美国经典英文演讲100篇Truth_and_Tolerance_in_America

第一篇：美国经典英文演讲100篇Truth_and_Tolerance_in_America

美国经典英文演讲100篇: “Truth and Tolerance in America”

Edward M.Kennedy Faith, Truth and Tolerance in America [AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.] Thank you very much Professor Kombay for that generous introduction.And let me say, that I never expected to hear such kind words from Dr.Falwell.So in return, I have an invitation of my own.On January 20th, 1985, I hope Dr.Falwell will say a prayer at the inauguration of the next Democratic President of the United States.Now, Dr.Falwell, I’m not exactly sure how you feel about that.You might not appreciate the President, but the Democrats certainly would appreciate the prayer.Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprised that I was invited to speak here--and even more surprised when I accepted the invitation.They seem to think that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College.In honor of our meeting, I have asked Dr.Falwell, as your Chancellor, to permit all the students an extra hour next Saturday night before curfew.And in return, I have promised to watch the Old Time Gospel Hour next Sunday morning.I realize that my visit may be a little controversial.But as many of you have heard, Dr.Falwell recently sent me a membership in the Moral Majority--and I didn't even apply for it.And I wonder if that means that I'm a member in good standing.[Falwell: Somewhat] Somewhat, he says.This is, of course, a nonpolitical speech which is probably best under the circumstances.Since I am not a candidate for President, it would certainly be inappropriate to ask for your support in this election and probably inaccurate to thank you for it in the last one.I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America.I know we begin with certain disagreements;I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain.But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor.After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbor’s eyes.I am mindful of that counsel.I am an American and a Catholic;I love my country and treasure my faith.But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society.I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it? There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance.For example, because the Moral Majority has worked with members of different denominations, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr.Falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for “yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others.” I am relieved that Dr.Falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice.When people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways.For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question--which is whether and how religion should influence government.A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants.John Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc.Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: “ I know that you can’t endorse me.I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing.”

To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state.Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command.Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power.The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views.In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll--an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews.And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies.Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments.Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, writing into the law that no “popish followers” could hold any office.But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth--for John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratified and then amended, the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of Rights.Indeed the framers themselves professed very different faiths: Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a Calvinist.And although he had earlier opposed toleration, John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington.Thomas Jefferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration of Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”

The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith.They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept.But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk.Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible.As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, “Don’t join the book burners...the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned--or this isn’t America.” And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief.Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation first saw it.In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations.Today there are hundreds--and perhaps even thousands of faiths--and millions of Americans who are outside any fold.Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right;but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to read, and to do.As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, “Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose it.“ The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives.The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree.Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are.In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state.But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience.The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example.It is a moral issue;it will be decided by government, not by each individual;and to give any effect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy.The Catholic bishops and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right to stand for the nuclear freeze, and Dr.Falwell has every right to stand against it.There must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage.But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition.Many of the great evangelists of the 1800s were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement.In our own time, the Reverend William Sloane Coffin challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam.Pope John XXIII renewed the Gospel’s call to social justice.And Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr.who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial segregation.Their words have blessed our world.And who now wishes they had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [II] to quiet his voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry, and those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time? President Kennedy, who said that “no religious body should seek to impose its will,” also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when the public debate involved ethical issues.In drawing the line between imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, and at the same time we recognize that the City of God should speak to the civic duties of men and women.There are four tests which draw that line and define the difference.First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself.People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord.In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice--even slavery--to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor.I believe that the prophecy, ”The poor you have always with you” is an indictment, not a commandment.And I respectfully suggest that God has taken no position on the Department of Education--and that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis, and not heavenly appeals.Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue;but not every public issue involves religious values.And how ironic it is when those very values are denied in the name of religion.For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry, but that mission is an explicit mandate given to us in the 25th chapter of Matthew.Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience.Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith.Just as I disagree with the Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits--which I oppose--so other Catholics can and do disagree with the hierarchy, on the basis of honest conviction, on the question of the nuclear freeze.Thus, the controversy about the Moral Majority arises not only from its views, but from its name--which, in the minds of many, seems to imply that only one set of public policies is moral and only one majority can possibly be right.Similarly, people are and should be perplexed when the religious lobbying group Christian Voice publishes a morality index of congressional voting records, which judges the morality of senators by their attitude toward Zimbabwe and Taiwan.Let me offer another illustration.Dr.Falwell has written--and I quote: “To stand against Israel is to stand against God.” Now there is no one in the Senate who has stood more firmly for Israel than I have.Yet, I do not doubt the faith of those on the other side.Their error is not one of religion, but of policy.And I hope to be able to persuade them that they are wrong in terms of both America’s interest and the justice of Israel’s cause.Respect for conscience is most in jeopardy, and the harmony of our diverse society is most at risk, when we re-establish, directly or indirectly, a religious test for public office.That relic of the colonial era, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, has reappeared in recent years.After the last election, the Reverend James Robison warned President Reagan no to surround himself, as president before him had, “with the counsel of the ungodly.” I utterly reject any such standard for any position anywhere in public service.Two centuries ago, the victims were Catholics and Jews.In the 1980s the victims could be atheists;in some other day or decade, they could be the members of the Thomas Road Baptist Church.Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it as unworthy and un-American when some people said or hinted that Jimmy Carter should not be president because he was a born again Christian.We must never judge the fitness of individuals to govern on the bas[is] of where they worship, whether they follow Christ or Moses, whether they are called “born again” or “ungodly.” Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all of us avoid the temptation to be self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves.And if that temptation ever comes, let us recall Winston Churchill’s humbling description of an intolerant and inflexible colleague: “There but for the grace of God goes God.”

Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts.Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons.They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war.I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it.What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral--with equal restraints on the United States and the Soviet Union.The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and effective verification.The nuclear freeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power already have in their fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which God has made.There is no morality in the mushroom cloud.The black rain of nuclear ashes will fall alike on the just and the unjust.And then it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this atomic age--which is to seek a world that is neither red nor dead.I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy grounds, or moral ones.But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges.They only deflect us form the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from becoming a planet destroyed.And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms race is more divine punishment than human problem, or that in any event, the final days are near.As Pope John said two decades ago, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “We must beware of those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense...we must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disasters, as though the end of the earth was at hand.” The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth is still here;and if we wish to keep it, a prophecy of doom is no alternative to a policy of arms control.Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.We sorely test our ability to live together if we readily question each other’s integrity.It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being.But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not “antifamily” or “blasphemers.” And their purpose is not “an attack on the Bible.” Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal.Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R.A., would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family.For my part, I think of the amendment’s opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral character I could multiply the instances of name-calling, sometimes on both sides.Dr.Falwell is not a “warmonger.” And “liberal clergymen” are not, as the Moral Majority suggested in a recent letter, equivalent to “Soviet sympathizers.” The critics of official prayer in public schools are not “Pharisees”;many of them are both civil libertarians and believers, who think that families should pray more at home with their children, and attend church and synagogue more faithfully.And people are not sexist because they stand against abortion, and they are not murderers because they believe in free choice.Nor does it help anyone’s cause to shout such epithets, or to try and shout a speaker down--which is what happened last April when Dr.Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard.So I am doubly grateful for your courtesy here this evening.That was not Harvard’s finest hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applause from the Harvard audience came in defense of Dr.Falwell’s right to speak.In short, I hope for an America where neither ”fundamentalist“ nor ”humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of good will look at life and into their own souls.I hope for an America where no president, no public official, no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesser American because of religious doubt--or religious belief.I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.Twenty years ago this fall, in New York City, President Kennedy met for the last time with a Protestant assembly.The atmosphere had been transformed since his earlier address during the 1960 campaign to the Houston Ministerial Association.He had spoken there to allay suspicions about his Catholicism, and to answer those who claimed that on the day of his baptism, he was somehow disqualified from becoming President.His speech in Houston and then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our national life.Now, three years later, in November of 1963, he was appearing before the Protestant Council of New York City to reaffirm what he regarded as some fundamental truths.On that occasion, John Kennedy said: “The family of man is not limited to a single race or religion, to a single city, or country...the family of man is nearly 3 billion strong.Most of its members are not white and most of them are not Christian.” And as President Kennedy reflected on that reality, he restated an ideal for which he had lived his life--that “the members of this family should be at peace with one another.” That ideal shines across all the generations of our history and all the ages of our faith, carrying with it the most ancient dream.For as the Apostle Paul wrote long ago in Romans: “If it be possible, as much as it lieth in you, live peaceable with all men.” I believe it is possible;the choice lies within us;as fellow citizens, let us live peaceable with each other;as fellow human beings, let us strive to live peaceably with men and women everywhere.Let that be our purpose and our prayer, yours and mine--for ourselves, for our country, and for all the world.

