→ kwei: 此文讓人清楚認識美國保守主義精英的想法。 12/26 07:44
→ kwei: 文中引用Burke那段話是對的，但解決辦法是猶太-基督教則缺乏 12/26 07:47
→ kwei: 強力論証。另外文中的宗教自由不包括不信神的自由。 12/26 07:47
推 hellwize: 還不錯 跟我想的差不多 12/26 15:29
美司法部長談美國猶太-基督教道德體系
本文為美國現任司法部部長William P. Barr 於2019年10月11日在聖母大學法學院及德尼
古拉倫理與文化中心的演講稿
原文：美國司法部Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks to the Law
School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of
Notre Dame - https://tinyurl.com/y4pcdsor
譯文：觀察者
https://www.guancha.cn/WilliamBarr/2019_12_16_528490_s.shtml
Thank you, Tom, for your kind introduction. Bill and Roger, it’s great to be
with you.
感謝湯姆的介紹。比爾和羅傑，非常榮幸能與你們同台。
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.
感謝聖母大學法學院和德尼古拉倫理與文化中心的盛情邀請。我同時也想向托尼‧德‧尼
古拉表達感謝，是他的慷慨捐助讓學子們在天主教倫理和思維傳統下塑造了自己的思想，
並將繼續惠及無數學子。
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.
We have set up a task force within the Department with 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.
今天，我將與各位分享我關於美國宗教自由的一些思考。宗教自由是美國政府和司法部關
心的重要議題。
司法部內部成立了由相關部門組成的工作小組，包括總檢察官辦公室、民事局、法律顧問
辦公室和其他辦公室。工作小組定期舉行會議，關注全國範圍內發生的有關宗教自由的案
件或事件，如州法院錯誤適用政教分離條款導致對信教人民的歧視，或州議會通過侵犯宗
教自由的法律。
From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality
of religious liberty in the United States.
從建國時期起，美國已就宗教自由的中心地位達成強烈共識。
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.
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.”
保護宗教自由不僅是對虔誠的信教行為點頭支持。制憲者們認為，宗教對維持自由政府而
言是必不可少的。詹姆斯‧麥迪遜在其著名的1785年《反對宗教徵稅評估的請願和抗議書
》中將宗教自由描述為“人類的一種權利”，也是“對造物主的一項義務”，“一項在時
間和義務程度上先於公民社會訴求存在的義務”。
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.
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.
This quantum leap in liberty has been the mainspring of unprecedented human
progress, not only for Americans, but for people around the world.
自這群殖民地律師發起了獨立戰爭和他們眼中的偉大實驗以來，已經過去了230多年，這
片土地上建立了一個與以往完全不同的社會。他們制定了宏偉的自由憲章——美國憲法，
規定了有限政府，同時讓“人民”享有廣泛的自由去追求個人和社團的生活。這種自由的
飛躍對美國人和世界人民來說都是前所未有的進步的動力。
In the 20th century, our form of free society faced a severe test.
There had always been the question whether a democracy so solicitous of
individual freedom could stand up against a regimented totalitarian state.
That question was answered with a resounding “yes” as the United States
stood up against and defeated, first fascism, and then communism.
在20世紀，我們的自由社會面臨著嚴峻的考驗。我們一直面臨著這樣的問題：一個如此重
視個人自由的民主國家能否與一個受極權管制的國家抗衡？當美國先後對抗並擊敗了法西
斯主義和共產主義時，這個問題得到了響亮的肯定回答。
But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge.
The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be
our supreme test as a free society.
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.
但在21世紀，我們面臨著完全不同的挑戰。這個挑戰正是國父們所預見的、我們自由社會
所面臨的終極測試。他們從不認為共和國的主要危險來自外部敵人。核心問題是，從長遠
來看，我們能否駕馭自由，即在這樣一個自由社會中的公民能否維持自由制度生存所需的
道德規範和美德。
By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from
the classical Christian tradition.
These practical statesmen understood that individuals, while having the
potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil.
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.
