Examining The Pop Art Movement

Examining The Pop Art Movement In attempt to bring art back into American daily life, the Pop-art movement depicted elements of popular culture by using common everyday objects, chiefly advertising and product packaging, television and comic strips. The images are portrayed with a blend of humour, criticism and irony. Through this, the movement ascertained the position of art into everyday and contemporary life. It assisted in decreasing the gap between high art and low art and abolished the distinction between fine art and commercial art methods. The Pop-art movement rebuffed the abstract style because of its cultured? And aristocratic nature. (World Wide Art Resources 2009) It was during the 1980s that there was a renewal of interest in the Pop-art of the well known Andy Warhol and contemporaries, this resurgence of interest was known as neo-Pop. Adapted from its forefathers, contemporary Pop-art consists of a reworked form; a revival of identifiable celebrities and objects from popular culture with icons and symbols of the current times. (Art History Archive n.d.) Contemporary Pop-art lends from the past, maintaining the critical evaluation of Western culture, relationships, values and interactions. It frequently satirises celebrities and candidly embraces ideas that are challenging and controversial. Although the bombardment upon society of Popular culture and advertising has become significantly greater since the Pop-art movement began, I believe that the critiques of Pop-art are not appropriate to the original nor the contemporary Pop-art scene. Pop-artists artists have continually been engaged in a crucial dialogue with mass culture. They are noted for exploiting these increasingly despised images of mass culture in order to facilitate the critical examination of the effects of consumerism on human thought, emotion and creativity and challenging our assumptions about the purpose and identity of art in a world inundated with media images and messages (University of Virginia 2006), as the following examples by contemporary artists will demonstrate. (expand on this?) Jeff Koons is perhaps the most renowned Pop-artist of the current day. He addresses societys fixation with Pop culture and counteracts the division between appearance and reality, surface and depth, and art and commodity (reword more?)Koons forms his art pieces on consumer products and manipulates everyday objects in order to overemphasise mass-produced cultural objects while uncovering the nuances of marketing. In difference to his 1960s forbearers, Koons desire is to remark on societies psychological investment in consumerism and how these consumer products are fabricated to allure. (Art Knowledge News n.d.) Jeff Koons first exhibition was titled Equilibrium, which was displayed in 1985. One of the defining features of this decade was the forceful growth of consumerism. For this exhibition he produced a series of works displaying consumer items in glass cases. In Three Ball Total Equilibrium Tank (Fig 1), three basketballs were suspended in a glass case, surrounded by authentic Nike posters displaying basketball players in positions of power. The posters in the work represent sport as a means to achieve fame and fortune for young working-class Americans. The posters almost exclusive use of black athletes not just as stars, but in roles associated with elevated power and respect is a comment on the traditional social system that in reality refutes this power or respect to a large majority of African-Americans. According to Koons, the suspended basketballs also suggest death and fame, the ultimate states of existence. (Tate Collection n.d.) Koons Made in Heaven (Fig 2) series is a collection of overtly sexually explicit photographs and sculptures featuring the artist in moments of sexual passion and intimacy with his then pornstar wife Cicciolina. The exuberant images were first displayed during the 1990 Venice Biennale, among more conventional forms of expression. The series produced both shock and excitement among audiences, and stirred much controversy in the art world with a scandalous subject matter that pushed the limits of twentieth century censorship. Although pornography has been a widely acknowledged aspect of society, it deemed controversial because it is a form of Popular culture that was and still remains taboo in polite company. Koons is notorious for testing the boundaries of acceptable taste; his intention in Made in Heaven was to critically examine love, romance and sexual desire, involving the viewer by making them a contributor to the artwork, as most pornography necessitates an outside viewer to be c lassified as such. (Christies 2009)The Made in Heaven series was also in