第二篇：美国经典英文演讲100篇Truth_and_Tolerance_in_America

美国经典英文演讲100篇: “Truth and Tolerance in America”

Edward M.Kennedy Faith, Truth and Tolerance in America.Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprised that I was invited to speak here--and even more surprised when I accepted the invitation.They seem to think that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College.In honor of our meeting, I have asked Dr.Falwell, as your Chancellor, to permit all the students an extra hour next Saturday night before curfew.And in return, I have promised to watch the Old Time Gospel Hour next Sunday morning.I realize that my visit may be a little controversial.But as many of you have heard, Dr.Falwell recently sent me a membership in the Moral Majority--and I didn't even apply for it.And I wonder if that means that I'm a member in good standing.[Falwell: Somewhat] Somewhat, he says.This is, of course, a nonpolitical speech which is probably best under the circumstances.Since I am not a candidate for President, it would certainly be inappropriate to ask for your support in this election and probably inaccurate to thank you for it in the last one.I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America.I know we begin with certain disagreements;I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain.But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of

perspective and a sense of humor.After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbor’s eyes.I am mindful of that counsel.I am an American and a Catholic;I love my country and treasure my faith.But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society.I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it? There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance.For example, because the Moral Majority has worked with members of different denominations, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr.Falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for “yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others.” I am relieved that Dr.Falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice.When people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways.For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question--which is whether and how religion should influence government.A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants.John Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc.Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: “ I know that you can’t endorse me.I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing.”

To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state.Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command.Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power.The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views.In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll--an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews.And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies.Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments.Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, writing into the law that no “popish followers” could hold any office.But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth--for John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratified and then amended, the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of Rights.Indeed the framers themselves professed very different faiths: Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a Calvinist.And although he had earlier opposed toleration, John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington.Thomas Jefferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration of Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”

The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith.They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept.But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk.Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible.As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, “Don’t join the book burners...the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned--or this isn’t America.” And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief.Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation first saw it.In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations.Today there are hundreds--and perhaps even thousands of faiths--and millions of Americans who are outside any fold.Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right;but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to read, and to do.As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, “Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose it.“ The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives.The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree.Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are.In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state.But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where

religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience.The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example.It is a moral issue;it will be decided by government, not by each individual;and to give any effect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy.The Catholic bishops and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right to stand for the nuclear freeze, and Dr.Falwell has every right to stand against it.There must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage.But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition.Many of the great evangelists of the 1800s were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement.In our own time, the Reverend William Sloane Coffin challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam.Pope John XXIII renewed the Gospel’s call to social justice.And Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr.who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial segregation.Their words have blessed our world.And who now wishes they had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [II] to quiet his voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry, and those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time? President Kennedy, who said that “no religious body should seek to impose its will,” also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when the public debate involved ethical issues.In drawing the line between imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, and at the same time we recognize that the City of God should speak to the civic duties of men and women.There are four tests which draw that line and define the difference.First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself.People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord.In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice--even slavery--to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor.I believe that the prophecy, ”The poor you have always with you” is an indictment, not a commandment.And I respectfully suggest that God has taken no position on the Department of Education--and that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis, and not heavenly appeals.Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue;but not every public issue involves religious values.And how ironic it is when those very values are denied in the name of religion.For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry, but that mission is an explicit mandate given to us in the 25th chapter of Matthew.Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience.Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith.Just as I disagree with the Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits--which I oppose--so other Catholics can and do disagree with the hierarchy, on the basis of honest conviction, on the question of the nuclear freeze.Thus, the controversy about the Moral Majority arises not only from its views, but from its name--which, in the minds of many, seems to imply that only one set of public policies is moral and only one majority can possibly be right.Similarly, people are and should be perplexed when the religious lobbying group Christian Voice publishes a morality index of congressional voting records, which judges the morality of senators by their attitude toward Zimbabwe and Taiwan.Let me offer another illustration.Dr.Falwell has written--and I quote: “To stand against Israel is to stand against God.” Now