開國一代的人性觀在很大程度上是從古典基督教傳統中汲取的。這些務實的政治家認為人
雖然有造就大善的潛力，但也有釀成大惡的能力。人充滿了強烈的感情和慾望，如果毫無
節制，就會無情、殘暴地凌駕在鄰里和整個社會上。
No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.
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.
若沒有限制個人欲望的措施，任何社會都無法存續。但如果僅依賴政府的強制力去施加約
束，這將使得政府權力過大，最終我們將失去自由，只剩暴政。
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，除非採取有效的限制措施，否則結果將同樣危險——放肆、無節制地滿足個人
欲望，以犧牲公共利益為代價。這是另一種形式的暴政——人們被其慾望所奴役，任何健
康的社會生活的可能性都被粉碎。
Edmund Burke summed up this point in his typically colorful language:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their
disposition to put chains upon their appetites.... Society cannot exist
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 of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their
passions forge their fetters.”
埃德蒙‧伯克（Edmund Burke）用他豐富的語言總結了這一點：“人有資格享有公民自由
，其程度與他們被限制的慾望成正比。……只有當控制權被置於某個位置時，社會才能存
續；該位置上的控制權越少，位置之外的控制權就越多。事物的運行規律告訴我們，人類
無節制的思想不能放任自由。他們的慾望同時鑄就了身上的束縛。”
So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.
They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of
the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of
the American people.
In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each
of us to govern ourselves…”
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.
因此國父們決定下一個賭注。他們稱之為偉大的實驗。他們為“人民”保留廣泛的自由，
限制政府的強制性權力，將信任給予美國人民的自我約束和美德。麥迪遜表示，“我們將
未來寄託在了每個人自我管理的能力上……”這就是“自治”的含義。它基本的含義並非
指我們選擇代議機構的那套機制，而是每個人自我管理和約束的能力。
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.
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 an infinite capacity to
rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s
will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.
但這種內部控制權來自哪裡呢？在一個自由的共和國裡，這些限制性權力不能由哲學王授
予。相反，社會秩序源自人民自身，自願遵循內心的命令和共同的道德觀念。為了控制具
有無限理性能力的人類，這些道德價值觀必須建立在一個獨立於人類意志的權威之上，它
們必須來自超然的最高存在。
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 man-made law and
who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring
principles.
總之，制憲者們認為，自由政府僅對有宗教信仰的人們適用並存續。這些人們認為在國家
和人造的法律之上存在超然的道德秩序，他們根據這些永恆的原則運用道德規範來控制自
己。
As John Adams put it, “We have no government armed with the power which is
capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate for the government of any other.”
正如約翰‧亞當斯所說，“沒有道德和宗教的約束，我們的政府就無法抵禦無限制的人類
慾望。我們的憲法僅為有道德和信仰的人民製定。而對其他任何政府來說，這是完全不夠
的。”
As Father John Courtney Murray observed, the American tenet was not that:
“Free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its
possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly
governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.”
神父約翰‧考特尼‧默裡認為，美國的信條並非：“自由政府是必然的，而是只有當所有
人民內心遵循普世道德秩序的公認要義，才有可能實現自由政府。”
How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support
free government?
那麼宗教如何培育自由政府所需的道德規範和美德呢？
First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were
Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds
to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great
commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to
Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.
But they also include the guidance of natural law – a real, transcendent
moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the divine wisdom by which
the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and
reflected in, all created things.
From the nature of things we can, through reason, experience, discern
standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will.
首先，它為我們提供了生活所需的正確準則。開國一代是基督徒。他們認為猶太-基督教
道德體系符合人的真實本性。這些道德規範始於兩條偉大的誡律——全心全意地愛上帝；
並愛人如己。但是，它們還包括自然法則的指導——一種源於上帝永恆律法的真實、超然
的道德秩序——統治萬物的神聖智慧。永恆的律法被印刻、體現在上帝創造的所有事物上
。我們可以通過理性、經驗，從事物的本質中辨別出獨立人類意志而存在的是非標準。
Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly
superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral
standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.
They reflect the rules that are best for man, not in the by and by, but in
the here and now. They are like God’s instruction manual for the best
running of man and human society.
