# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11QplysrlhMP7ONUhUBCPmtAIldhHA9swmL07Ld3vK4k/edit#gid=0

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.mpva.go.kr/mpva/selectBbsNttView.do?key=226&bbsNo=82&nttNo=219521&searchCtgry=&searchCnd=SJ&searchKrwd=%ec%95%88%ec%b0%bd%ed%98%b8&integrDeptCode=&pageIndex=1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
선생은 1878년 11월 9일 평안남도 강서군 초리면 칠리(江西郡 草里面 七里) 봉상도(鳳翔島, 일명 도롱섬)에서 태어났다.

1896년 18세 되던 해에 구세학당 보통부를 졸업하고 조교를 맡아 학생을 지도하였다. 이후 독립협회에 가입한 선생은 귀향하여 독립협회 관서지부를 설립해 민권운동에 뛰어들었다. 이를 통해 사회와 민족에 대한 소명의식과 국민교육의 중요성을 깊게 자각할 수 있었다.

1902년 결혼 직후 미국으로 건너간 선생은 리버사이드 일대의 한인지도자로 부상하였다. 1905년 4월에는 동지들과 함께 조국 광복을 목표로 삼는 미주 한인 단체인 공립협회를 창립하였다. 1907년 5월 공립협회 제3대 회장으로 선출된 선생은 언론활동과 교육진흥, 실업진흥 등 여러 가지 구국사업을 전개했다. 이후 공립협회는 1909년에는 하와이 한인합성협회와, 1910년에는 대동보국회와 통합 되어 1910년 5월 10일 미주 한인사회를 대표하는 대한인 국민회로 발전하였다. 같은 시 기 선생은 조국 독립을 추구한 국내 비밀결사인 신민회 활동에도 참여하였다.

1913년 5월 13일, 8도 대표를 선정해 민족을 지도해 나갈 수 있는 중견 인물을 배출하기 위한 동맹수련단체로서 흥사단이 출범하였다. 선생의 주도로 조직된 흥사단은 무실역행․충의용감․건전인격․단결훈련․국민개업(國民 皆業) 등을 목표로 독립운동을 위한 조직적 재정후원과 일꾼양성을 통한 민족독립의 사명 완수에 매진하였다.

1919년 3.1운동 소식이 미국에 전달되자 3월 13일에 대한인국민회는 긴급위원회를 개최하였다. 이때 선생은 '삼일운동을 계승하자'라는 연설을 통해 제1차 세계 대전의 종결과 민족자결주의의 공포, 그리고 파리평화회의 개최와 같은 외부적 요인보다 민족의 실력을 보여준 3.1운동이 훨씬 중대한 가치를 지니고 있음을 선포하였다.

3·1운동이 대한민국임시정부 수립이라는 결실을 맺자 선생은 1919년 5월 25일 에 상하이에 도착해 임시정부의 내무총장 겸 국무총리 서리로 취임 하였다. 이후 임시정부의 체계를 갖추고 조직적으로 사업을 전개해 나갔다. 정부에는 국민이 있어야 하므로 먼저 인구조사에 착수하였고 정부 운영에 소요되는 재정 확보를 위한 국채 발행을 비롯해 인두세 징수, 구국재정단 조직 등 여러 정책을 고민하였다.

1932년 4월 29일에 윤봉길 의사가 일본인들의 천장절 행사장인 홍구공원에 폭탄을 투 척하자, 같은 날 상해 이유필의 집을 방문했던 선생은 민단장으로 오인되어 일본 경찰에 의해 연행되었다. 이후 국내로 압송되어 서대문형무소에 수감되었다가 대전감옥으로 이송되는 2년 6개월간의 옥고를 치른 끝에 1935년 2월 10일 가출옥하였다.

곧이어 일제는 국내의 민족운동 일체를 말살하기 위해 1937년 6월, '동우회사건'을 파일

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
선생은 1878년 11월 9일 평안남도 강서군 초리면 칠리(江西郡 草里面 七里) 봉상도(鳳翔島, 일명 도롱섬)에서 태어났다. 1896년 18세 되던 해에 구세학당 보통부를 졸업하고 조교를 맡아 학생을 지도하였다. 이후 독립협회에 가입한 선생은 귀향하여 독립협회 관서지부를 설립해 민권운동에 뛰어들었다. 이를 통해 사회와 민족에 대한 소명의식과 국민교육의 중요성을 깊게 자각할 수 있었다.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMCaAXoprZ0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
미추홀외고 챗봇만들기_철학결합_유연화주

