以下是為大家整理的《英文演講翻譯：休斯敦部長級協(xié)會演講》的文章，供大家參考
John F. Kennedy: Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
delivered 12 September 1960 at the Rice Hotel in Houston, TX
Video Stream of Address
Audio mp3 of Address
Audio mp3 Stream of Address
Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 campaign; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only 90 miles from the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again -- a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it -- its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him1 as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a divided loyalty, that we did not believe in liberty, or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened -- I quote -- "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches -- when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself. And instead of doing this, do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here. And always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed Church-State separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you?
But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the State being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution, at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland, and the independence of such statesmen as De Gaulle and Adenauer.
But let me stress again that these are my views.
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.
But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God.
交付1960年9月12日在德克薩斯州休斯頓的萊斯酒店
視頻流地址
音頻MP3地址
音頻MP3流地址
牧師梅薩，Reck的牧師，我很感謝你的盛情邀請，我的意見。
雖然所謂的宗教問題，是必要和正確的主要話題，今晚在這里，我要強調(diào)從一開始，我認為我們有更為關鍵的問題在1960年競選中，共產(chǎn)主義影響的蔓延，直到它現(xiàn)在只潰爛佛羅里達州海岸90英里 - 有辱人格的待遇，我們的總統(tǒng)和副總統(tǒng)不再尊重我們的權力 - 我看見饑餓的孩子們在西弗吉尼亞州，老人們誰可以不支付他們的醫(yī)藥費，家屬被迫放棄自己的農(nóng)場 - 美國有太多的貧民窟，與學校太少，太晚了月球和外層空間。這些才是真正的問題應該決定這項運動。他們不是宗教問題 - 戰(zhàn)爭和饑餓，無知和絕望不知道宗教屏障。
但是，因為我是一個天主教徒，沒有天主教曾經(jīng)被當選總統(tǒng)，真正的問題在這次競選中被遮蔽了 - 也許是故意，在某些方面比這少負責。因此，它顯然是必要的，我再次申明 - 不是什么樣的教堂，我相信我應該是很重要的 - 但什么樣的美國，我相信的。
我相信，在美國，教會與國家的分離，是絕對沒有天主教主教會告訴總統(tǒng) - 他應該是天主教 - 如何行動，并沒有新教牧師會告訴他的教民為誰投票，如無教會或教會學校被授予任何公共資金或政治傾向，沒有一個人拒絕，僅僅是因為他的宗教不同于總統(tǒng)可能任命他的人，可能會選他的人誰公職。
我相信在美國正式既不是天主教，基督教也不*;沒有公職人員在請求或接受指示公共政策教皇，全國教會理事會或任何其他教會源;沒有宗教機構尋求強加其將直接或間接地后，一般民眾或官員的公共行為，和宗教的自由是不可分割的，對一個教會的行為將被視為對所有的行為。
而今年它可能是一個天主教反對誰懷疑的手指指出，在其他年份，它一直是 - 也許有一天 - 一個*人，或貴格會教徒，或一神論，或一浸再。這是弗吉尼亞州的浸信會傳道人的騷擾，例如，導致杰斐遜的宗教自由法規(guī)。今天，我可能是受害者，但明天就有可能是你 - 直到我們和諧社會的整個織物在偉大的民族危亡的時候被撕開。
最后，我相信在美國宗教不容忍總有一天會結束，所有的男人和所有的教會都視為平等，每個人都有同樣的權利，參加或不參加他所選擇的教堂，那里是沒有天主教徒的選票，沒有反天主教的票，沒有任何形式的集體投票，天主教徒，新教徒和*人，在裁員和田園水平，將避免那些不屑和分裂的態(tài)度，所以常常破壞了自己的作品在過去，和促進，而不是美國的兄弟情誼的理想選擇。
這是我相信美國的那種。它代表了什么樣的總統(tǒng)，我相信，一個偉大的辦公室必須既不貶低任何宗教組儀器，也不玷污任意隱瞞 - 從任何一個宗教組的成員入住。我相信在總統(tǒng)的宗教觀是自己的私事，既不強加給他的國家，也不是由國家征收后him1擔任該職位的條件。
