前几天看见楼主分享的无神论的伪装，周末正好看到现任AG Bill Barr 的发言，这个发言同样是一个message，和楼主的message 一样consistent。
发言比较长，大家可以慢慢读，关于自由，关于伪装，关于自我修正系统的摧毁，以及 principles 达到自由的彼岸。
Barr 也是一个上帝派来的使者吧，很多事情在他重新加入历史的舞台后，有重大的改观。
最后，我对于上帝的这个实验很有信心，这个信心在于从我自身的成长得出来的，我们这些出身在中国的教育体系里的人，可以被这些message召唤，能够读懂上帝给与人的自由的召唤，并且乐于实践和传播，这个本身是自由意志的实验结果，也就是证明了实验可以成功，我们每追求自由召唤的人，都是一个种子，都会生根发芽，特别感谢互联网时代。
因为字数限制，必须分成两部分
====================
司法部长William P. Barr在Notre Dame大学法学院和de Nicola伦理文化中心的讲话
South Bend, IN
印第安纳，South Bend
~ Friday, October 11, 2019
2019年10月11日，周五
Thank you, Tom, for you kind introduction. Bill and Roger, it’s great to be
with you.
Tom，谢谢你的热心介绍。Bill，Roger，很高兴和你们在一起。
Thank you to the Notre Dame Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics
and Culture for graciously extending an invitation to address you today. I’
d also like to express gratitude to Tony de Nicola, whose generous support
has shaped – and continues to shape – countless minds through examination
of the Catholic moral and intellectual tradition.
也谢谢Notre Dame法学院和de Nicola伦理文化中心。是你们大方的邀请，我才可以在
今天跟大家讲话。我也要感谢Tony de Nicola，是他慷慨资助，邀我们检视基督信仰的
道德和智慧传统。这已经，也将要，塑造无数人的思想。
Today, I would like to share some thoughts with you about religious liberty
in America. It’s an important priority in this Administration and for this
Department of Justice.
今天，我要跟大家分享关于在美国宗教自由的想法。在本届政府，在这个司法部，这是
一项重要的优先任务。
We have set up a task force within the Department in which different
components that have equities in “”this area including the Solicitor
General’s Office, the Civil Division, the Office of Legal Counsel, and
other offices. We have regular meetings. We keep an eye out for cases or
events around the country where states are misapplying the Establishment
Clause in a way that discriminates against people of faith, or cases where
states adopt laws that impinge upon the free exercise of religion.
我们已经在司法部里设立了特别的工作组，不同的部门都有参与，包括副部长办公室，
民事部，法律顾问办公室和其它办公室。我们有定期的会议。我们关注全国发生的案例
和事件，防止各州滥用政教分离条款，歧视信仰人士，或是州立法妨害宗教的自由行使。
From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the
centrality of religious liberty in the United States.
自从立国的时代以来，宗教自由的中心地位，一直是美国的强烈共识。
The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the
direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was
indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.
保障宗教自由的法律，不只是向着敬虔方向点头认同。法律表明的，是构国者们的信念
，就是宗教在我们的自由政府体系中，不可分割。
In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious
Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right
towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent
both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil
Society.”
在著名的1785年传单《宗教评估的实情和反对》中，James Madison说宗教自由“对人
，是权利”，但是“对创造主，是责任”，并且“这个责任，在时间上，在义务的程度
上，是应当被援引的前例，应用于后来文明社会的诉求。”
It has been over 230 years since that small group of colonial lawyers led a
Revolution and launched what they viewed as a great experiment, establishing
a society fundamentally different than those that had gone before.
这一小群殖民地律师领导了独立革命，发起了他们心中的大实验，建立了和以往任何政
治形态都本质不同的社会。这距离今天，已经超过230年。
They crafted a magnificent Charter of Freedom – the United States
Constitution – which provides for limited government, while leaving “the
People” broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and
through free associations.
他们设计了伟大的自由宪章，就是美国宪法。这宪法限制的是政府，却将广泛的自由留
给“人民”，让我们以独立的个人或自由的分群，活出我们的生命追求。
This quantum leap in liberty has been the mainspring of unprecedented human
progress, not only for Americans, but for people around the world.