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.mpva.go.kr/mpva/selectBbsNttView.do?key=226&bbsNo=82&nttNo=219530&searchCtgry=&searchCnd=SJ&searchKrwd=%ea%b9%80%ea%b5%ac&integrDeptCode=&pageIndex=1

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.mpva.go.kr/mpva/selectBbsNttView.do?key=226&bbsNo=82&nttNo=219515&searchCtgry=&searchCnd=SJ&searchKrwd=%ec%9c%a0%ea%b4%80%ec%88%9c&integrDeptCode=&pageIndex=1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
선생은 1902년 12월 16일 충남 목천(현재 천안)에서 아버지 유중권(柳重權)과 어머니 이소제(李少梯)사이의 5남매 중 둘째 딸로 태어났다. 1918년 4월 이화학당의 고등과 1학년에 진학하였고 3.1운동이 발발하기 바로 전날 고등과 1학년 학생들과 시위 결사대를 조직, 만세시위에 참가하기로 굳게 맹세하였다. 드디어 3월 1일 탑골공원을 나온 만세 시위대가 학교 앞을 지나자 선생은 5명의 시위 결사대 동지들과 함께, "내가 있는 동안 너희들을 내보내 고생시킬 수 없다. 나를 밟고 넘어갈 테면 가라"고 하는 교장의 만류를 뿌리치고 뒷담을 넘어 시위운동에 동참하였다. 3월 5일 선생은 5명의 시위 결사대 동지들과 함께 서울에서 전개된 최대의 시위운동인 남대문역 만세 시위운동에도 참여하였다.&nbsp

학교가 문을 닫게 되자 선생은 서울의 독립운동 소식을 고향에 전하고, 또 거기에서 만세 시위운동을 전개하기로 마음먹었다. 그리하여 선생은 3월 13일 사촌 언니인 유예도와 함께 독립선언서를 몰래 숨겨 가지고 귀향하여 본격적으로 고향에서의 만세 시위운동을 추진하여 갔다. 우선 선생은 동네 어른들을 찾아다니며 서울의 3.1운동 소식을 전하고, "삼천리 강산이 들끓고 있는데 우리 동네만 잠잠할 수 있느냐"고 하면서 만세 시위운동의 필요성을 설득하였다. 그리하여 4월 1일(음력 3월 1일) 아우내[竝川] 장날에 만세 시위운동을 전개하기로 결정하고, 유림 대표들과 집성촌 대표들을 움직여 시위 참가 인원을 확보하도록 하고, 거사 당일에 사람들에게 나누어줄 태극기를 직접 만드는 등 만반의 준비를 갖추었다.

드디어 4월 1일 병천면 아우내 장날, 선생은 장터 어귀에서 밤새 만든 태극기를 나누어 주면서 만세 시위운동에 참여하러 모여드는 사람들에게 용기를 북돋아 주었다. 그날&nbsp3천여 장꾼이 장거리를 뒤덮었다. 선생과 만세 시위운동을 주도적으로 추진하였던 조인원이 긴 대나무 장대에 매단 큰 태극기를 장터 한가운데 세우면서 아우내 장터의 만세시위운동이 시작되었다. 시위 대열이 아우내 장터 곳곳을 누비자 병천 헌병주재소의 헌병들이 달려와 총검을 휘두르며 만세 시위운동을 탄압하기 시작하였다.

이 때 선생의 아버지 유중권이 "왜 사람을 함부로 죽이느냐"고 항의하다가 일본 헌병의 총검에 찔려 순국하였고, 이를 보고 남편의 원수를 갚으려고 달려 들다가 선생의 모친마저도 일본 헌병들에게 학살당하고 말았다. 이에 선생은 군중들을 이끌고, 아버지의 시신을 둘러메고 병천 헌병주재소로 쇄도하여 항의 시위를 계속하였다. 선생은 고야마(小山) 주재소장의 멱살을 쥐고 흔들면서 "나라를 되찾으려고 정당한 일을 했는데 어째서 총기를 사용하여 내 민족 을 죽이느냐"고 일제의 만행을 규탄하면서 독립운동의 정당성을 밝혔다. 헌병들은 재차 무차별 총격을 가하여 시위 군중들을 해산시킨 뒤, 선생과 유중무, 조인원, 조병호 부자 등 시위 주동자들을 체포하여 천안헌병대로 압송하였다.