現代世俗主義者認為這種道德觀念是掃興的神職人員所鼓吹的超脫塵世的迷信。實際上，
猶太-基督教徒的道德標準是評價人類行為最終的功利主義規則。它們反映了最適合人類
的規則，不在將來，而就在眼前。它們就像上帝為實現人類和人類社會的最佳運轉提供的
指導手冊。
By the same token, violations of these moral laws have bad, real-world
consequences for man and society. We may not pay the price immediately, but
over time the harm is real.
同理，違反這些道德法則將對人類和社會產生負面的現實影響。我們也許不會立即付出代
價，但假以時日，這將造成現實的損害。
Religion helps promote moral discipline within society. Because man is
fallen, we don’t automatically conform ourselves to moral rules even when we
know they are good for us.
But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good.
It does not do this primarily by formal laws – that is, through coercion. It
does this through moral education and by informing society’s informal rules
– its customs and traditions which reflect the wisdom and experience of the
ages.
In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that
instills and reinforces moral discipline.
宗教幫助社會鞏固道德規範。人是墮落的，我們無法自動地遵守道德規範，即使我們知道
這對我們有好處。但宗教幫助人們教育、訓練自己追求好的東西，並使之內化為習慣。宗
教並非主要依靠正式、強制性的律令來實現這一功能，它借助道德教育，塑造社會的非正
式規則——反映人們智慧和經驗的習俗和傳統。換而言之，宗教幫助塑造了社會的道德文
化，這種文化反過來滋養並鞏固了道德規範。
I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under
increasing attack.
On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional
Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the
public square.
On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the
doctrine of moral relativism.
我們都承認，在過去的50年裡，宗教遭受了越來越多的攻擊。一方面，我們看見傳統猶太
-基督教道德體系的持續衰敗，以及將它逐出公共領域的全面行動。另一方面，我們看見
世俗主義和道德相對主義學說的日益增長。
By any honest assessment, the consequences of this moral upheaval have been
grim.
Virtually every measure of social pathology continues to gain ground.
In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was eight percent. In 1992, when I was last
Attorney General, it was 25 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. In many of
our large urban areas, it is around 70 percent.
Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of
depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide
rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in
senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.
As you all know, over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That is
more casualities in a year than we experienced during the entire Vietnam War.
從任何誠實的評估來看，這種道德動盪的後果都是嚴峻的。幾乎每一種社會疾病指標都在
持續增長。1965年，非婚生率是8％。1992年，當我出任司法部部長時，這個比例是25％
。今天，它已超過40％。在我們的許多大城市地區，這一比例約為70％。隨著家庭的衰落
，我們看到抑鬱症和精神疾病達到創紀錄水平，年輕人萎靡不振，自殺率飆升，憤怒和與
社會脫節的年輕男性數量增加，無端暴力行為增加，以及致命毒品的流行。如大家所知，
每年有超過70,000人死於吸食毒品過量。這比越南戰爭中一年犧牲的人數還多。
I will not dwell on all the bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it
to say that the campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has brought
with it immense suffering, wreckage, and misery. And yet, the forces of
secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater
militancy.
我不會詳述新世俗時代的所有痛苦現狀。這足以說明，破壞傳統道德秩序的運動帶來了巨
大的痛苦和悲劇。然而，世俗主義的力量卻忽略了這些悲劇性的結果，以更大的戰鬥力繼
續前進。
Among these militant secularists are many so-called “progressives.” But
where is the progress?
這些激進的世俗主義者中有很多是所謂的“進步人士”。但進步在何處呢？
We are told we are living in a post-Christian era. But what has replaced the
Judeo-Christian moral system? What is it that can fill the spiritual void in
the hearts of the individual person? And what is a system of values that can
sustain human social life?
我們生活在一個後基督教時代。但什麼替代了猶太-基督教的道德體系呢？什麼東西能填
滿個體心靈空虛呢？什麼價值體系能夠支撐人類的社會生活呢？
The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role
of religion.
