Truth and Tolerance in America

第1篇第2篇第3篇第4篇第5篇更多顶部

目录

• 第一篇：Truth and Tolerance in America
• 第二篇：Truth and Tolerance in America
• 第三篇：Truth and Tolerance in America
• 第四篇：the Truth and wisdom in poetry《飞鸟集》读后感 英文版
• 第五篇：经济学家读译America and the yuan美国和人民币the Truth hurts真相伤人
• 更多相关范文

正文

第一篇：Truth and Tolerance in America

edward m. kennedy: Truth and Tolerance in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

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 denomination, one fundamentalist group has denounced dr. [jerry] falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for “yoking together with roman catholics, mormons, and others.” i am relieved that dr. falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice. when people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways. for truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.

but in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question -- which is whether and how religion should influence government. a generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical protestants. john kennedy said at that time: “i believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. ronald reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the roundtable in dallas: “ i know that you can’t endorse me. i want you to know i endorse you and what you are doing.”

to many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state. yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command. separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power. the challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.

the founders of our nation had long and bitter 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：Truth and Tolerance in America

edward m. kennedy: Truth and Tolerance in America

thank you very much professor kombay for that generous introduction. and let me say, that i never 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?ˉm 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?ˉs 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?ˉs 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 denomination, one fundamentalist group has denounced dr. [jerry] falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for ?°yoking together with roman catholics, mormons, and others.?± i am relieved that dr. falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice. when people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways. for truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.

but in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question -- which is whether and how religion should influence government. a generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical protestants. john kennedy said at that time: ?°i believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.?± only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. ronald reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the roundtable in dallas: ?° i know that you can?ˉt 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?ˉs ?°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?ˉs 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?ˉt 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?ˉt 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?ˉs moral majority could become tomorrow?ˉs 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?ˉs 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?ˉs 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.

好范文网范文网[chazidian.com]

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?ˉs interest and the justice of israel?ˉs 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?ˉs 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?ˉs 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?ˉs 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?ˉs 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?ˉs finest hour, but i am happy to say that the loudest applause from the harvard audience came in defense of dr. falwell?ˉs 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.

第三篇：Truth and Tolerance in America

《Truth and Tolerance in America》

Truth and Tolerance in America

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.

第四篇：the Truth and wisdom in poetry《飞鸟集》读后感 英文版

the Truth and wisdom in poetry

----“stray birds”

“i think of other ages that floated upon the stream of life and love and death and are forgotten, and i feel the freedom of passing away. “

“do not linger to gather flowers to keep them, but walk on, for flowers will keep themselves blooming all your way.”

“stray birds” is one of rabindranath tagore?s collected poems. it includes about 300 pomes .tagore is an excellent poet and artist. during his life he wrote a lot of works, like “stray birds ?”the crescent moon “”the gardener “”gitanjali “”fruit-gathering “”flying fire “ and so on . most of them have the same theme: love, nature and thinking about lifepoems in “stray birds” are not long, and some of them are just a sentence. the first time you read these pomes, just like in the early summer morning after a storm, and you open the bedroom window, you would feel a pure and peace world. everything is so fresh and beautiful, but the meaning in the poem is so profound that you can?t stop thinking it again and again. day and night, streams and oceans, freedom and betrayal, have become one under tagore's pen. those short sentences show a profound philosophy of life, and lead the world to explore the source of Truth and wisdom.

“once we dreamt that we were strangers. we wake up to find that we were dear to each other.“i do not remember how many times when this text had drifted into my mind there is always a somewhat inexplicable moved. short sentence and few words, from them you can find a really comfort and warm in this boring and noisy world.

from tagore's words, i feel his attitude to love and thinking of love. “you smiled and talked to me of nothing and i felt that for this i had been waiting long. “it shows the deep love .without doubt, tagore's inspiration comes from life, but they are higher than life. i like listen some light music when i read the” stray birds”. just imagine i were a bird, flying in the endless blue sky freely .thanks tagore left us so beautiful and wisdom thought

第五篇：经济学家读译America and the yuan美国和人民币the Truth hurts真相伤人

America and the yuan

美国和人民币

the Truth hurts

真相伤人

will the treasury call china a currency manipulator?

财政部会定义中国为货币操纵国吗？

mar 31st 2014 | washington, dc | from the economist print edition

to most people, to say that china holds down the value of its currency to boost its exports is to state the obvious. not, though, to America’s treasury department. by law it must report twice a year on which countries fiddle their exchange rates at the world’s expense. china was last fingered in 1994. ever since then, the treasury has concluded that thedesignation would do more harm than good. speculation is growing that it may decide differently in its next report, due on april 15th.

对大多数人来说，说中国通过抑制人民币的价值，刺激出口，等于在陈述一个明显的事实。然而对美国财政部来说，却不是这么简单。法律规定它每隔两年对其它国家干涉汇率，危害他国的行为进行汇报。中国曾在1994年列入汇率操纵国。自那时候起，财政部得出结论：罗列中国，更多的是带来坏处。外界猜测财政部可能将在4月15日的报告中推翻原先的结论。

the mood in America resembles that in 2014, when the senate voted to hit china with tariffs of 27.5% and the treasury ratcheted up its rhetoric. china abruptly moved to a managed float for the yuan. it was allowed to appreciate by 20% overthe next three years before a halt was called during the banking panic of 2014.