part a response to The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden, by the fifteenth century painter Massacio. Koons remarks, In The Expulsion, theres all this guilt and shame that were on Adam and Eves faces, and I wanted to make a body of work that was about guilt and shame and the importance of removing that, so that people could have transcendence over guilt and shame in their own history. (Nance 2010) Made for part of his Banality series, is Michael Jackson and Bubbles (1988) (Fig 3), a six feet long ceramic gilded white and gold statue depicting mega Pop-star Michael Jackson with his pet monkey Bubbles, immortalised as cultic and sacred personalities in an idealised state. Its initially blatantly kitsch appearance gives way to reveal its hyper-realistic approach to evoke the fragility of modern days most eminent star. The situation illustrated in the piece deals with societys idolisation and the ever more bizarre media narrative of Michael Jacksons life. Koons states, It really wasnt so much about Michael Jackson. It was about celebrity status, and about hopes, ideals, hierarchies that are placed on structures which take human form. (Nance 2010) Michael Jackson is the archetype of the glamorous, eccentric tragic and ambivalent and Koons encourages numerous interpretive possibilities. (Astrup Fearnly Museum n.d.) An additional example of a contemporary Pop-artist is American sculptor, Daniel Edwards. His sculptures deal with celebrity and Pop culture in a manner that frequently rouses controversy. The release of his works are usually paired with a press release. (Capla Kesting Fine Art n.d.) While frequently denigrated for his use of celebrity, Edwards artwork are also acknowledged as prophetic and consistent in their capacity for humanising social issues that the media and public have difficulty addressing. Autopsy of Paris Hilton (2007) (Fig 4) was produced as a confrontational and graphic interactive display to communicate to the young the dangers of drink driving. The sculpture is life-sized and depicts Paris Hilton sprawled on a bench with her legs splayed. In one hand she clutches her mobile phone whilst in the other is a glass of wine, in this sculpture she has supposedly died as a result of her drink driving, in which in reality she has been convicted of on numerous occasions. The public are encouraged to remove her innards through a cavity in her abdomen, giving a coroners perspective. Contained within this cavity is also her uterus containing twin dead foetuses, which Edwards says is to bring attention to the teen pregnancy crisis. The sculpture is an attempt to de-glamorise the life of a diva and partier which Hilton is renowned for.(Rayme 2007) The sculpture perhaps also alludes to the cult which is celebrities and their every occurrence and the media and publics unquenchable hunger to get as close as possibly to their idols. Daniel Edwards Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston (2006) (Fig 5), portrays celebrity Britney Spears in a position of natural birth, whereas in fact she gave birth to her son via c-section and was heavily drugged. The piece created much political debate. According to Edwards it promotes pro-life. At its reveal he called his piece an image of birth and mentioned that it was a new take on the pro-life perspective. He states that pro-lifers generally endorse bloody images of abortion and his aim is to generate debate about a topic that is as he states greater than either pro-life and pro-choice advocates. (Rayme 2007) Japanese artist Masumasa Morimura is a well-known example of appropriating worldwide recognised images taken from mass media and popular culture In my view, there can be no generalisation about the quality, meaning and social significance of works of art, given the discrepancies of aesthetic responses and interpretations. Furthermore, Donald Kuspits view expressed in his article suffers owing to the fact that he assumes that artists should be critics of society rather than witnesses or simply narrators of it. Kuspit is an example of a critic who universalises his personal opinion of Pop-art and delivers his judgement whilst ignoring other responses to Pop. (Walker 2009) Pop art was and still remains one of the most popular styles of art, it was successful in communicating to the general public in a mode in which few art movements did or have since done. (Encyclopedia of World Art n.d.) The reality that Pop-art is effective in generating such a broad range of responses is a tribute to its at first seemingly ambiguous character, a testament that it is more complex and diverse than some critics have accepted, and an indication that it is not as trivial and straightforward as some commentators believe. (Walker 2009)

