美司法部长谈美国犹太-基督教道德体系
本文为美国现任司法部部长William P. Barr 于2019年10月11日在圣母大学法学院及德尼
古拉伦理与文化中心的演讲稿
原文：美国司法部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
译文：观察者
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.
感谢汤姆的介绍。比尔和罗杰，非常荣幸能与你们同台。
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.
感谢圣母大学法学院和德尼古拉伦理与文化中心的盛情邀请。我同时也想向托尼‧德‧尼
古拉表达感谢，是他的慷慨捐助让学子们在天主教伦理和思维传统下塑造了自己的思想，
并将继续惠及无数学子。
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，我将与各位分享我关于美国宗教自由的一些思考。宗教自由是美国政府和司法部关
心的重要议题。
司法部内部成立了由相关部门组成的工作小组，包括总检察官办公室、民事局、法律顾问
办公室和其他办公室。工作小组定期举行会议，关注全国范围内发生的有关宗教自由的案
件或事件，如州法院错误适用政教分离条款导致对信教人民的歧视，或州议会通过侵犯宗
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.
从建国时期起，美国已就宗教自由的中心地位达成强烈共识。
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.
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.”
保护宗教自由不仅是对虔诚的信教行为点头支持。制宪者们认为，宗教对维持自由政府而
言是必不可少的。詹姆斯‧麦迪逊在其著名的1785年《反对宗教征税评估的请愿和抗议书
》中将宗教自由描述为“人类的一种权利”，也是“对造物主的一项义务”，“一项在时
间和义务程度上先于公民社会诉求存在的义务”。
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.
自这群殖民地律师发起了独立战争和他们眼中的伟大实验以来，已经过去了230多年，这
片土地上建立了一个与以往完全不同的社会。他们制定了宏伟的自由宪章——美国宪法，
规定了有限政府，同时让“人民”享有广泛的自由去追求个人和社团的生活。这种自由的
飞跃对美国人和世界人民来说都是前所未有的进步的动力。
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世纪，我们的自由社会面临着严峻的考验。我们一直面临着这样的问题：一个如此重
视个人自由的民主国家能否与一个受极权管制的国家抗衡？当美国先后对抗并击败了法西
斯主义和共产主义时，这个问题得到了响亮的肯定回答。
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世纪，我们面临着完全不同的挑战。这个挑战正是国父们所预见的、我们自由社会
所面临的终极测试。他们从不认为共和国的主要危险来自外部敌人。核心问题是，从长远
来看，我们能否驾驭自由，即在这样一个自由社会中的公民能否维持自由制度生存所需的
道德规范和美德。
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.
开国一代的人性观在很大程度上是从古典基督教传统中汲取的。这些务实的政治家认为人
虽然有造就大善的潜力，但也有酿成大恶的能力。人充满了强烈的感情和欲望，如果毫无
节制，就会无情、残暴地凌驾在邻里和整个社会上。
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.
若没有限制个人欲望的措施，任何社会都无法存续。但如果仅依赖政府的强制力去施加约
束，这将使得政府权力过大，最终我们将失去自由，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，除非采取有效的限制措施，否则结果将同样危险——放肆、无节制地满足个人
欲望，以牺牲公共利益为代价。这是另一种形式的暴政——人们被其欲望所奴役，任何健
康的社会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）用他丰富的语言总结了这一点：“人有资格享有公民自由
，其程度与他们被限制的欲望成正比。……只有当控制权被置于某个位置时，社会才能存
续；该位置上的控制权越少，位置之外的控制权就越多。事物的运行规律告诉我们，人类
无节制的思想不能放任自由。他们的欲望同时铸就了身上的束缚。”
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.
因此国父们决定下一个赌注。他们称之为伟大的实验。他们为“人民”保留广泛的自由，
限制政府的强制性权力，将信任给予美国人民的自我约束和美德。麦迪逊表示，“我们将
未来寄托在了每个人自我管理的能力上……”这就是“自治”的含义。它基本的含义并非
指我们选择代议机构的那套机制，而是每个人自我管理和约束的能力。
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.