there is no one in the Senate who has stood more firmly for Israel than I have.Yet, I do not doubt the faith of those on the other side.Their error is not one of religion, but of policy.And I hope to be able to persuade them that they are wrong in terms of both America’s interest and the justice of Israel’s cause.Respect for conscience is most in jeopardy, and the harmony of our diverse society is most at risk, when we re-establish, directly or indirectly, a religious test for public office.That relic of the colonial era, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, has reappeared in recent years.After the last election, the Reverend James Robison warned President Reagan no to surround himself, as president before him had, “with the counsel of the ungodly.” I utterly reject any such standard for any position anywhere in public service.Two centuries ago, the victims were Catholics and Jews.In the 1980s the victims could be atheists;in some other day or decade, they could be the members of the Thomas Road Baptist Church.Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it as unworthy and un-American when some people said or hinted that Jimmy Carter should not be president because he was a born again Christian.We must never judge the fitness of individuals to govern on the bas[is] of where they worship, whether they follow Christ or Moses, whether they are called “born again” or “ungodly.” Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all of us avoid the temptation to be self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves.And if that temptation ever comes, let us recall Winston Churchill’s humbling description of an intolerant and inflexible colleague: “There but for the grace of God goes God.”

Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts.Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons.They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war.I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the

standard of fair public debate to say it.What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral--with equal restraints on the United States and the Soviet Union.The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and effective verification.The nuclear freeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power already have in their fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which God has made.There is no morality in the mushroom cloud.The black rain of nuclear ashes will fall alike on the just and the unjust.And then it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this atomic age--which is to seek a world that is neither red nor dead.I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy grounds, or moral ones.But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges.They only deflect us form the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from becoming a planet destroyed.And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms race is more divine punishment than human problem, or that in any event, the final days are near.As Pope John said two decades ago, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “We must beware of those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense...we must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disasters, as though the end of the earth was at hand.” The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth is still here;and if we wish to keep it, a prophecy of doom is no alternative to a policy of arms control.Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.We sorely test our ability to live together if we readily question each other’s integrity.It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being.But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not “antifamily” or “blasphemers.” And their purpose is not “an attack on the Bible.” Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal.Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R.A., would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family.For my part, I think of the amendment’s opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral character I could multiply the instances of name-calling, sometimes on both sides.Dr.Falwell is not a “warmonger.” And “liberal clergymen” are not, as the Moral Majority suggested in a recent letter, equivalent to “Soviet sympathizers.” The critics of official prayer in public schools are not “Pharisees”;many of them are both civil libertarians and believers, who think that families should pray more at home with their children, and attend church and synagogue more faithfully.And people are not sexist because they stand against abortion, and they are not murderers because they believe in free choice.Nor does it help anyone’s cause to shout such epithets, or to try and shout a speaker down--which is what happened last April when Dr.Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard.So I am doubly grateful for your courtesy here this evening.That was not Harvard’s finest hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applause from the Harvard audience came in defense of Dr.Falwell’s right to speak.In short, I hope for an America where neither ”fundamentalist“ nor ”humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of good will look at life and into their own souls.I hope for an America where no president, no public official, no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesser American because of religious doubt--or religious belief.I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.Twenty years ago this fall, in New York City, President Kennedy met for the last time with a Protestant assembly.The atmosphere had been transformed since his earlier address during the 1960 campaign to the Houston Ministerial Association.He had spoken there to allay suspicions about his Catholicism, and to answer those who claimed that on the day of his baptism, he was somehow disqualified from becoming President.His speech in Houston and then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our national life.Now, three years later, in November of 1963, he was appearing before the Protestant Council of New York City to reaffirm what he regarded as some fundamental truths.On that occasion, John Kennedy said: “The family of man is not limited to a single race or religion, to a single city, or country...the family of man is nearly 3 billion strong.Most of its members are not white and most of them are not Christian.” And as President Kennedy reflected on that reality, he restated an ideal for which he had lived his life--that “the members of this family should be at peace with one another.”