这是自由的量子跃迁，是发条，已经推动了史无前例的人类进步，不只是美国人，更是
全世界的所有人。
In the 20th century, our form of free society faced a severe test.
在20世纪，我们自由社会的制度，面临过严重的考验。
There had always been the question whether a democracy so solicitous of
individual freedom could stand up against a regimented totalitarian state.
那时有一直不断的疑问——这样一个关注个人自由的民主制度，到底能不能抵挡纪律严
格的极权国家？
That question was answered with a resounding “yes” as the United States
stood up against and defeated, first fascism, and then communism.
这个问题的回答，是响亮的“能”。因为美国抵挡了，并且战胜了，先是法西斯，后来
是共产主义。
But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge.
但是在这21世纪，我们面对的是完全不同的挑战。
The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would
be our supreme test as a free society.
我们面对的挑战，正是国父们预见的，那是对我们这个自由社会的终极考验。
They never thought the main danger to the Republic came from external foes.
The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle
freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could
maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free
institutions.
他们从来不认为外部敌人会成为共和制度的最大危险。关键的问题，不是经年累月之后
的我们，还能不能处理自由。问题是，在这样自由社会里的公民们，能不能保持道德的
操守与品质——那才是自由社会存活的必需。
By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from
the Classical Christian tradition.
一般说来，国父一代对人性的观念，来源于经典的基督传统。
These practical Statesmen understood that individuals, while having the
potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil.
这些务实的政治人物理解，每个人，虽有可能行出极大的善，亦有可能行出极大的恶。
Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained,
are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the
community at large.
人，受情绪和喜好的强大影响。如果不受约束，人有能力残酷无情地欺侮他人，伤害社
区。
No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.
如果没有方法约束个人的贪欲，没有社会能够长存。
But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints,
this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you
will end up with no liberty, just tyranny.
但是，如果你依赖政府的强制力量来强加这约束，不可避免地将导致控制过分的政府。
最终，你将失去自由，只剩下暴政。
On the other hand, unless you have some effective restraint, you end up with
something equally dangerous – licentiousness – the unbridled pursuit of
personal appetites at the expense of the common good. This is just another
form of tyranny – where the individual is enslaved by his appetites, and
the possibility of any healthy community life crumbles.
另一方面，除非你有什么有效的约束，不然最终你得到的，是同样危险的结局——就是
混乱的邪荡，就是不顾公益的无节制的私欲追求。这不过是另一种样子的暴政——各人
被自己的私欲所奴役，建立健康的社区根本没有可能。
Edmund Burke summed up this point in his typically colorful language:
Edmund Burke以他多彩的语言这样归纳：
“Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their
disposition to put chains upon their appetites….Society cannot exits unless
a controlling power be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within
, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution
of things that men intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge
their fetters.”
“人享受文明自由的资格，是和他们锁住自己私欲的素质成精确比例的……社会无法存
在，除非有约束的力量存在。而且，里面的越少，外面的必然越多。心无节制，人无自
由，这是永恒的命定。人的感性，铸就了他们的枷锁。”
So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.
就这样，国父们决心赌一场，他们称之为大实验。
They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of
the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and virtue of the
American people.
他们将给予“人民”广泛的自由，限制政府的强制力量。他们的信心，在于美国人民的
自律和美德。
In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each
of us to govern ourselves…”
用Madison的话说，“我们是将我们的未来，赌在我们每个人管理自己的能力上了……”
This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean
primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body
. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern
themselves.
这就是“自治”的真正意义。“自治”的根本，不在于我们选择民意代表组成立法机构
的这个机制。“自治”，是说每一个个人约束自己，管理自己的能力。
But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free
Republic those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher
kings.
但这内在的约束力，源自何处？在一个自由的共和社会里，那些约束不可能自上而下，
由智慧君王发布施行。
Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely
obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values.
And to control willful human beings, with and infinite capacity to
rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s
will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.