但这种内部控制权来自哪里呢？在一个自由的共和国里，这些限制性权力不能由哲学王授
予。相反，社会秩序源自人民自身，自愿遵循内心的命令和共同的道德观念。为了控制具
有无限理性能力的人类，这些道德价值观必须建立在一个独立于人类意志的权威之上，它
们必须来自超然的最高存在。
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.
总之，制宪者们认为，自由政府仅对有宗教信仰的人们适用并存续。这些人们认为在国家
和人造的法律之上存在超然的道德秩序，他们根据这些永恒的原则运用道德规范来控制自
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.”
正如约翰‧亚当斯所说，“没有道德和宗教的约束，我们的政府就无法抵御无限制的人类
欲望。我们的宪法仅为有道德和信仰的人民制定。而对其他任何政府来说，这是完全不够
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.”
神父约翰‧考特尼‧默里认为，美国的信条并非：“自由政府是必然的，而是只有当所有
人民内心遵循普世道德秩序的公认要义，才有可能实现自由政府。”
How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support
free government?
那么宗教如何培育自由政府所需的道德规范和美德呢？
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，它为我们提供了生活所需的正确准则。开国一代是基督徒。他们认为犹太-基督教
道德体系符合人的真实本性。这些道德规范始于两条伟大的诫律——全心全意地爱上帝；
并爱人如己。但是，它们还包括自然法则的指导——一种源于上帝永恒律法的真实、超然
的道德秩序——统治万物的神圣智慧。永恒的律法被印刻、体现在上帝创造的所有事物上
。我们可以通过理性、经验，从事物的本质中辨别出独立人类意志而存在的是非标准。
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.
现代世俗主义者认为这种道德观念是扫兴的神职人员所鼓吹的超脱尘世的迷信。实际上，
犹太-基督教徒的道德标准是评价人类行为最终的功利主义规则。它们反映了最适合人类
的规则，不在将来，而就在眼前。它们就像上帝为实现人类和人类社会的最佳运转提供的
指导手册。
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，违反这些道德法则将对人类和社会产生负面的现实影响。我们也许不会立即付出代
价，但假以时日，这将造成现实的损害。
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.
宗教帮助社会巩固道德规范。人是堕落的，我们无法自动地遵守道德规范，即使我们知道
这对我们有好处。但宗教帮助人们教育、训练自己追求好的东西，并使之内化为习惯。宗
教并非主要依靠正式、强制性的律令来实现这一功能，它借助道德教育，塑造社会的非正
式规则——反映人们智慧和经验的习俗和传统。换而言之，宗教帮助塑造了社会的道德文
化，这种文化反过来滋养并巩固了道德规范。
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.
我们都承认，在过去的50年里，宗教遭受了越来越多的攻击。一方面，我们看见传统犹太
-基督教道德体系的持续衰败，以及将它逐出公共领域的全面行动。另一方面，我们看见
世俗主义和道德相对主义学说的日益增长。
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.
从任何诚实的评估来看，这种道德动荡的后果都是严峻的。几乎每一种社会疾病指标都在
持续增长。1965年，非婚生率是8％。1992年，当我出任司法部部长时，这个比例是25％
。今天，它已超过40％。在我们的许多大城市地区，这一比例约为70％。随着家庭的衰落
，我们看到抑郁症和精神疾病达到创纪录水平，年轻人萎靡不振，自杀率飙升，愤怒和与
社会脱节的年轻男性数量增加，无端暴力行为增加，以及致命毒品的流行。如大家所知，
每年有超过70,000人死于吸食毒品过量。这比越南战争中一年牺牲的人数还多。
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.
我不会详述新世俗时代的所有痛苦现状。这足以说明，破坏传统道德秩序的运动带来了巨
大的痛苦和悲剧。然而，世俗主义的力量却忽略了这些悲剧性的结果，以更大的战斗力继
续前进。
Among these militant secularists are many so-called “progressives.” But
where is the progress?
这些激进的世俗主义者中有很多是所谓的“进步人士”。但进步在何处呢？
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?
我们生活在一个后基督教时代。但什么替代了犹太-基督教的道德体系呢？什么东西能填
满个体心灵空虚呢？什么价值体系能够支撑人类的社会生活呢？
The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role
of religion.