That ideal shines across all the generations of our history and all the ages of our faith, carrying with it the most ancient dream.For as the Apostle Paul wrote long ago in Romans: “If it be possible, as much as it lieth in you, live peaceable with all men.” I believe it is possible;the choice lies within us;as fellow citizens, let us live peaceable with each other;as fellow human

第三篇：美国经典英文演讲一百篇

美国20世纪经典英语演讲100篇（MP3+文本）





 · · · ·









 · · · · ·

















 · · · · · · · · ·





 · · ·











 · · · · · ·









 · · · · ·



 · ·



 · ·









 · · · · · 











 · · · · · · ·



 · ·





 · · ·

 ·

       · · · · · · ·

第四篇：美国经典英文演讲100篇

美国经典英文演讲100篇:Brandenburg Gate Address

时间:2008-6-12 10:19:20 来源:本站原创

作者:echo

(女宇航员选拔标准 | 招聘英语编辑)

进入MP3下载页面

下载到我的手机(下载播放软件 | 如不能播放请点击此处)

Ronald Reagan

Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate

delivered 12 June 1987, West Berlin

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.(2)]

Thank you.Thank you, very much.Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty four years ago, President John F.Kennedy visited Berlin, and speaking to the people of this city and the world at the city hall.Well since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn to Berlin.And today, I, myself, make my second visit to your city.We come to Berlin, we American Presidents, because it's our duty to speak in this place of freedom.But I must confess, we’re drawn here by other things as well;by the feeling of history in this city--more than 500 years older than our own nation;by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten;most of all, by your courage and determination.Perhaps the composer, Paul Linke, understood something about American Presidents.You see, like so many Presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: “Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin” [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]

Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America.I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East.To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, I extend my warmest greetings and the good will of the American people.To those listening in East Berlin, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me.For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin.[There is only one Berlin.]

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe.From the Baltic South, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers.Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall.But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state.Yet, it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly;here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world.Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German separated from his fellow men.Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.President Von Weizsäcker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Well today--today I say: As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.Yet, I do not come here to lament.For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation.Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help.And in 1947 Secretary of State--as you've been told--George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan.Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: “Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.”

In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.I was struck by a sign--the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt.I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city.The sign read simply: “The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world.” A strong, free world in the West--that dream became real.Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant.Italy, France, Belgium--virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth;the European Community was founded.In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder.Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty--that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom.The German leaders--the German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes.From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany: busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland.Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums.Where there was want, today there's abundance--food, clothing, automobiles--the wonderful goods of the Kudamm.¹ From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth.Now the Soviets may have had other plans.But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on: Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze.[Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.²]

In the 1950s--In the 1950s Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.”

But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history.In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food.Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself.After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity.Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace.Freedom is the victor.And now--now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom.We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness.Some political prisoners have been released.Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed.Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness;for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty--the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.Mr.Gorbachev, open this gate.Mr.Gorbachev--Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent, and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens.To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion.So, we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength.Yet we seek peace;so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles capable of striking every capital in Europe.The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment(unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution)--namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides.For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness.As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days, days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city;and the Soviets later walked away from the table.But through it all, the alliance held firm.And I invite those who protested then--I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table.Because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons.At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons.And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur.And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative--research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend;on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them.By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world.But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed;we are armed because we mistrust each other.And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty.When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled;Berlin was under siege.And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty.And freedom itself is transforming the globe.In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth.Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth.In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place, a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom.Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete.Today, thus, represents a moment of hope.We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safer, freer world.And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start.Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971.Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future.Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.And I invite Mr.Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world.To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical.We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.With--With our French--With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin.It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control, or other issues that call for international cooperation.There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East.Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same.And it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea--South Korea--has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North.International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city.And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West.In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city.You've done so in spite of threats--the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade.Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall.What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage.But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life--not mere sentiment.No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions.Something, instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence, that refuses to release human energies or aspirations, something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says “yes” to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom.In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin--is “love.”