我不會看一個總統(tǒng)后致力于*第一修正案保障宗教自由與青睞，我們的系統(tǒng)的制衡也不會允許他這樣做。，也不看我贊成后，那些人將努力*憲法第六條需要宗教的測試，即使是間接的。如果他們不同意與保障，他們應該是公開廢除它。
我希望有一個行政長官，其公益行為負責，沒有誰可以出席任何儀式，服務或晚餐，他的辦公室可以適當要求他履行和履行他的總統(tǒng)辦公室負責不限制或制約任何宗教宣誓儀式，或義務。
這是我相信，在美國的那種 - 這是美國的那種我爭取在南太平洋，和我哥哥死了的那種，在歐洲。然后，沒有人建議，我們可能有一個分裂的忠誠度，我們不相信自由，我們屬于一個不忠誠的威脅 - 我引述 - “死了我們的祖先們的自由?！?BR> 而事實上，這是美國的那種，我們的祖先沒有死亡，當他們逃到了這里，為逃避宗教測試宣誓否認辦公室欠教堂青睞的成員 - 為了爭取憲法，人權法案，弗吉尼亞規(guī)約宗教自由 - 當他們戰(zhàn)斗在神社我參觀了今天，阿拉莫。死亡由Bowie和克羅克特側側富恩特斯，麥卡弗蒂，和貝利，巴迪洛，凱里 - 但沒有人知道他們是否是天主教徒或不。因為在那里有沒有宗教的測試。
我問你今晚遵循了這一傳統(tǒng) - 在國會14年的基礎上，來判斷我，我宣布看臺上對駐梵蒂岡大使，，反對違憲援助教會學校，并反對任何抵制公立學校 - 這是我自己參加。而不是這樣做，不判斷我這些小冊子和刊物的基礎上，我們都已經(jīng)看到了，慎重選擇報價斷章取義的天主教教會領袖的聲明，通常在其他國家，經(jīng)常在其他幾個世紀以來，很少有關到這里任何情況?？偸鞘÷裕斎?，在1948年的美國主教表強烈贊同政教分離，這更接近反映的意見，幾乎每一個美國天主教。
我不考慮這些報價后，我的公益行為具有約束力。你為什么要呢？
但讓我說，相對于其他國家，我完全反對國家正在使用的任何宗教，天主教或新教，強迫，禁止，或起訴其他任何宗教的自由練習。去任何迫害，在任何時間，任何人，在任何一個國家。我希望你和我同樣的熱情與譴責那些否認他們的總統(tǒng)的新教徒，和那些否認它天主教徒的國家。而非引用那些不同的劣跡，我也舉的天主教教會在法國和愛爾蘭等國家的記錄，這樣的政治家戴高樂和阿登納的獨立性。
但是，讓我再次強調(diào)，這是我的看法。
對于常見的報紙使用相反，我不是天主教的總統(tǒng)候選人。
我剛巧是一個天主教民主黨的總統(tǒng)候選人。
我不說我的教會公共事務和教會不為我說話。節(jié)育任何問題可能來到我面前，如果我應該當選，作為總統(tǒng)，離婚，審查，賭博或其他任何主題，我會做出我的決定根據(jù)這些意見 - 按照我的良心告訴我國家利益，沒有考慮到外面的宗教壓力使然。沒有權力或懲罰的威脅，可能會導致我另有決定。
但是，如果時間應該來了 - 我不承認任何沖突遠程可能 - 當我的辦會要求我要么違背我的良心，或違反國家利益，那么我會辭職的辦公室和我希望的任何同樣會做認真的公仆。
但我不打算道歉的這些意見，批評我的人，無論是天主教或新教的信仰;我也不打算否認我的觀點或我的教會為了贏得這場選舉。
如果我失去了真正的問題，我將返回我在參議院的席位，滿意，我會盡我所能，公平判斷。
但是，如果這次選舉決定的基礎上，4000萬美國人失去了他們的總統(tǒng)一天，他們被受洗的機會，那么，這將是失敗者，在世界各地的天主教徒和非天主教徒的眼中，它是整個國家，在眼前的歷史，在我們自己的人民的眼睛。
但是，另一方面，我應該贏得這場選舉，那么我將全心全力履行總統(tǒng)的誓言 - 幾乎相同的思想和精神，我可能會添加的誓言，我已經(jīng)14年，國會。對于毫無保留的，我可以“，鄭重宣誓，我將忠實執(zhí)行美國總統(tǒng)的辦公室，并會盡我的能力，保存，保護和捍衛(wèi)憲法 - 請上帝幫我。
John F. Kennedy: Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
delivered 12 September 1960 at the Rice Hotel in Houston, TX
Video Stream of Address
Audio mp3 of Address
Audio mp3 Stream of Address
Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 campaign; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only 90 miles from the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again -- a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it -- its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him1 as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a divided loyalty, that we did not believe in liberty, or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened -- I quote -- "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches -- when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself. And instead of doing this, do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here. And always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed Church-State separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you?