现实是，没有一个世俗主义的信条能够扮演宗教的角色。
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，自大约50,000年前人类诞生以来，宗教一直是人类发展和繁荣不可或缺的一部
分。仅在过去的几百年中，我们才开始尝试过无宗教生活。我们今天已经听说了很多人文
价值观。但是，归根结底，是什么构成了这些价值观？是什么命令我们遵守它们？今天我
们所谓的“价值”实际上仅是感性认识，仍在汲取基督教的气息。
Now, there have been times and places where the traditional moral order has
been shaken.
现在，传统道德秩序在一些时刻和地方已经动摇了。
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.”
过去，社会就像人类的身体，似乎拥有自愈机制——一个能使偏离轨道的事物复原的自我
矫正机制。道德混乱带来严峻后果。正派的人们起而反对这样的后果，他们联合起来反对
过分的道德混乱。在道德混乱的时期过去后，我们又迎来道德稳固的时期。这就是“钟摆
观点”。我们都曾以为，一段时间过后“钟摆会回到原点”。
But today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on
the pendulum swinging back.
但今天我们面临完全不同的挑战，我们无法指望钟摆自己回归原位。
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.
首先是我们今天对宗教猛烈、全面的抨击。这种抨击不会衰减，是有组织的破坏。世俗主
义者及其在“进步主义者”中的盟友，整合了所有大众传播、流行文化、娱乐产业和学术
界的力量，对宗教和传统价值观进行不懈攻击。这些力量不仅积极地促进世俗正统观念的
传播，还淹没并消灭对立的声音，恶意攻击并嘲笑任何异议者。
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.
如人们所见，具有讽刺意味的是，世俗计画本身已成为一种宗教，并受到宗教狂热般的追
捧。它正在显现出宗教的外观特征，包括宗教裁判和革除教籍。那些违背世俗主义信条的
人面临着“酷刑”的风险——在诉讼和野蛮的社交媒体运动中遭受社交、教育和职业上的
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种方式助长了人们对宗教的摒弃，带来了前所未有的
娱乐消遣。
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.”
我们面临着许多尚未解决的重大问题。我们起源于上帝的创造还是纯粹的巨大意外？我们
的生活有任何意义或目的吗？但是，正如布莱斯‧帕斯卡尔（Blaise Pascal）所说，相
比于解决这些问题，人类更容易在思考“末后之事”时分心。
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.
的确，我们现在生活在一个娱乐的时代，我们可以将自己包裹在数字仿真和网络连通的世
界中。我们有无数种方式可沉迷于物欲之中。
There is another modern phenomenon that suppresses society’s self-corrective
mechanisms – that makes it harder for society to restore itself.
还有另一种现代社会现象抑制着社会的自我纠正机制，这使社会更加难以恢复原状。
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.
过去，当社会受到道德混乱的威胁时，放荡和不负责任的个人行为带来的社会总成本变得
过高，以至于社会最终屈服并重新评估其选择的道路。但在今天，面对所有不断增加的社
会疾病，我们没有解决根本问题，而是让国家承担了减轻不良社会后果的责任。我们呼吁
国家来减轻个人不当行为和不负责任的社会成本。
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.
应对非婚生率增长的方案不是性责任，而是堕胎。应对吸毒的方案是设立安全注射点。应
对家庭破裂的方案是国家成为单身母亲的替代丈夫，成为孩子的替代父亲。人们呼吁更多
的社会政策来应对这些问题。但当我们自认为正在解决问题时，实际上却反向促进了这些
问题的增长。
We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a
coercive state on which we depend.
我们最初追求不受限制的自由，最终却成为强权国家的依附者。
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，这种认为应由国家减轻不良社会后果的想法导致了一种新的道德体系与社会的
世俗化并驾齐驱。它可以被称为“宏观道德”体系。在某种程度上，它是对基督教道德的
颠覆。
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.
基督教倡导微观道德，关注个人的道德和转变，以此来改变世界。新的世俗宗教倡导宏观
道德。一个人的道德水平不由他们的个人行为来衡量，而是取决于他们对政治事业的投入
和对有关社会问题的集体行动的参与。
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.
当我们在道德边缘寻找救赎时，这种体系使我们不必为私人生活的道德约束而过分担忧。
我们可以通过这样或那样的理由来展现自己良好的道德感。
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.
