评论
打印
Hi, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and I'm excited.
嗨，我是克雷格，这是《政府和政治速成课》，我很兴奋。
I'm excited because today, we start delving into Supreme Court jurisprudence, with the totally controversial topic of freedom of religion.
我很兴奋，因为今天，我们开始深入研究最高法院的法学，涉及宗教自由这个有很大争议的话题。
Now, other than being fun to say, jurisprudence means all the important cases on a particular topic,
现在，除了打趣说，法学是指关于某一特定主题的所有重要案件，
but unfortunately, I'm only going to be talking about a couple of them, because they demonstrate how the Supreme Court reasons its way through a tricky issue.
但不幸的是，我只会谈论其中的几个，因为这几个展示了最高法院是如何解决棘手问题的。
Jurisprudence.
法学。
Jurisprudence.
法学。
So the Constitution deals with religion right there in the First Amendment, which is also the one that deals with speech and the press and assembly and petitions.
宪法在第一修正案中涉及宗教权利，第一修正案也涉及言论、媒体、集会和请愿。
Here's what it says:
以下是原文：
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
“国会不得制定关于确立宗教或禁止宗教自由的法律。”
It's the first clause in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, so it's pretty darn important.
这是《权利法案》第一修正案的第一条，所以它非常重要。
Notice it has two parts, and each one creates a separate religious liberty or freedom.
注意它有两部分，每一部分都创造了一个独立的宗教自由。
The first part, “no law respecting an establishment of religion”is caused the establishment clause;
第一部分，“没有关于建立宗教的法律”是成立条款造成的；
can you guess what the second religious liberty is?
你能猜到第二个宗教自由是什么吗?
If you said free exercise, you're right.
如果你说的是自由运动，你是对的。
What do these two freedoms mean, though?
然而，这两个自由意味着什么呢?
Establishment of religion means that the US can't create an official state church, like England has with the church of England.
宗教的建立意味着美国不能建立一个官方的国家教会，就像英格兰的国教一样。
This means that the First Amendment ensures that the US does not have any state endorsed religion nor does it write its laws based on any religious edicts,
这意味着，第一修正案确保了美国没有任何一个州认可宗教，也没有任何州以宗教法令为依据制定法律，
and it's also the clause in the Constitution that deals with religious monuments and school prayers and stuff like that.
这也是宪法中有关宗教纪念碑和学校祈祷的条款。
The free exercise clause in a way is more straightforward, it means you can't pay for exercise.
自由运动条款在某种程度上更直接，意味着你不能为运动付费。
Gym memberships are illegal.
健身房会员是非法的。
But freedom isn't free.
但是自由不是自由的。
You're gonna pay with pain!
你会付出痛苦的代价！
No pain, no gain.
一分耕耘，一分收获。
Actually, none of that is what we're talking about.
实际上，这些都不是我们要讨论的。
What it means is you can't be prohibited from being part of a certain religion, although it doesn't mean that any religious practice is okay.
它的意思是你不能被禁止成为某个宗教的一部分，尽管这并不意味着任何宗教行为都是可以的。
For example, if your religion requires human sacrifice,
例如，如果你的宗教信仰需要活人祭祀，
because you're an Aztec, state, local, and federal law could prevent you from practicing that aspect of religion, for obvious reasons,
因为你是阿兹特克人，州、地方和联邦法律可能会以显而易见的理由阻止你从事这方面的宗教活动，
although it couldn't prevent you from believing that human sacrifices were necessary to make the sun rise every day.
虽然这不能阻止你相信人类的牺牲对于太阳每天升起是必要的，
We are gonna anger a lot of Aztecs with this video, Stan.
斯坦，这个视频会激怒很多阿兹特克人。
There are a number of cases that establish this distinction between religious belief and religious practice,
有很多案例证明了宗教信仰和宗教实践之间的区别，
but my personal favorite is Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. Hialeah, because I love saying Lukumi Babalu Aye.
但我个人最喜欢的是鲁库米巴巴鲁埃与希亚利亚之战，因为我喜欢说鲁库米巴巴鲁埃。
You probably figured out that what these two clauses mean in practice has been determined to some degree by Supreme Court decisions.
你可能会发现在某种程度上在实践中这两个条款意味着什么是由最高法院的判决决定的。
There's a bunch of them, but probably the most important one is called Lemon v. Kurtzman, from 1971.
有很多，但可能最重要的一个是1971年的莱蒙诉库兹曼案。
Right off the bat, the Lemon decision is a little complicated because it combines two sets of facts, although they both involve public money and parochial schools.