相反的，社会秩序必须自下而上，由人民自己发起——自发地遵守内有的和共有的道德
价值。随心所欲的人类，有无穷的能力合理化任何行为。要管理这样的人，这些道德价
值必须建立在独立于人的意志的权柄之上——它们必须源自超乎一切的至高者。
In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and
sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was
a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and manmade law and
who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring
principles.
简单说，在构国者的眼中，自由政府只适用，也只适合于有宗教信仰的人民——要承认
存在超乎一切的道德秩序，它超越国家，超越人订的法律。这样的人民才有自律，才会
依据永恒不变的原则，管理他们自己。
过去，当社会被道德沦丧威胁之时，放纵和不负责的个人行为是要让全社会承受代价的
。这代价高昂，以致全社会最终都对这样的行为深恶痛绝，进而对社会政策重新估量。
But today – in the face of all the increasing pathologies – instead of
addressing the underlying cause, we have the State in the role of Alleviator
of Bad Consequences. We call on the State to mitigate the social costs of
personal misconduct and irresponsibility.
但是今天呢，面对着所有这些病变，不是来治疗根本的病因，我们有国家来扮演恶果减
痛器。分明是个人的错误行为和不负责任带来了后果，我们却召唤国家，来减轻些社会
代价。
So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but
abortion.
所以，对非婚生育的反应，不是性爱负责，而是堕胎。
The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.
对毒品成瘾的反应，是安全注射点。
The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself
up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their
children.
家庭解体的解决方法，是把国家变成单亲妈妈的代老公，变成他们孩子的代父亲。
The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage.
While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.
召唤而来的，就是越来越多的社会保障项目，来处理残骸。我们以为自己在解决问题，
但实际却是对这些事情表示了认同。
We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a
coercive state on whom we depend.
我们起初拥有的，是不羁的自由，最终却成为，依附者。我们依赖的，是一个强权政府。
Interestingly, this idea of the State as the alleviator of bad consequences
has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the
secularization of society. It can be called the system of “macro-morality.
” It is in some ways an inversion of Christian morality.
有意思的是，这个国家让成为恶果减痛器的思想，带来了一套新的道德系统，与社会的
世俗化携手而至。可以称之为“宏观道德”的系统。在一些方面，它是跟基督道德相对
的。
Christianity teaches a micro-morality. We transform the world by focusing on
our own personal morality and transformation.
基督信仰教导的，是一个微观道德。我们改变世界，是藉着专注于我们自己个人的道德
和自我更新。
The new secular religion teaches macro-morality. One’s morality is not
gauged by their private conduct, but rather on their commitment to political
causes and collective action to address social problems.
这个新的世俗宗教，教导的是宏观道德。一个人的道德，不是由自己私下的行为来衡量
，而是看他们对政治诉求的委身，和在社会问题上的集体行为。
This system allows us to not worry so much about the strictures on our
private lives, while we find salvation on the picket line. We can signal our
finely tuned moral sensibilities by demonstrating for this cause or that.
这套系统里，我们不用太关注我们私生活的限制，我们的救赎是在纠察线上。我们在这
个那个议题上表态，就可以精调我们的道德水准。
Something happened recently that crystalized the difference between these
moral systems. I was attending Mass at parish I did not usually go to in
Washington, D.C. At the end of Mass, the Chairman of the Social Justice
Committee got up to give his report to the parish. He pointed to the growing
homeless problem in D.C. and explained that more mobile soup kitchens were
needed to feed them. This being a Catholic church I expected him to call for
volunteers to go out and provide this need. Instead, he recounted all the
visits that the Committee had made to the D.C. government to lobby for
higher taxes and more spending to fund mobile soup kitchen.
最近发生的一件事，就明显是这两种道德系统的分别。有一个在华盛顿DC，我不经常去
的教区，我在那里参加弥撒。在弥撒结束的时候，社会公益委员会的主席上来，把他的
报告提交给教区。他指明DC有越来越重的街头流浪问题，说明需要更多的流动厨房。这
是个天主教会，所以我以为他是要号召志愿者，来补足这需要。相反的，他述说了这个
委员会如何一次次去DC政府游说，申请更高税收，争取支持流动厨房的更多拨款。
A third phenomenon which makes it difficult for the pendulum to swing back
is the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional
moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy.