现在美国的感受类似2014年。那时，参议院投票决定对中国征收27.5%的报复性关税，财政部言辞也咄咄逼人。压力之下，中国突然转而对人民币采用管理的浮动汇率，允许人民币在三年内升值20%。 2014年，这一汇率机制在金融危机的风暴中戛然而止。

china seems more determined to resist pressure this time, though, and can rightly point out that its fiscal stimulus has halved its current-account surplus since 2014. America’s trade deficit with china has edged a bit lower (see chart), though further declines seem unlikely, now that its own recovery is under way.

然而此次，中国似乎更坚定地抵抗美方压力。它据理指出，自2014年来，财政刺激政策使本国的活期储蓄总额减少一半。另外，美国对中国的贸易逆差已小幅缩小(见上图)，然而因为美国的经济复苏正在进行，逆差继续缩小似乎不太可能。

nonetheless, the weight of opinion in America is running heavily against china. unemployment has doubled since 2014 and barack obama wants exports to lead the recovery. that will be harder if china sticks to its export-centric yuan policy.

尽管如此，美国现在有高涨的反华情绪。自2014年来，失业率双倍增长。奥巴马希望通过贸易出口，走向复苏。但如果中国坚持便利出口的人民币政策，奥巴马的愿望会更难实现。

businesses have also become less reliable defenders of china, rankled by measures such as an edict last autumn which, according to American technology companies, virtually shuts them out of chinese government procurement. the hacking attacks on google and the trial of rio tinto executives have hardly helped. “a whole slew of multinationals i’ve talked to are increasingly fed up with how they are being dealt with on micro, industry, product-specific stuff,” says fred bergsten, director of the peterson institute for international economics, a think-tank.

根据美国的科技公司，去年秋天的一个中方法令几乎使它们无法获得中国政府的采购合同。因此，美国企业抱怨不已，越来越不愿维护中国。针对谷歌的黑客攻击以及力拓高管的审判使情况变得更糟。“我谈过的许多跨国公司都表示它们越来越无法忍受在(转载请注明来源www.haOWoRD.COm)微型计算机，工业，规格产品这些领域所受的待遇。”彼得森国际经济研究所（一智库）所长弗雷德?伯格斯坦说道。

charles schumer, a democratic senator, and lindsey graham, a republican, authors of the 2014 china tariff bill that probably pushed china to move, have introduced a variant that would force the treasury to make the designation and then seek redress through the international monetary fund, the world trade organisation, and unilateral duties. one manufacturing-union group has produced maps showing just how many jobs each congressional district and state has lost to china.

曾在2014年起草反华税收法案——很可能正是这个法案促使中国改变——的民主党参议员查尔斯?舒默和共和党参议员林赛?格雷厄姆已提出了一个类似法案，这法案将迫使财政部把中国列入操纵国名单，并且通过国际货币基金组织，世贸组织以及单边提高关税等手段寻求贸易平衡。一个制造业工会绘制了地图，显示了在中国出口的冲击下，美国各地工作岗位的流失情况。

a popular view in washington is that the treasury could call china a manipulator to wrest control of the issue from hotheads in congress. the practical consequences are small: it requires the united states only to consult with theoffending country, something the two already do frequently. it would also fulfil mr obama’s promise to use America’s trade enforcement tools more vigorously. but nicholas lardy, also of the peterson institute, thinks that—far from restraining others—a treasury designation of china as a manipulator would be “like throwing red meat to the congress and enhancingthe possibility they pass a currency bill.”

现在华盛顿流行这么一种观点：财政部可以定义中国为操纵国，以此从国会鲁莽的议员手中

抢回对此问题的主导权。但这样没什么实际的影响：这将要求美国与操纵国进行协商，而两国已经频繁协商。同样，这将实现奥巴马先生提高美国贸易执法机构执法力度的承诺。但是同样来自彼得森研究所的尼古拉斯?拉迪认为罗列中国不但不能限制国会议员插手，反而会刺激国会，加大了国会议员通过一项货币法案的可能性。

the administration’s best hope is that china moves of its own accord before events in congress or elsewhere force a confrontation. tim geithner, the treasury secretary, is surprisingly confident that china will act. sander levin, the usually interventionist-minded chairman of the house ways and means committee which oversees trade matters, advocates multilateral rather than unilateral pressure. so perhaps the administration will give china one last chance and seek a multilateral remedy at the g20 in june. if china still fails to respond, the treasury, by the time of its autumn report, will no longer be able to deny the obvious.

美国政府最希望见到的是在国会或其他机构制造冲突前，中国主动改变。美国财长蒂莫西?盖特纳对中国将会改变充满信心，这着实让人惊讶。监管贸易事务的众议院筹款委员会主席桑德?莱文，一个认为政府应介入贸易的议员，主张进行多边施压，而不是单边施压。据此分析，美国可能此次会放过中国一马，而在今年6月举行的g20会议上寻求多方解决方案。如果中国在那时还没有行动，那么财政部将不能再在秋季出炉的报告中，否认明显的事实。

默认推荐访问其他精彩范文：

helen and Tolerance

my third year in America

three social movements in America

jazz and the essence of America

thellma and louise in china