莱蒙案的裁决一开始就有些复杂，因为它结合了两组事实，尽管它们都涉及公共资金和教区学校。
In one case in Rhode Island, the state was using taxpayer funds to pay teachers in parochial schools in an effort to educate Rhode Island children, which is generally a good goal.
在罗德岛州的一个案例中，州政府利用纳税人的资金支付教区学校的教师工资，以教育罗德岛州的儿童，这通常是一个不错的目标。
In the other case in Pennsylvania, the state was paying teachers in private schools to provide secular education services, but enough with the set-up, let's go to the Thought Bubble.
在宾夕法尼亚州的另一个案例中，州政府付钱给私立学校的教师，让他们提供世俗教育服务，但设置已经足够了，让我们来看看思想泡泡。
The Supreme Court in Lemon vs. Kurtzman devised a three prong test to see if the state law violates the First Amendment religious freedom clauses.
在莱蒙诉库兹曼案中，最高法院设计了一项三项测试，以检验该州法律是否违反了第一修正案中的宗教自由条款。
Under the first prong, the Court looks to see whether the law in question has a secular legislative purpose.
在第一种情况下，最高法院会调查相关法律是否具有世俗立法目的。
In this case, the purpose of the law was educating children, which you remember, is one of the powers reserved to the states, and for the most part, is a secular purpose.
在这种情况下，法律的目的是教育孩子，你记得，这是国家保留的权力之一，在很大程度上，是世俗的目的。
Under the second prong, the Court examines whether or not the law's principal or primary effect neither enhances nor inhibits religion.
在第二种情况下，法律的主要或主要作用既不增强也不抑制宗教。
Here again, the Court found that paying private school teachers or using private school facilities did not necessarily promote religion or prevent students from worshipping as they wanted to.
在这里，法院再次发现，付钱给私立学校的教师或使用私立学校的设施不一定会促进宗教信仰或阻止学生按照自己的意愿崇拜宗教。
The third prong requires that the law under consideration does not create excessive entanglement between a church and the state.
第三个要求是，正在审议的法律不能在教会和国家之间造成过分的纠缠。
This is the one where both the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania laws got into trouble.
这就是罗得岛州和宾夕法尼亚州法律都陷入困境的地方。
In Rhode Island, the school buildings where the children were learning were full of religious imagery, and 2/3 of the teachers were nuns.
在罗德岛，孩子们学习的学校建筑充满了宗教意象，三分之二的老师是修女。
The Court paid close attention the fact that the people involved were kids, ruling,”
法院密切关注的事实是，当事人都是孩子；
“This process of inculcating religious doctrine is, of course, enhanced by the impressionable age of the pupils in primary schools particularly.
当然，小学学生易受影响的年龄尤其加强了这种灌输宗教教义的过程。
In short, parochial schools involve substantial religious activity and purpose.”
简而言之，教区学校涉及大量的宗教活动和目的。
In Pennsylvania, the problem was different.
在宾夕法尼亚州，问题就不同了。
The Court ruled that in order to make sure that the teachers were NOT teaching religion, the state would have to monitor them so closely that it would be excessive entanglement and give the state way too much control.
法院裁定，为了确保这些教师不教授宗教，国家必须对他们进行密切监控，这将是过度的纠缠，并给予国家太多的控制。
They ruled that, “The very restrictions in surveillance necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly non-ideological role give rise to entanglements between church and state.”
他们规定，“为了确保教师严格地发挥非意识形态的作用，在监督方面所必须的种种限制，导致了教会与国家之间的纠葛。”
Thanks, Thought Bubble.
谢谢,思想泡泡。
So it's pretty complicated, and I'm not 100% sure that I find it convincing.
这很复杂，我不能100%确定我觉得它有说服力。
First of all, the Justices engaged in some slippery slope reasoning about the Pennsylvania case.
首先，法官们对宾夕法尼亚州的案件进行了滑坡推理。
The Court argued that even if, in this situation, the secular purpose was a good one, there's a tendency for states to take more and more power for themselves.
法院认为，即使在这种情况下，世俗目的是好的，国家也会倾向于为自己攫取越来越多的权力。
But my bigger concern is that all three prongs in this case were given equal weight, and I'm not sure that they always should be.
但我更担心的是，在这种情况下，这三各部分同等重要，我不确定是否总是同等重要。
I mean, you got the one round one and then the two like, you know, long ones, and you can pull that round one, it's just for grounding.