让这钟摆难以回摆的第三个现象，是法律被当作攻城锤，用来撞碎传统道德价值，要建
立道德相对主义，作新的正统思想。
Law is being used as weapon in a couple of ways.
法律作武器，有这么几种用法。
First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial
interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws
that reflect traditional moral norms.
首先，世俗主义者通过立法，或者更经常的，是通过司法解释，不断地寻找消灭反映传
统道德规范的法律。
At first, this involved rolling back laws that prohibited certain kinds of
conduct. Thus, the watershed decision legalizing abortion. And since then,
the legalization of euthanasia. The list goes on.
起初，是废除禁止某些行为的法律。因此，有了堕胎合法化这个分水岭的判决。从那以
后，还有安乐死的合法化。这清单还在继续。
More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious
people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are
antithetical to their faith.
近些时候，我们已经看见法律被用于强迫宗教个人和团体，遵行违反他们信仰的规定和
政策。
The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is
that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.
问题就在这里——不是宗教被强加于人。是无宗教和世俗价值，被强加于有信仰的人。
This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal
Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their
conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the Emperor as a God.
这让我想到一些罗马皇帝，不愿让忠心的基督徒得享安宁，非命令他们违反自己的良知
，将皇帝作上帝敬拜，献上祭物。
Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit
-- they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their
faith. Instead they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate
their conscience.
相似的，今天的世俗主义战士们，自己没有又活又让人活的灵，却看不惯有宗教的人们
可以行使他们的信仰。他们好像欢喜逼迫别人违反自己的良知。
For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers,
including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held
religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their
health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life
pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.
比如说，上一届政府，逼着有宗教信仰的雇主，包括天主教的宗教团体，违背他们真心
的宗教观念，逼他们在医疗保障中购买避孕和堕胎保险。相似的，加利福尼亚已经规定
，反堕胎的孕妇中心，必须张贴宣扬堕胎权利的布告。
This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively
recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our
laws should accommodate religious belief.
这样拒绝保障宗教自由的行为，是相对最近才有的。就在25年前，我们社会的广泛共识
，还是我们的法律应当保障宗教信仰。
In 1993 Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The
purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when
the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious
practice.
在1993年，国会通过了《宗教自由恢复法》（RFRA）。这立法的目的，就是在政策太宽
，妨害宗教行为的时候，要最大限度地保障宗教。
At the time, RFRA was not controversial: it was introduced by Chuck Schumer
with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and
Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice
vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate.
在那时候，RFRA并不是争议立法。是Chuck Schumer提的议案，在众院有170位议员连署
，在参院，由Ted Kennedy和Orrin Hatch动议，再加59位连署。在众院，是口头表决通
过的。在参院，是97票对3票。
Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come
under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of
favor.
最近呢，随着世俗化进程的加速，RFRA已经受到攻击。保障宗教的思想已经失宠。
Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the
battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now
attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to
practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their
religion.
因为这届政府坚定地支持保障宗教信仰，战场已经转移到各州政府。有的州政府现在正
试图强迫宗教个人和团体遵守规范，拥护违背他们信仰的观念。
Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is
the most serious challenge to religious liberty.
这些对宗教攻击的中心，就是学校。对我来说，这是对宗教自由的最严重挑战。
For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of
exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The
passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children
and no greater expression of love.
对任何一个有宗教信仰的人，行使信仰的最最重要部分，就是将这宗教教导给我们的孩
子们。这是我们信仰的传承。对我们的孩子，我们给不出什么比这更大的礼物，也表达
不了什么比这更大的爱。
For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of
religious liberty.
政府在这事情上干预，是对宗教自由的最惊骇侵犯。
Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are
attacking on three fronts.
但这里，就是接战的地方。我看见世俗主义者们进攻的三处阵线。
The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many
states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional
religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise
their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.
第一处阵线，是公立学校的教学大纲。许多州正在采用的教学大纲，违背了传统宗教的
原则，违背了家长们试图教给他们孩子的那些原则。这些州常常不给有宗教信仰的家庭
提供任何退出的选项。
Thus, for example, New Jersey, recently passed a law requiring public
schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with
traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California
and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued
an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials
related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation
may not excuse their children from this instruction.”
