(신앙) 1960년 9월12일 매사추세츠州 민주당 상원의원 존 F 케네디의 텍사스州 휴스톤 연설 (영문자료)

출처: http://catholicism.about.com/od/history/p/Address-Of-Sen-John-F-Kennedy-To-The-Greater-Houston-Ministerial-Association.htm

1960년 9월12일 

매사추세츠州 민주당 상원의원 존 F 케네디의 

텍사스州 휴스톤 연설

밝은 하늘: 이 연설에서 우리가 주목해야 할 부분은 국가와 종교와의 관계임.

 

On September 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy, the junior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts and a Democrat, addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Texas. only the second Catholic to be nominated for the presidency (New York Gov. Al Smith ran as the Democratic candidate in 1928), Senator Kennedy faced serious criticisms from both Protestants and Jews, who argued that a Catholic president could not represent a majority non-Catholic country. Kennedy faced charges that he would "take orders from the Pope" and could not uphold the oath of office.

The address of Sen. John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association effectively laid those fears to rest. In the process, it opened a new era in Church-state relations in the United States—one which, a half-century later, many faithful Catholics, Protestants, and Jews have begun to question. Has the pendulum swung too far? Have "religious liberty" and the "separation of Church and state" marginalized religion and religious believers in American public life? Might there even be a direct line from Senator Kennedy's speech to the Obama administration's contraception mandate?

These are questions sure to come to mind as you read the following text of Sen. John F. Kennedy's Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.

 

 

"The Real Issues . . . Are Not Religious Issues" "진짜 문제들은... 종교 문제들이 아니다"

Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak 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 we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off 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 doctor 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 barriers.

"Real Issues . . . Have Been Obscured" by Religion 종교 때문에 "진짜 문제들이... 모호해졌다"

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.

"The Separation of Church and State Is Absolute" "교회와 국가의 분립은 절대적이다"

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 accepts 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 helped lead 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 at a time of great national peril.

"Religious Intolerance Will Someday End" "종교적 비관용은 언젠가 사라질 거다"

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end—where all men and all churches are treated as equal—where every man has the same right to attend or not 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 pastoral level, 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 neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him 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 it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

"There Were No Religious Tests at the Alamo" "알라모에선 종교적 시험이 없었다"

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none—who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him—and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath 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 I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died—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, and 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 McCafferty and Bailey and Carey—but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

"Judge Me on the Basis of My Record" "내 기록에 근거해 나를 판단하라"

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition—to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in 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 have attended myself)—instead of judging 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 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 persecute the free exercise of any other religion. 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 cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France—and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

"The Church Does Not Speak for Me" "교회가 나를 위해 얘기하는 건 아니다"

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. 다시 한 번 강조하겠다. 이런 것들은(앞에서 얘기한 것들) 일반 신문이 얘기하는 것과 달리 나의 순전한 개인적인 관점일 뿐이다. 나는 대선에 출마하는 가톨릭 입후보자가 아니라, 가톨릭신자로서 대선에 출마하는 민주당 소속의 대선출마자이다. 나는 교회를 위해서 공중의 문제들을 얘기하는 게 아니다. 아울러 교회가 나를 위해 얘기하는 건 아니다.

"I Would Resign My Office" "난 차라리 사임하겠다"

Whatever issue may come before me as President—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 the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures 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 even 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 the same.

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.

"Fulfilling the Oath of the Presidency"

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had 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 the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency—practically identical, I might add, to 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.

 

** 밝은 하늘의 국가와 종교의 관계에 대한 견해 **

1. 한국의 많은 신앙인들은 성직자부터 평신도에 이르기 까지, 신앙인이기 이전에 국민이라는 점을 망각하고 있는 것처럼 보인다. 우려되는 점이다. 최근에 신채호 선생의 어록을 최근에 카톡으로 지인에게서 받았다. 이 분에 대한 책을 봐야겠다는 생각이 들었다. 아무튼 그 내용은 이렇다. 

"우리나라에 부처가 들어오면 한국의 부처가 되지 못하고 부처의 한국이 된다. 우리나라에 공자가 들어오면 한국을 위한 공자가 되지 못하고 공자를 위한 한국이 된다. 우리나라에 기독교가 들어오면 한국을 위한 예수가 아니고 예수를 위한 한국이 되니 이것이 어쩐 일이냐? 이것도 정신이라면 정신인데 이것은 奴隸정신이다. 자신의 나라를 사랑하려거든 歷史를 읽을 것이며, 다른 사람에게 나라를 사랑하게 하려거든 歷史를 읽게 할 것이다." (단재 신채호) 

2. 존 F 케네디도 비슷한 얘기를 하고 있다.

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. 다시 한 번 강조하겠다. 이런 것들은(앞에서 얘기한 것들) 일반 신문이 얘기하는 것과 달리 나의 순전한 개인적인 관점일 뿐이다. 나는 대선에 출마하는 가톨릭 입후보자가 아니라, 가톨릭신자로서 대선에 출마하는 민주당 소속의 대선출마자이다. 나는 교회를 위해서 공중의 문제들을 얘기하는 게 아니다. 아울러 교회가 나를 위해 얘기하는 건 아니다.

3. 국가는 종교 위에 오는 것이지, 종교가 내세문제를 다룬다고 해서 국가 위에 올 수 없다. 현실을 바탕으로 하지 않는 내세는 무의미하다고 나는 생각하기 때문이다. 국가 없이는 못 살아도 종교 없이는 얼마든지 삶을 영위할 수 있기 때문이다. 과거 2MB 재직시절 그는 한국을 하나님께 봉헌하고 목사에게 무릎을 꿇은 적도 있었다. 국가에 종교에 귀속되는 아주 안 좋은 사례였다. 시대를 막론하고 종교가 정치 위에 있었던 때치고 국가가 제대로 돌아갔던 적이 있었던가? 313년 로마제국이 기독교를 국교로 인정한 것은 종교적 이유에서가 아니라 정치적 목적이 아니었던가? 그런데 많은 신앙인들은 그것이 마치 신의 섭리인 거 마냥 오해를 하고 있는데, 이거 엄청난 착각이다. 정치에 놀아난 종교다.

4. 종교문제 만이 아니라, 인간관계의 제문제는 양자를 혼동하는데서 발생한다. 홍길동 이라는 자연인과 자신의 역할( 남편 혹은 아이들 아빠 혹은 회사에서 부장)을 혼동한다. 어느 때는 자연인으로 돌아가고, 어느 때는 남편으로 돌아가고, 어느 때는 아이들 아빠로 돌아가고, 어느 때는 회사의 부장으로 돌아가야 한다. 늘 자연인과 역할을 병행할 수 없는 것이다. 이 양자 사이를 구분하지 못하기 때문에 혼란을 겪고 어려움을 겪는 것이다.

5. 이렇게 봤을 때, 존 F 케네디는 현명한 신앙인이었다고 보여진다. 맹목적인 신앙인은 아니었다.비판정신이 결여된 맹목적인 신앙, 맹목적 신념은 자신의 성장과 인생의 발전에 저해요소다. 맹목적 신념은 주변 사람들을 힘들게 한다. 맹목적 신념은 스톡데일 파라독스(Stockdail Paradox)의 원인이 되며, 현실의 인정과 적응에 전혀 도움이 안 되는 일종의 아편과 같은 것이다.