Love both profound and abiding.Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West.The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship.The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront.Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz.Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw: treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind.Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere, that sphere that towers over all Berlin, the light makes the sign of the cross.There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner(quote):

“This wall will fall.Beliefs become reality.”

Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall, for it cannot withstand faith;it cannot withstand truth.The wall cannot withstand freedom.And I would like, before I close, to say one word.I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming.And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so.I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.Thank you and God bless you all.Thank you.美国经典英文演讲100篇:Oklahoma Bombing Memorial Address

时间:2008-6-12 10:19:08 来源:本站原创

作者:echo

(女宇航员选拔标准 | 招聘英语编辑)

进入MP3下载页面

下载到我的手机(下载播放软件 | 如不能播放请点击此处)

William Jefferson Clinton

Oklahoma Bombing Memorial Prayer Service Address

delivered 23 April 1995 in Oklahoma City, OK

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.(2)]

Thank you very much, Governor Keating and Mrs.Keating, Reverend Graham, to the families of those who have been lost and wounded, to the people of Oklahoma City, who have endured so much, and the people of this wonderful state, to all of you who are here as our fellow Americans.I am honored to be here today to represent the American people.But I have to tell you that Hillary and I also come as parents, as husband and wife, as people who were your neighbors for some of the best years of our lives.Today our nation joins with you in grief.We mourn with you.We share your hope against hope that some may still survive.We thank all those who have worked so heroically to save lives and to solve this crime--those here in Oklahoma and those who are all across this great land, and many who left their own lives to come here to work hand in hand with you.We pledge to do all we can to help you heal the injured, to rebuild this city, and to bring to justice those who did this evil.This terrible sin took the lives of our American family, innocent children in that building, only because their parents were trying to be good parents as well as good workers;citizens in the building going about their daily business;and many there who served the rest of us--who worked to help the elderly and the disabled, who worked to support our farmers and our veterans, who worked to enforce our laws and to protect us.Let us say clearly, they served us well, and we are grateful.But for so many of you they were also neighbors and friends.You saw them at church or the PTA meetings, at the civic clubs, at the ball park.You know them in ways that all the rest of America could not.And to all the members of the families here present who have suffered loss, though we share your grief, your pain is unimaginable, and we know that.We cannot undo it.That is God's work.Our words seem small beside the loss you have endured.But I found a few I wanted to share today.I've received a lot of letters in these last terrible days.One stood out because it came from a young widow and a mother of three whose own husband was murdered with over 200 other Americans when Pan Am 103 was shot down.Here is what that woman said I should say to you today:

The anger you feel is valid, but you must not allow yourselves to be consumed by it.The hurt you feel must not be allowed to turn into hate, but instead into the search for justice.The loss you feel must not paralyze your own lives.Instead, you must try to pay tribute to your loved ones by continuing to do all the things they left undone, thus ensuring they did not die in vain.Wise words from one who also knows.You have lost too much, but you have not lost everything.And you have certainly not lost America, for we will stand with you for as many tomorrows as it takes.If ever we needed evidence of that, I could only recall the words of Governor and Mrs.Keating: “If anybody thinks that Americans are mostly mean and selfish, they ought to come to Oklahoma.If anybody thinks Americans have lost the capacity for love and caring and courage, they ought to come to Oklahoma.”