But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the State being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution, at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland, and the independence of such statesmen as De Gaulle and Adenauer.
But let me stress again that these are my views.
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.
But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God.
交付1960年9月12日在德克薩斯州休斯頓的萊斯酒店
視頻流地址
音頻MP3地址
音頻MP3流地址
牧師梅薩，Reck的牧師，我很感謝你的盛情邀請，我的意見。
雖然所謂的宗教問題，是必要和正確的主要話題，今晚在這里，我要強調(diào)從一開始，我認為我們有更為關鍵的問題在1960年競選中，共產(chǎn)主義影響的蔓延，直到它現(xiàn)在只潰爛佛羅里達州海岸90英里 - 有辱人格的待遇，我們的總統(tǒng)和副總統(tǒng)不再尊重我們的權力 - 我看見饑餓的孩子們在西弗吉尼亞州，老人們誰可以不支付他們的醫(yī)藥費，家屬被迫放棄自己的農(nóng)場 - 美國有太多的貧民窟，與學校太少，太晚了月球和外層空間。這些才是真正的問題應該決定這項運動。他們不是宗教問題 - 戰(zhàn)爭和饑餓，無知和絕望不知道宗教屏障。
但是，因為我是一個天主教徒，沒有天主教曾經(jīng)被當選總統(tǒng)，真正的問題在這次競選中被遮蔽了 - 也許是故意，在某些方面比這少負責。因此，它顯然是必要的，我再次申明 - 不是什么樣的教堂，我相信我應該是很重要的 - 但什么樣的美國，我相信的。
我相信，在美國，教會與國家的分離，是絕對沒有天主教主教會告訴總統(tǒng) - 他應該是天主教 - 如何行動，并沒有新教牧師會告訴他的教民為誰投票，如無教會或教會學校被授予任何公共資金或政治傾向，沒有一個人拒絕，僅僅是因為他的宗教不同于總統(tǒng)可能任命他的人，可能會選他的人誰公職。
我相信在美國正式既不是天主教，基督教也不*;沒有公職人員在請求或接受指示公共政策教皇，全國教會理事會或任何其他教會源;沒有宗教機構尋求強加其將直接或間接地后，一般民眾或官員的公共行為，和宗教的自由是不可分割的，對一個教會的行為將被視為對所有的行為。
而今年它可能是一個天主教反對誰懷疑的手指指出，在其他年份，它一直是 - 也許有一天 - 一個*人，或貴格會教徒，或一神論，或一浸再。這是弗吉尼亞州的浸信會傳道人的騷擾，例如，導致杰斐遜的宗教自由法規(guī)。今天，我可能是受害者，但明天就有可能是你 - 直到我們和諧社會的整個織物在偉大的民族危亡的時候被撕開。
最后，我相信在美國宗教不容忍總有一天會結束，所有的男人和所有的教會都視為平等，每個人都有同樣的權利，參加或不參加他所選擇的教堂，那里是沒有天主教徒的選票，沒有反天主教的票，沒有任何形式的集體投票，天主教徒，新教徒和*人，在裁員和田園水平，將避免那些不屑和分裂的態(tài)度，所以常常破壞了自己的作品在過去，和促進，而不是美國的兄弟情誼的理想選擇。
這是我相信美國的那種。它代表了什么樣的總統(tǒng)，我相信，一個偉大的辦公室必須既不貶低任何宗教組儀器，也不玷污任意隱瞞 - 從任何一個宗教組的成員入住。我相信在總統(tǒng)的宗教觀是自己的私事，既不強加給他的國家，也不是由國家征收后him1擔任該職位的條件。