現實是，沒有一個世俗主義的信條能夠扮演宗教的角色。
Scholarship suggests that religion has been integral to the development and
thriving of Homo sapiens since we emerged roughly 50,000 years ago. It is
just for the past few hundred years we have experimented in living without
religion.
We hear much today about our humane values. But, in the final analysis, what
undergirds these values? What commands our adherence to them?
What we call "values" today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality,
still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.
研究表明，自大約50,000年前人類誕生以來，宗教一直是人類發展和繁榮不可或缺的一部
分。僅在過去的幾百年中，我們才開始嘗試過無宗教生活。我們今天已經聽說了很多人文
價值觀。但是，歸根結底，是什麼構成了這些價值觀？是什麼命令我們遵守它們？今天我
們所謂的“價值”實際上僅是感性認識，仍在汲取基督教的氣息。
Now, there have been times and places where the traditional moral order has
been shaken.
現在，傳統道德秩序在一些時刻和地方已經動搖了。
In the past, societies – like the human body – seem to have a self-healing
mechanism – a self-correcting mechanism that gets things back on course if
things go too far.
The consequences of moral chaos become too pressing. The opinion of decent
people rebels. They coalesce and rally against obvious excess. Periods of
moral entrenchment follow periods of excess.
This is the idea of the pendulum. We have all thought that after a while the
“pendulum will swing back.”
過去，社會就像人類的身體，似乎擁有自癒機制——一個能使偏離軌道的事物復原的自我
矯正機制。道德混亂帶來嚴峻後果。正派的人們起而反對這樣的後果，他們聯合起來反對
過分的道德混亂。在道德混亂的時期過去後，我們又迎來道德穩固的時期。這就是“鐘擺
觀點”。我們都曾以為，一段時間過後“鐘擺會回到原點”。
But today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on
the pendulum swinging back.
但今天我們面臨完全不同的挑戰，我們無法指望鐘擺自己回歸原位。
First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion
we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction.
Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all
the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment
industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional
values.
These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular
orthodoxy, but also drown out and silence opposing voices, and to attack
viciously and hold up to ridicule any dissenters.
首先是我們今天對宗教猛烈、全面的抨擊。這種抨擊不會衰減，是有組織的破壞。世俗主
義者及其在“進步主義者”中的盟友，整合了所有大眾傳播、流行文化、娛樂產業和學術
界的力量，對宗教和傳統價值觀進行不懈攻擊。這些力量不僅積極地促進世俗正統觀念的
傳播，還淹沒並消滅對立的聲音，惡意攻擊並嘲笑任何異議者。
One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has
itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all
the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication.
Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake – social,
educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits
and savage social media campaigns.
如人們所見，具有諷刺意味的是，世俗計畫本身已成為一種宗教，並受到宗教狂熱般的追
捧。它正在顯現出宗教的外觀特徵，包括宗教裁判和革除教籍。那些違背世俗主義信條的
人面臨著“酷刑”的風險——在訴訟和野蠻的社交媒體運動中遭受社交、教育和職業上的
排斥。
The pervasiveness and power of our high-tech popular culture fuels apostasy
in another way. It provides an unprecedented degree of distraction.
高科技流行文化的普及和力量以另一種方式助長了人們對宗教的摒棄，帶來了前所未有的
娛樂消遣。
Part of the human condition is that there are big questions that should stare
us in the face. Are we created or are we purely material accidents? Does our
life have any meaning or purpose? But, as Blaise Pascal observed, instead of
grappling with these questions, humans can be easily distracted from thinking
about the “final things.”
我們面臨著許多尚未解決的重大問題。我們起源於上帝的創造還是純粹的巨大意外？我們
的生活有任何意義或目的嗎？但是，正如布萊斯‧帕斯卡爾（Blaise Pascal）所說，相
比於解決這些問題，人類更容易在思考“末後之事”時分心。
Indeed, we now live in the age of distraction where we can envelop ourselves
in a world of digital stimulation and universal connectivity. And we have
almost limitless ways of indulging all our physical appetites.