To all my fellow Americans beyond this hall, I say, one thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to purge ourselves of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil.They are forces that threaten our common peace, our freedom, our way of life.Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness: Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind.¹ Justice will prevail.Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear.When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it.When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it.In the face of death, let us honor life.As St.Paul admonished us, Let us “not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”²

Yesterday, Hillary and I had the privilege of speaking with some children of other federal employees--children like those who were lost here.And one little girl said something we will never forget.She said, “We should all plant a tree in memory of the children.” So this morning before we got on the plane to come here, at the White House, we planted that tree in honor of the children of Oklahoma.It was a dogwood with its wonderful spring flower and its deep, enduring roots.It embodies the lesson of the Psalms--that the life of a good person is like a tree whose leaf does not wither.³

My fellow Americans, a tree takes a long time to grow, and wounds take a long time to heal.But we must begin.Those who are lost now belong to God.Some day we will be with them.But until that happens, their legacy must be our lives.Thank you all, and God bless you.

第五篇：美国经典英文演讲100篇A Crisis of Confidence

美国经典英文演讲100篇:“A Crisis of Confidence”

Jimmy Carter

Energy and the National Goals-A Crisis of Confidence

delivered 15 July, 1979

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.] Good Evening: This a special night for me.Exactly three years ago, on July 15, 1976, I accepted the nomination of my party to run for President of the United States.I promised you a President who is not isolated from the people, who feels your pain, and who shares your dreams, and who draws his strength and his wisdom from you.During the past three years I’ve spoken to you on many occasions about national concerns, the energy crisis, reorganizing the government, our nation’s economy, and issues of war and especially peace.But over those years the subjects of the speeches, the talks, and the press conferences have become increasingly narrow, focused more and more on what the isolated world of Washington thinks is important.Gradually, you’ve heard more and more about what the government thinks or what the government should be doing and less and less about our nation’s hopes, our dreams, and our vision of the future.Ten days ago, I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject--energy.For the fifth time I would have described the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress.But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you: Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem? It’s clear that the true problems of our nation are much deeper--deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation or recession.And I realize more than ever that as President I need your help.So, I decided to reach out and to listen to the voices of America.I invited to Camp David people from almost every segment of our society--business and labor, teachers and preachers, governors, mayors, and private citizens.And then I left Camp David to listen to other Americans, men and women like you.It has been an extraordinary ten days, and I want to share with you what I’ve heard.First of all, I got a lot of personal advice.Let me quote a few of the typical comments that I wrote down.This from a southern governor: “Mr.President, you are not leading this nation--you’re just managing the government.” “You don’t see the people enough anymore.”

“Some of your Cabinet members don’t seem loyal.There is not enough discipline among your disciples.”

“Don’t talk to us about politics or the mechanics of government, but about an understanding of our common good.”

“Mr.President, we’re in trouble.Talk to us about blood and sweat and tears.”

“If you lead, Mr.President, we will follow.”

Many people talked about themselves and about the condition of our nation.This from a young woman in Pennsylvania: “I feel so far from government.I feel like ordinary people are excluded from political power.”

And this from a young Chicano: “Some of us have suffered from recession all our lives.”

“Some people have wasted energy, but others haven’t had anything to waste.”

And this from a religious leader: “No material shortage can touch the important things like God’s love for us or our love for one another.” And I like this one particularly from a black woman who happens to be the mayor of a small Mississippi town: “The big shots are not the only ones who are important.Remember, you can’t sell anything on Wall Street unless someone digs it up somewhere else first.”

This kind of summarized a lot of other statements: “Mr.President, we are confronted with a moral and a spiritual crisis.”

Several of our discussions were on energy, and I have a notebook full of comments and advice.I’ll read just a few.“We can’t go on consuming forty percent more energy then we produce.When we import oil we are also importing inflation plus unemployment.”

“We’ve got to use what we have.The Middle East has only five percent of the world’s energy, but the United States has twenty-four percent.” And this is one of the most vivid statements: “Our neck is stretched over the fence and OPEC has a knife.”

“There will be other cartels and other shortages.American wisdom and courage right now can set a path to follow in the future.” This was a good one: “Be bold, Mr.President.We may make mistakes, but we are ready to experiment.”