例如，新泽西州最近通过了法律，要求公立学校接受LGBT的教学，许多人都明白这不合
传统基督信仰的教导。类似的法律，已经在加利福尼亚和伊利诺伊通过。加州的橙县教
育局发布了意见，“不认同有关性别，性身份，性表达和性取向的教学材料的家长，不
允许拒绝自己的孩子们接受这样的教导。”
Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons
they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and
relationships.
实际上，在有些案例中，学校订了计划，教导关于性行为和性关系的争议话题，甚至根
本不用预先向家长提警。
This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult
choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home
schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they
fundamentally reject.
这让不认同世俗观念的家长们面临困难选择：竭力凑钱上私立学校或家庭教导，还是容
许他们的孩子们接受灌输自己根本摒弃的信息。
A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies
designed to starve religious schools of generally available funds and
encouraging students to choose secular options. Montana, for example,
created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a
scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend
private school. The point of the program was to provide greater parental and
student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.
在教育领域的第二串攻击，是特别设计的政策，要剥夺资金，饿死有宗教信仰的学校，
鼓励学生们选择世俗的学校。例如蒙大拿州，他们设立了一个法规，以税收减免鼓励大
家捐款给一个奖学金，资助贫困学生进入私立学校。目的，本是让家长和学生有更多的
教育选择，也让有需要的青少年得到更好教育。
But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from
the program. And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who
wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian
school, the Montana Supreme Court required the State to eliminate the
program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.
但是蒙大拿州明白地将有宗教背景的私立学校排除在外。家长们在法庭挑战这个偏心的
规定，要求使用这奖学金，入读一个无宗派的基督教学校。这时候，蒙大拿法庭要求州
政府废除这个项目，而不是允许家长使用奖学金，在有宗教信仰的学校中入学。
It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State
Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.” Blaine
Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this
country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any
direct or indirect payments from a State’s funds.
法院的解释，是依据蒙大拿州宪法中的一条“Blaine修正案”。Blaine修正案通过的年
代，这个国家正广泛地仇视天主教，禁止宗教机构直接或间接地获得联邦政府的资金。
The case is now in the Supreme Court, and we filed a brief explaining why
Montana’s Blaine Amendment violates the First Amendment.
这个案子现在最高法院。我们发了案情简报，解释为何蒙大拿的Blaine修正案违反了第
一修正案。
A third kind of assault on religious freedom in education have been recent
efforts to use state laws to force religious schools to adhere to secular
orthodoxy. For example, right here in Indiana, a teacher sued the Catholic
Archbishop of Indianapolis for directing the Catholic schools within his
diocese that they could not employ teachers in same-sex marriages because
the example of those same-sex marriages would undermine the schools’
teaching on the Catholic view of marriage and complementarity between the
sexes.
在教育上对宗教自由的第三种攻击，是最近的州法滥用，强迫宗教学校遵守世俗教条。
举例来说，就在印第安纳这里，有教师起诉了印第安纳波利斯的大主教，因他指示自己
教区的天主教学校，不得雇佣同性婚姻的教师。因为这些同性婚姻的示范，将伤害学校
教导婚姻和两性互补的天主教信仰。
This lawsuit clearly infringes the First Amendment rights of the Archdiocese
, by interfering both with its expressive association and with its church
autonomy. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the
state court making these points, and we hope that the state court will soon
dismiss the case.
这个诉讼明显违反了大主教的第一修正案权利，干预了结社的自由和教会的自治。司法
部向州法院发了关注声明，提出了这几点意见。我们盼望州法庭快快地驳回诉讼。
Taken together, these cases paint a disturbing picture. We see the state
requiring local public schools to insert themselves into contentious social
debates, without regard for the religious views of their students or parents
. In effect, these states are requiring local communities to make their
public schools inhospitable to families with traditional religious values;
those families are implicitly told that they should conform or leave.