我的意思是，你有一个圆的，然后两个，你知道，长的，你可以拉那个圆的，只是为了接地。
What the ruling in this case meant was that the secular purpose, educating children, was not gonna happen, or at least would be made more difficult.
这个案件的裁决意味着，教育孩子的世俗目的不会实现，或至少会变得更加困难。
Also, you could argue that it was kind of paternalistic, assuming that kids wouldn't be able to block out religious imagery,
同时，你也可以说这是一种家长式作风，假设孩子们无法屏蔽宗教意象，
but since they are kids, maybe a little paternalism is okay.
但因为他们是孩子，也许一点家长式作风是好的。
You spit that gum out, Junior.
你把口香糖吐出来，小子。
So Lemon vs. Kurtzman built on an earlier case, Engel vs. Vitale, which ruled that prayer in schools violated religious freedom.
莱蒙诉库兹曼案建立在恩格尔诉维塔莱案的基础上，恩格尔诉维塔莱案裁定学校祈祷侵犯了宗教自由。
You would think that, taken together, this issue would be pretty much put to bed,
你可能会想，把这个问题放在一起，基本上就可以解决了，
yet every few years, a case comes along involving prayer in school,
但是每隔几年，学校就会出现一个涉及祷告的案例，
and now they apply the old three prong Lemon test.
现在他们就用旧的三柱柠檬测试。
For example, one state adopted a statute mandating a moment of silence at the beginning of each school day.
例如，有一个州通过了一项法令，规定在每个上学日开始时默哀片刻。
One of the purposes of this statute is to provide students with an opportunity to pray in school.
该法令的目的之一是为学生提供在学校祷告的机会。
Another purpose is to create a calming atmosphere in the classroom to better promote learning.
另一个目的是在教室里创造一个平静的氛围，更好地促进学习。
The first purpose doesn't look so secular,
第一个目的看起来不那么世俗，
and as for the second prong, doesn't necessarily advance or inhibit a particular religion.
而第二个目的则不一定促进或抑制某种宗教。
Students can choose not to pray at all.
学生可以选择不祷告。
Is this excessive entanglement?
这是过度的纠缠吗?
That's always gonna be difficult to say, especially since 'excessive' is pretty subjective,
这很难说，尤其是"过度"是非常主观的，
but if you go on the standard of the Pennsylvania case in Lemon, almost any religious practice in school could be excessively entangling,
但如果你以莱蒙市宾夕法尼亚案的标准来看，几乎学校里的任何宗教活动都可能会过分纠缠，
because the state is going to have to step in and monitor it.
因为州政府将不得不介入并监督此事。
Some school systems have tried to get around this by having the prayers led by students,
一些学校系统试图通过学生主导的祈祷来解决这个问题，
because they aren't agents of the state.
因为他们不是国家的代理人。
But then you have the issue of how much a student-led prayer is really led by a student, and how do you find out without more monitoring and more state entanglement?
但接下来的问题是，学生主导的祈祷到底有多少是由学生主导的，如果没有更多的监督和更多的国家纠葛，你如何才能找到答案?
The Lemon test is an attempt by the Court to set up a framework for analyzing future situations where religion and the state might get mixed up.
莱蒙案是最高法院试图建立一个框架来分析未来宗教和国家可能混淆的情况。
It's probably better than having what legal scholars like to call “a bright line rule” about religion in public spaces like schools and courthouses,
这可能比法律学者所说的在公共场所，如学校和法院，有关于宗教的“明线规则”要好，
but it does leave a lot of wiggle room and it seems that it encourages future cases because we keep seeing them.
但它确实留下了很大的回旋余地，而且它似乎鼓励了未来的案例，因为我们一直看到它们。
The funny thing is, religious freedom is one of the less controversial protections found in the First Amendment, if you don't believe me, wait until our next episode on free speech.
有趣的是，宗教自由是宪法第一修正案中争议较小的保护之一，如果你不相信我，那就等着看下一集关于言论自由的节目吧。
Just wait.
等着看吧。
You just -- you just wait.
就等着吧。
Did you guys hear what he said?
你们听到他说什么了吗？
See ya next time.
下次见。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室合作制作的。
Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal.
对美国政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org.
在Voqal.org上了解更多关于他们的使命和计划。
Crash Course was made with the help of all these jurisprudences, am I using that word right?
速成班是在这些善良的人的帮助下，他们是无辜的，直到被证明有罪。
Thanks for watching.
谢谢观看。