最近发生的事情使这些道德体系之间的差异更加明显。我在华盛顿特区一个不经常去的教
区参加了弥撒。在弥撒结束时，社会正义委员会主席起身向教区提交报告。他指出了哥伦
比亚特区日益严重的流浪汉问题，并提出需要更多的流动施粥所来为他们提供食物。我希
望他能够呼吁这家天主教堂内的人们作为志愿者参与其中。然而，他仅讲述了委员会对华
盛顿特区政府的历次拜访，讲述他们如何游说政府以更高的税率和更多的支出为流动施粥
所提供资金。
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.
第三种使道德难以复原的现象是，法律被用作打破传统道德价值观的武器，并将道德相对
主义确立为一种新的正统观念。
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.
法律在多个方面被用作武器。首先，世俗主义者通过立法和更频繁的司法解释，一直在努
力消除反映传统道德规范的法律。这包括了废除某些行为的禁令。一个分水岭的决定是堕
胎合法化。随后，安乐死也合法化。这个废除的名单还在继续扩大。
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，我们看到法律强迫宗教人士和组织接受与其信仰背道而驰的实践和政策。问题不是
强迫无信仰者信教，而是强迫信教者接受无宗教信仰和世俗价值观。
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.
这让我想起了一些罗马皇帝不能让他们虔诚的基督教徒和平相处，而是要求他们违背良心
，以皇帝为神，向其做出宗教祭祀。同样，今天的好战世俗主义者缺乏包容异己的精神，
他们不满足于让宗教人士独自遵循其信仰。相反，他们似乎乐于强迫人们违背自己的良心
。例如，上届政府试图在其医疗保险中涵盖避孕和堕胎，强迫宗教雇主，甚至天主教的宗
教命令，违反其宗教价值观。同样，加利福尼亚州也要求增加妊娠中心以保障堕胎权。
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.
这是较近的反对自由行使宗教权的例子。而就在25年前，我们的社会已达成广泛共识，认
为我们的法律应包容宗教信仰。
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，国会通过了《宗教自由恢复法》（Religious Freedom Restoration Act –
RFRA）。该法规的目的是在政府通过的宽泛政策可能影响宗教实践时，为宗教提供最大
的包容和便利。在当时，RFRA尚无争议。它在众议院由查克‧舒默（Chuck Schumer）与
170名议员联名提交，在参议院由泰德‧肯尼迪（Ted Kennedy）和奥尔林‧哈奇（Orrin
Hatch）与59名议员联名提交。它在众议院以口头表决通过，在参议院以97-3投票通过。
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，随着世俗化进程的加快，RFRA受到了攻击，保障宗教自由已不受欢迎。由于本届联
邦政府坚决支持宗教信仰自由，战场已转移至各州。现在，一些州政府正试图强迫宗教个
人和组织遵循与他们的宗教不相容的习俗或拥护违背其宗教的观点。
Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the
most serious challenge to religious liberty.
这些对宗教的攻击始于学校。对我来说，这是宗教自由面临的最严重挑战。
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.
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.
对于任何有宗教信仰的人来说，到目前为止，信仰宗教最重要的部分是向我们的孩子传授
该宗教。这是信仰的传递。这是我们能给予孩子的最好的礼物和爱意表达。政府干涉这一
过程是对宗教自由的巨大侵犯。然而，这正是这场战斗的引爆点，世俗主义者正在三条战
线上展开攻击。
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.
第一个方面涉及公立学校课程的内容。许多州正在实行与传统宗教原则不符的课程，而父
母则根据这些课程教育子女。宗教家庭没有退出这些课程的选择。
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，新泽西州最近通过了一项法律，要求公立学校实施LGBT课程，许多人认为这与传统
的基督教教义不一致。加利福尼亚和伊利诺伊州也通过了类似的法律。加利福尼亚州的奥
兰治县教育委员会发表了一项意见，“不同意使用与性别、性别认同、性别表达和性取向
有关的教学材料的父母不能阻止其孩子接受此项教育。”在某些情况下，学校甚至可能不
会告诉家长他们与性行为和性关系有关的争议性主题的课程教学计画。
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.