放在一起来看，这些诉讼绘出的，是另人不安的画面。我们看见州政府强迫地方公立学
校卷入社会争论议题，无视学生和家长们的宗教观。结果，这些州迫使地方社区，对传
统宗教价值的家庭关闭了公立学校的大门。隐隐地告诉这些家庭，要么服从，要么离开。
At the same time, pressure is placed on religious schools to abandon their
religious convictions. Simply because of their religious character, they are
starved of funds – students who would otherwise choose to attend them are
told they may only receive scholarships if they turn their sights elsewhere.
另一边，压力也加给宗教学校，要他们弃绝他们的宗教信仰。仅仅因为他们的宗教背景
，他们就被剥夺了经费。本来要选择这些学校的学生们，被告知奖学金只为其它学校预
备。
Simultaneously, they are threatened in tort – and, eventually, will
undoubtedly be threatened with denial of accreditation – if they adhere to
their religious character. If these measures are successful, those with
religious convictions will become still more marginalized.
同时，这些学校受违约的威胁。如果他们还坚持自己的宗教信仰，最终，还将面临取消
认证的威胁。如果这些计谋得逞，那些有宗教信仰的学校，将要更加边缘化了。
I do not mean to suggest that there is no hope for moral renewal in our
country.
我不是说，我们国家的道德复兴再无指望了。、
But we cannot sit back and just hope the pendulum is going to swing back
toward sanity.
但我们不能靠后坐等，指望钟摆还会自动再摆回理智的方向。
As Catholics, we are committed to the Judeo-Christian values that have made
this country great.
作为天主教徒，我们坚守的是犹太-基督的价值。这个价值，曾经让这个国家伟大。
And we know that the first thing we have to do to promote renewal is to
ensure that we are putting our principles into practice in our own personal
private lives.
并且我们知道，我们要促成复兴的头等必需，是我们要将我们的原则，操练在自己个人
的生命里。
We understand that only by transforming ourselves can we transform the world
beyond ourselves.
我们懂得，只有更新我们自己，我们才能更新我们以外的世界。
This is tough work. It is hard to resist the constant seductions of our
contemporary society. This is where we need grace, prayer, and the help of
our church.
这是艰难的工作。抵挡现代社会的不断诱惑，是困难的。在这里，我们需要恩典，祷告
，和教会的帮助。
Beyond this, we must place greater emphasis on the moral education of our
children.
此外，我们必须更加强对我们孩子的道德教育。
Education is not vocational training. It is leading our children to the
recognition that there is truth and helping them develop the facilities to
discern and love the truth and the discipline to live by it.
教育，不是职业训练。是带领我们的孩童，教他们认识这世界有真理存在，是帮助他们
培育出能力，可以分辨真理，热爱真理，建立自律，按着真理生活。
We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next
generation our faith and values in full vigor.
我们不可能有道德的复兴，除非我们成功地将我们的信仰和价值传给了下一代，这要我
们竭尽全力。
The times are hostile to this. Public agencies – including public schools
– are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral
relativism.
这个时代恶意满满。公共机构，包括公立学校，正越发世俗化，越来越积极地倡导道德
相对论。
If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more
generally religiously affiliated schools – it is today.
我们有需要，重振教会的教育，复兴所有有宗教信仰的学校——这需要就在今天。
I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic
education at all levels.
我想我们都应当竭尽全力，倡导并支持在所有阶段上的真正教会教育。
Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that
is being waged against religion on the legal plane.
最后，作为律师们，我们应当特别积极地奋斗，抵御法律层面上对宗教的战争。
We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to
drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the
free exercise of our faith.
我们必须警醒，抵挡世俗化的力量。这力量是要将宗教观念逐出公共场所，要阻止大家
自由行使我们的信仰。
I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of
Justice will be at the forefront of this effort– ready to fight for the
most cherished of our liberties – the freedom to live according to our
faith.
我可以向大家保证，只要我是司法部长，司法部就一定在最前线，捍卫我们最宝贵的自
由，就是按着我们信仰生活的自由。
Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and
Notre Dame.
感谢大家，给我今天这机会和你们分享。愿神祝福大家，祝福Notre Dame大学。
No comments:
Post a Comment