선생은 천안헌병대에서 갖은 고문을 받으면서도 처음부터 끝까지 자신이 시위 주동자라고 말하면서 죄 없는 다른 사람들을 석방하라고 호통치기도 하였다. 이후 공주감옥으로 이송될 때에는 군중들이 많이 모여 있는 곳을 지날 때마다 독립만세를 연이어 고창하여 불굴의 독립의지를 표출하기도 하였다.

공주지방법원에서 진행된 재판과정 중 선생은 법정에서, "나는 한국 사람이다. 너희들은 우리 땅에 와서 우리 동포들을 수없이 죽이고 나의 아버지와 어머니를 죽였으니 죄를 지은 자는 바로 너희들이다. 우리들은 너희들에게 형벌을 줄 권리는 있어도 너희들은 우리를 재판할 그 어떤 권리도 명분도 없다"고 하면서 일제의 재판을 거부하는 당당함과 민족적 기개를 잃지 않았다고 한다.

선생은 6월 30일 경성복심법원에서 징역 3년형을 선고받았지만 상고하지 않아 형이 확정되었다. 이후에도 선생은 서대문 감옥에서의 온갖 탄압과 고문에도 굴하지 않고 지속적으로 옥중 만세를 불렀다. 특히 1920년 3월 1일 3.1운동 1주년을 맞이해서는 수감 중인 동지들과 함께 대대적인 옥중 만세운동을 전개하기도 하였다. 이로 인해 선생은 지하 감방에 감금되어 야만적이고 무자비한 고문을 당하게 되었다. 선생은 고문으로 인해 방광이 터지는 중상을 입었으나 치료하지 못한 채 고문의 후유증과 영양실조로 1920년 9월 28일 오전 8시경, 서대문감옥에서 18살의 꽃다운 나이로 순국하고 말았다.

정부에서는 선생의 공훈을 기리어 1962년 건국훈장 독립장을 추서하였다.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
선생은 1902년 12월 16일 충남 목천(현재 천안)에서 아버지 유중권(柳重權)과 어머니 이소제(李少梯)사이의 5남매 중 둘째 딸로 태어났다. 1918년 4월 이화학당의 고등과 1학년에 진학하였고 3.1운동이 발발하기 바로 전날 고등과 1학년 학생들과 시위 결사대를 조직, 만세시위에 참가하기로 굳게 맹세하였다. 드디어 3월 1일 탑골공원을 나온 만세 시위대가 학교 앞을 지나자 선생은 5명의 시위 결사대 동지들과 함께, "내가 있는 동안 너희들을 내보내 고생시킬 수 없다.

# data[].attributes.body
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oslo City Hall
Oslo, Norway

1:44 P.M. CET

THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END
2:20 P.M. CET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oslo City Hall Oslo, Norway 1:44 P.M. CET THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world: I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility.

# data[].attributes.body
https://spotvirtual.com/invite/mch-99687131d1f7e4fa-KBu9loj0BV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ultimate digital headquarters for your business

# data[].attributes.body
https://spotvirtual.com/invite/mch-99687131d1f7e4fa-KBu9loj0BV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ultimate digital headquarters for your business

# data[].attributes.body
https://spotvirtual.com/invite/mch-99687131d1f7e4fa-KBu9loj0BV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ultimate digital headquarters for your business

# data[].attributes.body
https://spotvirtual.com/invite/mch-99687131d1f7e4fa-KBu9loj0BV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ultimate digital headquarters for your business

# data[].attributes.body
https://fakeyou.com/w2l/result/WR:1xbsxc8efpax5w4pyk02aag8rje2j

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FakeYou, Your Deep Fake Text to Speech Website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FakeYou. You can make deep fake text to speech audio and lip synced video.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edu.cospaces.io/Studio/Spaces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
CoSpaces Edu: Make AR & VR in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CoSpaces Edu: Make AR & VR in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bring CoSpaces Edu into the classroom and enhance your teaching inside an intuitive and engaging platform.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edu.cospaces.io/Studio/Spaces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
CoSpaces Edu: Make AR & VR in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CoSpaces Edu: Make AR & VR in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bring CoSpaces Edu into the classroom and enhance your teaching inside an intuitive and engaging platform.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edu.cospaces.io/Studio/Spaces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
CoSpaces Edu: Make AR & VR in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CoSpaces Edu: Make AR & VR in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bring CoSpaces Edu into the classroom and enhance your teaching inside an intuitive and engaging platform.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edu.cospaces.io/Studio/Spaces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
CoSpaces Edu: Make AR & VR in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CoSpaces Edu: Make AR & VR in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bring CoSpaces Edu into the classroom and enhance your teaching inside an intuitive and engaging platform.