And this one from a labor leader got to the heart of it: “The real issue is freedom.We must deal with the energy problem on a war footing.” And the last that I’ll read: “When we enter the moral equivalent of war, Mr.President, don’t issue us BB guns.”

These ten days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my longstanding concerns about our nation’s underlying problems.I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important.That’s why I’ve worked hard to put my campaign promises into law, and I have to admit, with just mixed success.But after listening to the American people, I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America.So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation.I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.I do not mean our political and civil liberties.They will endure.And I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might.The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways.It is a crisis of confidence.It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the Fourth of July.It is the idea which founded our nation and has guided our development as a people.Confidence in the future has supported everything else--public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and the very Constitution of the United States.Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations.We’ve always believed in something called progress.We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own.Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy.As a people we know our past and we are proud of it.Our progress has been part of the living history of America, even the world.We always believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called democracy, involved in the search for freedom;and that belief has always strengthened us in our purpose.But just as we are losing our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past.In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning.We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us.For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years.Two-thirds of our people do not even vote.The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions.This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.These changes did not happen overnight.They’ve come upon us gradually over the last generation, years that were filled with shocks and tragedy.[NextPage] We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam.We respected the Presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.We remember when the phrase “sound as a dollar” was an expression of absolute dependability, until ten years of inflation began to shrink our dollar and our savings.We believed that our nation’s resources were limitless until 1973 when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil.These wounds are still very deep.They have never been healed.Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our nation’s life.Washington, D.C., has become an island.The gap between our citizens and our government has never been so wide.The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers;clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action.You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests.You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another.You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift.You don’t like it, and neither do I.What can we do? First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course.We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this nation.Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face.It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.One of the visitors to Camp David last week put it this way: “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying.The strength we need will not come from the White House, but from every house in America.”

We know the strength of America.We are strong.We can regain our unity.We can regain our confidence.We are the heirs of generations who survived threats much more powerful and awesome than those that challenge us now.Our fathers and mothers were strong men and women who shaped a new society during the Great Depression, who fought world wars and who carved out a new charter of peace for the world.We ourselves are the same Americans who just ten years ago put a man on the moon.We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality.And we are the generation that will win the war on the energy problem and in that process, rebuild the unity and confidence of America.We are at a turning point in our history.There are two paths to choose.One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest.Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others.That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility.It is a certain route to failure.6 All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path--the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values.That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves.We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally.On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.In little more than two decades we’ve gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof.Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people.This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline.It’s a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face.This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation.The energy crisis is real.It is worldwide.It is a clear and present danger to our nation.These are facts and we simply must face them.What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States.Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977--never.From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation.The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade--a saving of over four and a half million barrels of imported oil per day.Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas.I’m announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow.These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel--from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace two and a half million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990.The corporation will issue up to five billion dollars in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so average Americans can invest directly in America’s energy security.Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war.Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank which will help us achieve the crucial goal of twenty percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay.It will be money well spent.Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans, to Americans.These will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.Point four: I’m asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation’s utility companies cut their massive use of oil by fifty percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.We will protect our environment.But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.Point six: I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle.This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing.To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra ten billion dollars over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems.And I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel.Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense, I tell you it is an act of patriotism.Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices.We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice.In fact, it is the most painless and immediate ways of rebuilding our nation’s strength.Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production.It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country.It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.You know we can do it.We have the natural resources.We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias.We have more coal than any nation on earth.We have the world’s highest level of technology.We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy.I do not promise a quick way out of our nation’s problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort.What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty.And above all, I will act.We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively, and we will;but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems.There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to explain further our energy program.Just as the search for solutions to our energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our nation’s deeper problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America.You can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980s.I will listen;and I will act.We will act together.These were the promises I made three years ago, and I intend to keep them.Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence.We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science.But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources--America’s people, America’s values, and America’s confidence.I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people.In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation.In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone.Let your voice be heard.Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country.With God’s help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America.Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit.Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.Thank you and good night.