的確，我們現在生活在一個娛樂的時代，我們可以將自己包裹在數字仿真和網絡連通的世
界中。我們有無數種方式可沉迷於物慾之中。
There is another modern phenomenon that suppresses society’s self-corrective
mechanisms – that makes it harder for society to restore itself.
還有另一種現代社會現象抑制著社會的自我糾正機制，這使社會更加難以恢復原狀。
In the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social
costs of licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct becomes so high
that society ultimately recoils and reevaluates the path that it is on.
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.
過去，當社會受到道德混亂的威脅時，放蕩和不負責任的個人行為帶來的社會總成本變得
過高，以至於社會最終屈服並重新評估其選擇的道路。但在今天，面對所有不斷增加的社
會疾病，我們沒有解決根本問題，而是讓國家承擔了減輕不良社會後果的責任。我們呼籲
國家來減輕個人不當行為和不負責任的社會成本。
So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but
abortion.
The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.
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.
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.
應對非婚生率增長的方案不是性責任，而是墮胎。應對吸毒的方案是設立安全注射點。應
對家庭破裂的方案是國家成為單身母親的替代丈夫，成為孩子的替代父親。人們呼籲更多
的社會政策來應對這些問題。但當我們自認為正在解決問題時，實際上卻反向促進了這些
問題的增長。
We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a
coercive state on which we depend.
我們最初追求不受限制的自由，最終卻成為強權國家的依附者。
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.
有趣的是，這種認為應由國家減輕不良社會後果的想法導致了一種新的道德體系與社會的
世俗化並駕齊驅。它可以被稱為“宏觀道德”體系。在某種程度上，它是對基督教道德的
顛覆。
Christianity teaches a micro-morality. We transform the world by focusing on
our own personal morality and transformation.
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.
基督教倡導微觀道德，關注個人的道德和轉變，以此來改變世界。新的世俗宗教倡導宏觀
道德。一個人的道德水平不由他們的個人行為來衡量，而是取決於他們對政治事業的投入
和對有關社會問題的集體行動的參與。
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.
當我們在道德邊緣尋找救贖時，這種體系使我們不必為私人生活的道德約束而過分擔憂。
我們可以通過這樣或那樣的理由來展現自己良好的道德感。
Something happened recently that crystalized the difference between these
moral systems. I was attending Mass at a 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.
最近發生的事情使這些道德體系之間的差異更加明顯。我在華盛頓特區一個不經常去的教
區參加了彌撒。在彌撒結束時，社會正義委員會主席起身向教區提交報告。他指出了哥倫
比亞特區日益嚴重的流浪漢問題，並提出需要更多的流動施粥所來為他們提供食物。我希
望他能夠呼籲這家天主教堂內的人們作為志願者參與其中。然而，他僅講述了委員會對華
盛頓特區政府的歷次拜訪，講述他們如何遊說政府以更高的稅率和更多的支出為流動施粥
所提供資金。
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.
第三種使道德難以復原的現象是，法律被用作打破傳統道德價值觀的武器，並將道德相對
主義確立為一種新的正統觀念。
Law is being used as weapon in a couple of ways.
First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial
interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws
that reflect traditional moral norms.
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.
法律在多個方面被用作武器。首先，世俗主義者通過立法和更頻繁的司法解釋，一直在努
力消除反映傳統道德規範的法律。這包括了廢除某些行為的禁令。一個分水嶺的決定是墮
胎合法化。隨後，安樂死也合法化。這個廢除的名單還在繼續擴大。
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.
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.
最近，我們看到法律強迫宗教人士和組織接受與其信仰背道而馳的實踐和政策。問題不是
強迫無信仰者信教，而是強迫信教者接受無宗教信仰和世俗價值觀。
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.
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.
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.
這讓我想起了一些羅馬皇帝不能讓他們虔誠的基督教徒和平相處，而是要求他們違背良心
，以皇帝為神，向其做出宗教祭祀。同樣，今天的好戰世俗主義者缺乏包容異己的精神，
他們不滿足於讓宗教人士獨自遵循其信仰。相反，他們似乎樂於強迫人們違背自己的良心
。例如，上屆政府試圖在其醫療保險中涵蓋避孕和墮胎，強迫宗教僱主，甚至天主教的宗
教命令，違反其宗教價值觀。同樣，加利福尼亞州也要求增加妊娠中心以保障墮胎權。
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.
