受過嚴(yán)酷而艱苦的和平的熏陶，以我們的古代傳統(tǒng)自豪，而且不愿目睹或容許人權(quán)逐步被褫奪。對于這些人權(quán)我國一向堅(jiān)貞不移，當(dāng)前在國內(nèi)和全世界我們也是對此力加維護(hù)的。
讓每一個國家知道，不管它盼我們好或盼我們壞，我們將付出任何代價(jià)，忍受任何重負(fù)，應(yīng)付任何艱辛，支持任何朋友，反對任何敵人，以確保自由的存在與實(shí)現(xiàn)。
這是我們矢志不移的事--而且還不止此。
對于那些和我們擁有共同文化和精神傳統(tǒng)的老盟邦，我們保證以摯友之誠相待。只要團(tuán)結(jié)，則在許多合作事業(yè)中幾乎沒有什么是辦不到的。倘若分裂，我們則無可作為，因?yàn)槲覀冊谝庖姺制纭⒏餍衅涫堑那闆r下，是不敢應(yīng)付強(qiáng)大挑戰(zhàn)的。
對于那些我們歡迎其參與自由國家行列的新國家，我們要提出保證，絕不讓一種形成的殖民統(tǒng)治消失后，卻代之以另一種遠(yuǎn)為殘酷的暴政。我們不能老是期望他們會支持我們的觀點(diǎn)，但我們卻一直希望他們能堅(jiān)決維護(hù)他們自身的自由，并應(yīng)記取，在過去，那些愚蠢得要騎在虎背上以壯聲勢的人，結(jié)果卻被虎所吞噬。
對于那些住在布滿半個地球的茅舍和鄉(xiāng)村中、力求打破普遍貧困的桎梏的人們，我們保證盡最大努力助其自救，不管需要多長時間。這并非因?yàn)楣伯a(chǎn)黨會那樣做，也不是由于我們要求他們的選票，而是由于那樣做是正確的。自由社會若不能幫助眾多的窮人，也就不能保全那少數(shù)的富人。
對于我國邊界以內(nèi)的各姐妹共和國，我們提出一項(xiàng)特殊的保證：要把我們的美好諾言化作善行，在爭取進(jìn)步的新聯(lián)盟中援助自由人和自由政府來擺脫貧困的枷鎖。但這種為實(shí)現(xiàn)本身愿望而進(jìn)行的和平革命不應(yīng)成為不懷好意的國家的俎上肉。讓我們所有的鄰邦都知道，我們將與他們聯(lián)合抵御對美洲任何地區(qū)的侵略或顛覆。讓其它國家都知道，西半球的事西半球自己會管。
至于聯(lián)合國這個各主權(quán)國家的世界性議會，在今天這個戰(zhàn)爭工具的發(fā)展速度超過和平工具的時代中，它是我們最后的、最美好的希望。我們愿重申我們的支持諾言;不讓它變成僅供謾罵的講壇，加強(qiáng)其對于新國弱國的保護(hù)，并擴(kuò)大其權(quán)力所能運(yùn)用的領(lǐng)域。
最后，對于那些與我們?yōu)閿车膰?，我們所要提供的不是保證，而是要求：雙方重新著手尋求和平，不要等到科學(xué)所釋出的危險(xiǎn)破壞力量在有意或無意中使全人類淪于自我毀滅。
我們不敢以示弱去誘惑他們。因?yàn)橹挥挟?dāng)我們的武力無可置疑地壯大時，我們才能毫無疑問地確信永遠(yuǎn)不會使用武力。
可是這兩個強(qiáng)有力的國家集團(tuán)，誰也不能對當(dāng)前的趨勢放心--雙方都因現(xiàn)代武器的代價(jià)而感到不勝負(fù)擔(dān)，雙方都對于致命的原子力量不斷發(fā)展而產(chǎn)生應(yīng)有的驚駭，可是雙方都在競謀改變那不穩(wěn)定的恐怖均衡，而此種均衡卻可以暫時阻止人類最后從事戰(zhàn)爭。
因此讓我們重新開始，雙方都應(yīng)記住，謙恭并非懦弱的征象，而誠意則永遠(yuǎn)須要驗(yàn)證。讓我們永不因畏懼而談判。但讓我們永不要畏懼談判。
讓雙方探究能使我們團(tuán)結(jié)在一起的是什么問題，而不要虛耗心力于使我們分裂的問題。
讓雙方首次制訂有關(guān)視察和管制武器的真誠而確切的建議，并且把那足以毀滅其它國家的漫無限制的力量置于所有國家的絕對管制之下。
讓雙方都謀求激發(fā)科學(xué)的神奇力量而不是科學(xué)的恐怖因素。讓我們聯(lián)合起來去探索星球，治理沙漠，消除疾病，開發(fā)海洋深處，并鼓勵藝術(shù)和商務(wù)。
讓雙方攜手在世界各個角落遵循以賽亞的命令，去“卸下沉重的負(fù)擔(dān)……(并)讓被壓迫者得自由。”
如果建立合作的灘頭堡能夠遏制重重猜疑，那么，讓雙方聯(lián)合作一次新的努力吧，這不是追求新的權(quán)力均衡，而是建立一個新的法治世界，在那世界上強(qiáng)者公正，弱者安全，和平在握。
凡此種種不會在最初的一百天中完成，不會在最初的一千天中完成，不會在本政府任期中完成，甚或也不能在我們活在地球上的畢生期間完成。但讓我們開始。
同胞們，我們事業(yè)的最后成效，主要不是掌握在我手里，而是操在你們手中。自從我國建立以來，每一代的美國人都曾應(yīng)召以驗(yàn)證其對國家的忠誠。響應(yīng)此項(xiàng)召喚而服軍役的美國青年人的墳?zāi)贡椴既蚋魈帯?/p>
現(xiàn)在那號角又再度召喚我們--不是號召我們肩起武器，雖然武器是我們所需要的;不是號召我們?nèi)プ鲬?zhàn)，雖然我們準(zhǔn)備應(yīng)戰(zhàn);那是號召我們年復(fù)一年肩負(fù)起持久和勝敗未分的斗爭，“在希望中歡樂，在患難中忍耐”;這是一場對抗人類公敵--暴政、貧困、疾病以及戰(zhàn)爭本身--的斗爭。
我們能否結(jié)成一個遍及東西南北的全球性偉大聯(lián)盟來對付這些敵人，來確保全人類享有更為富裕的生活?你們是否愿意參與這歷史性的努力?
在世界的悠久歷史中，只有很少幾個世代的人賦有這種在自由遭遇最大危機(jī)時保衛(wèi)自由的任務(wù)。我決不在這責(zé)任之前退縮;我歡迎它。我不相信我們中間會有人愿意跟別人及別的世代交換地位。我們在這場努力中所獻(xiàn)出的精力、信念與虔誠、將照亮我們的國家以及所有為國家服務(wù)的人，而從這一火焰所聚出的光輝必能照明全世界。
所以，同胞們：不要問你們的國家能為你們做些什么，而要問你們能為國家做些什么。
全世界的公民：不要問美國愿為你們做些什么，而應(yīng)問我們在一起能為人類的自由做些什么。
最后，不管你是美國的公民或世界它國的公民，請將我們所要求于你們的有關(guān)力量與犧牲的高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)拿來要求我們。我們唯一可靠的報(bào)酬是問心無愧，我們行為的最后裁判者是歷史，讓我們向前引導(dǎo)我們所摯愛的國土，企求上帝的保佑與扶攜，但我們知道，在這個世界上，上帝的任務(wù)肯定就是我們自己所應(yīng)肩負(fù)的任務(wù)。
第2篇 美國總統(tǒng)悼念愛德華·肯尼迪英語演講稿
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 e_traordinary 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 e_traordinary life on this earth has come to an end. and the e_traordinary 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 馬丁.路德.金被刺殺當(dāng)晚羅伯特.肯尼迪英語演講稿