这使反对世俗正统观念的父母陷入了一个艰难的选择：让孩子接受私立学校或家庭学校的
教育，或者让孩子被灌输他们完全反对的信息。
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.
教育领域的第二个战线是政策，它们使宗教学校无法获得普遍可得的资金，并鼓励学生选
择世俗教育学校。例如，蒙大拿州实施了一项政策，向资助贫困生上私立学校的奖学金项
目捐赠的人可享受税收抵扣。该计画的重点是为父母和学生提供更多的教育选择，并为贫
困青年提供更好的教育。但是，蒙大拿州明确表明该政策不适用于宗教私立学校。而且，
当希望使用奖学金就读无教派基督教学校的学生父母在法庭上对这种排除提出质疑时，蒙
大拿州最高法院却要求该州取消该政策，而不是允许父母将其用于宗教学校教育中。
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.
法院依据蒙大拿州宪法中被称为“布莱恩修正案”的条款来证明这一项目是合理的。“布
莱恩修正案”是在反天主教运动泛滥之时通过的，使宗教机构丧失接受任何直接或间接的
州政府资金支持的资格。此案目前正在最高法院审理，我们在提交的文件中解释了蒙大拿
州的“布莱恩修正案”为何违反了第一修正案。
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.
教育领域对宗教自由的第三种攻击是最近州法律强迫宗教学校遵守世俗正统的行为。例如
，就在这印第安纳州，一位老师起诉印第安纳波利斯的天主教大主教，称其指示其教区内
的天主教学校不能雇用有同性婚姻的老师，因为这些同性婚姻的例子会破坏学校关于天主
教婚姻和两性互补观点的教育。
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.
这起诉讼明显侵犯了大主教教区的第一修正案权利，因为它干涉了大主教教区的表达自由
和教会自治。司法部已向州法院提出了涵盖这些观点的利益声明，我们希望州法院尽快驳
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.
总而言之，这些案例显现出令人不安的景象。我们看到国家使地方公立学校卷入社会争议
，而不考虑学生或其父母的宗教观点。实际上，这些州是在要求当地社区让其公立学校排
斥具有传统宗教价值观的家庭；这些家庭无形之中被告知他们要么顺从，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.
同时，宗教学校也被施加压力，被要求放弃宗教信仰。他们仅仅因为宗教特性，就失去了
资金——选择就读这些学校的学生被告知，只有选择其他学校，他们才可能获得奖学金。
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，当信教者受到侵权威胁时，如果坚持自己的宗教信仰，无疑将面临否认侵权的威胁
。如果这些措施获得成功，那些有宗教信仰的人将变得更加边缘化。
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.
我并不是要表示我们的国家没有道德更新的希望。但我们不能坐视不管，只祈祷钟摆会重
新摆向理智。
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.
作为天主教徒，我们忠于使这个国家伟大的犹太-基督教价值观。我们知道，要促进复兴
，我们必须做的第一件事就是确保在私人生活中践行我们的原则。我们明白，只有改造自
己，才能改造我们之外的世界。这是一项艰巨的工作。我们很难抗拒当代社会的诱惑。这
就是为何我们需要恩典、祷告和教会帮助。
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，我们必须更加重视孩子们的道德教育。教育不是职业培训。它引导我们的孩子
认识到真理的存在，并帮助他们发展辨别和热爱真理的能力，并遵守真理的法则。除非我
们成功地把我们的信仰和价值观充分地传递给下一代，否则我们就不可能有道德的复兴。
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.
时代对此持敌对态度。包括公立学校在内的公共机构正变得世俗化，并越来越积极地提倡
道德相对主义。如果说有必要重振天主教教育（以及更普遍的宗教学校）的话，那就在今
天。我认为我们应该尽我们所能来促进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.
最后，作为法律人，我们应该尤其积极地参与正在法律层面上进行的反对宗教的斗争。我
们必须警惕和抵制世俗化势力将宗教赶出公共领域并侵犯我们信仰自由的企图。
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.
我可以向你们保证，只要我还是司法部长，司法部就将站在这一努力的最前线，随时准备
为我们最珍视的自由而战：根据我们的信仰生活的自由。
Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and
Notre Dame.
谢谢你们今天给我这个机会与你们交流。愿上帝保佑你们和圣母大学。