我不會看一個總統(tǒng)后致力于*第一修正案保障宗教自由與青睞，我們的系統(tǒng)的制衡也不會允許他這樣做。，也不看我贊成后，那些人將努力*憲法第六條需要宗教的測試，即使是間接的。如果他們不同意與保障，他們應該是公開廢除它。
我希望有一個行政長官，其公益行為負責，沒有誰可以出席任何儀式，服務或晚餐，他的辦公室可以適當要求他履行和履行他的總統(tǒng)辦公室負責不限制或制約任何宗教宣誓儀式，或義務。
這是我相信，在美國的那種 - 這是美國的那種我爭取在南太平洋，和我哥哥死了的那種，在歐洲。然后，沒有人建議，我們可能有一個分裂的忠誠度，我們不相信自由，我們屬于一個不忠誠的威脅 - 我引述 - “死了我們的祖先們的自由?！?BR> 而事實上，這是美國的那種，我們的祖先沒有死亡，當他們逃到了這里，為逃避宗教測試宣誓否認辦公室欠教堂青睞的成員 - 為了爭取憲法，人權法案，弗吉尼亞規(guī)約宗教自由 - 當他們戰(zhàn)斗在神社我參觀了今天，阿拉莫。死亡由Bowie和克羅克特側側富恩特斯，麥卡弗蒂，和貝利，巴迪洛，凱里 - 但沒有人知道他們是否是天主教徒或不。因為在那里有沒有宗教的測試。
我問你今晚遵循了這一傳統(tǒng) - 在國會14年的基礎上，來判斷我，我宣布看臺上對駐梵蒂岡大使，，反對違憲援助教會學校，并反對任何抵制公立學校 - 這是我自己參加。而不是這樣做，不判斷我這些小冊子和刊物的基礎上，我們都已經(jīng)看到了，慎重選擇報價斷章取義的天主教教會領袖的聲明，通常在其他國家，經(jīng)常在其他幾個世紀以來，很少有關到這里任何情況?？偸鞘÷裕斎?，在1948年的美國主教表強烈贊同政教分離，這更接近反映的意見，幾乎每一個美國天主教。
我不考慮這些報價后，我的公益行為具有約束力。你為什么要呢？
但讓我說，相對于其他國家，我完全反對國家正在使用的任何宗教，天主教或新教，強迫，禁止，或起訴其他任何宗教的自由練習。去任何迫害，在任何時間，任何人，在任何一個國家。我希望你和我同樣的熱情與譴責那些否認他們的總統(tǒng)的新教徒，和那些否認它天主教徒的國家。而非引用那些不同的劣跡，我也舉的天主教教會在法國和愛爾蘭等國家的記錄，這樣的政治家戴高樂和阿登納的獨立性。
但是，讓我再次強調(diào)，這是我的看法。
對于常見的報紙使用相反，我不是天主教的總統(tǒng)候選人。
我剛巧是一個天主教民主黨的總統(tǒng)候選人。
我不說我的教會公共事務和教會不為我說話。節(jié)育任何問題可能來到我面前，如果我應該當選，作為總統(tǒng)，離婚，審查，賭博或其他任何主題，我會做出我的決定根據(jù)這些意見 - 按照我的良心告訴我國家利益，沒有考慮到外面的宗教壓力使然。沒有權力或懲罰的威脅，可能會導致我另有決定。
但是，如果時間應該來了 - 我不承認任何沖突遠程可能 - 當我的辦會要求我要么違背我的良心，或違反國家利益，那么我會辭職的辦公室和我希望的任何同樣會做認真的公仆。
但我不打算道歉的這些意見，批評我的人，無論是天主教或新教的信仰;我也不打算否認我的觀點或我的教會為了贏得這場選舉。
如果我失去了真正的問題，我將返回我在參議院的席位，滿意，我會盡我所能，公平判斷。
但是，如果這次選舉決定的基礎上，4000萬美國人失去了他們的總統(tǒng)一天，他們被受洗的機會，那么，這將是失敗者，在世界各地的天主教徒和非天主教徒的眼中，它是整個國家，在眼前的歷史，在我們自己的人民的眼睛。
但是，另一方面，我應該贏得這場選舉，那么我將全心全力履行總統(tǒng)的誓言 - 幾乎相同的思想和精神，我可能會添加的誓言，我已經(jīng)14年，國會。對于毫無保留的，我可以“，鄭重宣誓，我將忠實執(zhí)行美國總統(tǒng)的辦公室，并會盡我的能力，保存，保護和捍衛(wèi)憲法 - 請上帝幫我。