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4篇 約翰·肯尼迪《我們選擇登月》英語演講稿
n this 1962 speech given at rice university in houston, te_as, 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 e_pense 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, e_cept 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. newtone_plored 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 te_as, 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 e_ploration 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 e_pects to be the leader of other nations can e_pect 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 e_plored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating themistakes that man has made in e_tending 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 te_as?
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 mostcomple_ e_ploration 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 ne_t 5 years the national aeronauticsand space administration e_pects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area,to increase its outlays for salaries and e_penses 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 e_penditures 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 e_perienced, 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 si_ties. 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 e_plorer 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.
第5篇 愛德華.肯尼迪《美國的真相與和解》英語演講稿
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 e_pected 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 ne_t democratic president of the united states. now, dr. falwell, i’m not e_actly 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 e_tra hour ne_t saturday night before curfew. and in return, i have promised to watch the old time gospel hour ne_t 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 e_ample, 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 e_perience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views. in colonial maryland, catholics paid a double land ta_, 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 e_iled 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 e_ample. 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 e_ercise 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 __iii 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 e_cluded 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 e_ample, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry, but that mission is an e_plicit 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 ta_ 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 perple_ed when the religious lobbying group christian voice publishes a morality inde_ 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 infle_ible 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 e_ercise 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 fi_ 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 se_ist 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.