這是較近的反對自由行使宗教權的例子。而就在25年前，我們的社會已達成廣泛共識，認
為我們的法律應包容宗教信仰。
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.
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.
1993年，國會通過了《宗教自由恢復法》（Religious Freedom Restoration Act –
RFRA）。該法規的目的是在政府通過的寬泛政策可能影響宗教實踐時，為宗教提供最大
的包容和便利。在當時，RFRA尚無爭議。它在眾議院由查克‧舒默（Chuck Schumer）與
170名議員聯名提交，在參議院由泰德‧肯尼迪（Ted Kennedy）和奧爾林‧哈奇（Orrin
Hatch）與59名議員聯名提交。它在眾議院以口頭表決通過，在參議院以97-3投票通過。
Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come
under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of
favor.
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.
最近，隨著世俗化進程的加快，RFRA受到了攻擊，保障宗教自由已不受歡迎。由於本屆聯
邦政府堅決支持宗教信仰自由，戰場已轉移至各州。現在，一些州政府正試圖強迫宗教個
人和組織遵循與他們的宗教不相容的習俗或擁護違背其宗教的觀點。
Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the
most serious challenge to religious liberty.
這些對宗教的攻擊始於學校。對我來說，這是宗教自由面臨的最嚴重挑戰。
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.
For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of
religious liberty.
Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are
attacking on three fronts.
對於任何有宗教信仰的人來說，到目前為止，信仰宗教最重要的部分是向我們的孩子傳授
該宗教。這是信仰的傳遞。這是我們能給予孩子的最好的禮物和愛意表達。政府干涉這一
過程是對宗教自由的巨大侵犯。然而，這正是這場戰鬥的引爆點，世俗主義者正在三條戰
線上展開攻擊。
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.
第一個方面涉及公立學校課程的內容。許多州正在實行與傳統宗教原則不符的課程，而父
母則根據這些課程教育子女。宗教家庭沒有退出這些課程的選擇。
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.”
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.
例如，新澤西州最近通過了一項法律，要求公立學校實施LGBT課程，許多人認為這與傳統
的基督教教義不一致。加利福尼亞和伊利諾伊州也通過了類似的法律。加利福尼亞州的奧
蘭治縣教育委員會發表了一項意見，“不同意使用與性別、性別認同、性別表達和性取向
有關的教學材料的父母不能阻止其孩子接受此項教育。”在某些情況下，學校甚至可能不
會告訴家長他們與性行為和性關係有關的爭議性主題的課程教學計畫。
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.
這使反對世俗正統觀念的父母陷入了一個艱難的選擇：讓孩子接受私立學校或家庭學校的
教育，或者讓孩子被灌輸他們完全反對的信息。
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.
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.
教育領域的第二個戰線是政策，它們使宗教學校無法獲得普遍可得的資金，並鼓勵學生選
擇世俗教育學校。例如，蒙大拿州實施了一項政策，向資助貧困生上私立學校的獎學金項
目捐贈的人可享受稅收抵扣。該計畫的重點是為父母和學生提供更多的教育選擇，並為貧
困青年提供更好的教育。但是，蒙大拿州明確表明該政策不適用於宗教私立學校。而且，
當希望使用獎學金就讀無教派基督教學校的學生父母在法庭上對這種排除提出質疑時，蒙
大拿州最高法院卻要求該州取消該政策，而不是允許父母將其用於宗教學校教育中。
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.
The case is now in the Supreme Court, and we filed a brief explaining why
Montana’s Blaine Amendment violates the First Amendment.
法院依據蒙大拿州憲法中被稱為“布萊恩修正案”的條款來證明這一項目是合理的。“布
萊恩修正案”是在反天主教運動氾濫之時通過的，使宗教機構喪失接受任何直接或間接的
州政府資金支持的資格。此案目前正在最高法院審理，我們在提交的文件中解釋了蒙大拿
州的“布萊恩修正案”為何違反了第一修正案。
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.
教育領域對宗教自由的第三種攻擊是最近州法律強迫宗教學校遵守世俗正統的行為。例如
，就在這印第安納州，一位老師起訴印第安納波利斯的天主教大主教，稱其指示其教區內
的天主教學校不能僱用有同性婚姻的老師，因為這些同性婚姻的例子會破壞學校關於天主
教婚姻和兩性互補觀點的教育。
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.
這起訴訟明顯侵犯了大主教教區的第一修正案權利，因為它干涉了大主教教區的表達自由
和教會自治。司法部已向州法院提出了涵蓋這些觀點的利益聲明，我們希望州法院盡快駁
回此案。
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.
總而言之，這些案例顯現出令人不安的景象。我們看到國家使地方公立學校捲入社會爭議
，而不考慮學生或其父母的宗教觀點。實際上，這些州是在要求當地社區讓其公立學校排
斥具有傳統宗教價值觀的家庭；這些家庭無形之中被告知他們要麼順從，要麼離開。
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.
同時，宗教學校也被施加壓力，被要求放棄宗教信仰。他們僅僅因為宗教特性，就失去了
資金——選擇就讀這些學校的學生被告知，只有選擇其他學校，他們才可能獲得獎學金。
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.
此外，當信教者受到侵權威脅時，如果堅持自己的宗教信仰，無疑將面臨否認侵權的威脅
。如果這些措施獲得成功，那些有宗教信仰的人將變得更加邊緣化。
I do not mean to suggest that there is no hope for moral renewal in our
country.
But we cannot sit back and just hope the pendulum is going to swing back
toward sanity.
我並不是要表示我們的國家沒有道德更新的希望。但我們不能坐視不管，只祈禱鐘擺會重
新擺向理智。
As Catholics, we are committed to the Judeo-Christian values that have made
this country great.
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.
We understand that only by transforming ourselves can we transform the world
beyond ourselves.
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.
作為天主教徒，我們忠於使這個國家偉大的猶太-基督教價值觀。我們知道，要促進復興
，我們必須做的第一件事就是確保在私人生活中踐行我們的原則。我們明白，只有改造自
己，才能改造我們之外的世界。這是一項艱巨的工作。我們很難抗拒當代社會的誘惑。這
就是為何我們需要恩典、禱告和教會幫助。
Beyond this, we must place greater emphasis on the moral education of our
children.
Education is not vocational training. It is leading our children to the
recognition that there is truth and helping them develop the faculties to
discern and love the truth and the discipline to live by it.
We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next
generation our faith and values in full vigor.
除此之外，我們必須更加重視孩子們的道德教育。教育不是職業培訓。它引導我們的孩子
認識到真理的存在，並幫助他們發展辨別和熱愛真理的能力，並遵守真理的法則。除非我
們成功地把我們的信仰和價值觀充分地傳遞給下一代，否則我們就不可能有道德的復興。
The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are
becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.
If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more
generally religiously-affiliated schools – it is today.
I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic
education at all levels.
時代對此持敵對態度。包括公立學校在內的公共機構正變得世俗化，並越來越積極地提倡
道德相對主義。如果說有必要重振天主教教育（以及更普遍的宗教學校）的話，那就在今
天。我認為我們應該盡我們所能來促進和支持真正的天主教教育。
Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is
being waged against religion on the legal plane.
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.
最後，作為法律人，我們應該尤其積極地參與正在法律層面上進行的反對宗教的鬥爭。我
們必須警惕和抵制世俗化勢力將宗教趕出公共領域並侵犯我們信仰自由的企圖。
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.
我可以向你們保證，只要我還是司法部長，司法部就將站在這一努力的最前線，隨時準備
為我們最珍視的自由而戰：根據我們的信仰生活的自由。
Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and
Notre Dame.
謝謝你們今天給我這個機會與你們交流。願上帝保佑你們和聖母大學。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 76.183.127.209 (美國)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/IA/M.1577317417.A.1BC.html