U.S. Drug Policy Versus Drug Reality Essay examples -- Argumentative P

If the United States is serious about winning the war on drugs, it will have to face some hard facts about the failure of its drug policy to date. Since Reagan introduced the war on drugs in the early 1980s, the focus of anti-drug legislation has been on incarceration and eradication, not on drug education and treatment. Drug use is viewed as a crimethe same way that burglary and murder are viewed as crimeswithout examining the social and economic causes behind drug use. This categorization of drug use as criminal misrepresents the nature of addiction. Drug addicts do not abuse drugs because they are deviant or even because they consciously desire to cause harm to themselves or to those around them, they abuse drugs because they are physically dependent on those substances for survival. The only effective way to break that cycle of dependency is through extensive detoxification and treatment programs. Not all advocates of reshaping Americas drug policy are in favor of legalization or complete decriminalizaton of drug use, though such steps are being increasingly entertained as a possible solution to Americas drug problem. On the contrary, a growing number of doctors and scientists are coming out in favor of a shift in Americas policies from hard-line law enforcement to rehabilitation and education-based deterrence. The need for such a shift in policy becomes more apparent when one weighs the magnitude of government outlays on drug-related law enforcement against the ineffectiveness of the war on drugs to date. A few basic statistics on federal allocation of anti-drug funds and on federal prison records illustrate the extent to which American drug policy is focused on the blunt tool of punishment. In 1997, the federal budget f... ... their ability to impair a persons judgment, etc. The government should realize that drug users are not criminals. They should establish more government treatment facilities in low income areas so that treatment would be an option available not only to wealthy actors and models but to the anonymous mass of low-income addicts. The free distribution of sterile needles is needed to combat the transmission of AIDSnot as a tacit advocacy of drug use. At an international meeting of the United Nations Drug Control Program in 1994, the United States refused to sign any statement mentioning the phrase harm reduction, as such a stance was seen as taking a soft-line on drugs. It is time for the United States government to wake up to the reality that the future of the War on Drugs lies with doctors, educators and sociologists and not with law enforcement agents and politicians.

Living as a Christian disciple Essay

Explain how living as a Christian disciple may influence the lives of Christians today. Christianity is an entire way of life. It’s not only a part of your life it is your whole life. It is a sense of being with God. It is not a one way system, but in fact a two way bond. Being a disciple of God gives you a sense of who you are. You have the position of being part of God’s children as well as being a child of your parents. This is an incomparable feeling. A Christian is a person who lives their life daily for God. By praying on a regular basis, reacting positively not negatively with people and being an optimistic person rather than a pessimistic one. Christianity focuses a lot on how people treat others. Christianity believes everyone is equal. Nobody is better than someone else, even if they are richer. A disciple believes Christ is with you at all times. To become a Christian you must try and be the best you can be. An example of this would be the story about the Pharisee and the tax collector, having the best humanity. To develop into a Christian you need to know the principles. You need to live your life a certain way. That means you might have to sacrifice a few things but in the long run you will be rewarded. Again you must know how to deal with people. ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind,’ and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ (Luke 10 vs. 27) A person needs to be willing to give up luxuries in order to gain better things. For instance a Christian must give 10% of their total income to either a church or a charity. But the more essential factor is time. Time is more precious than rubies. Time must be taken out of your day to think about God or even the elderly lady next door who lives all alone. Your attitude towards people is very important. Being a Christian affects what career you wish to pursue. Certain professions are considered unethical and therefore are not allowed. A job such as working in an abortion clinic, you are taking away a life which has a right to live, which is unjust. Another job which gives people grief is a traffic warden. A Christian has an important role to play in the family and in the home. There must be peaceful negotiation and they must always remember that children usually learn from the examples of their parents. So as a parent you must do good things and not bad. You must know how to function in a family. To be a dedicated Christian you are required to visit the church on a regular basis and to pray daily. At church Christians have communion, usually once a week. This is red wine and bread which s also called the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the ceremony in which Christ’s last meal with his disciples is celebrated with bread and wine, the bread symbolizes Jesus’ body and the wine Jesus’ blood. Although some Christians do not believe in going to church for example, Quakers and the Salvation Army. Quakers are Christians who do not have set services or have no ceremonies and do not do repeated rituals. The Salvation Army consider that you should be careful and make sure that ceremonies do not become more important than the meaning of the belief or faith. Also the Salvation Army do not drink any alcohol as when they first started the group alcohol was a serious problem, therefore they are not allowed to have communion as it involves wine. There are many noble Christians who have acted as excellent role models, in the past and in the present day. Some of these famous Christian disciples are Oscar Romero, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu and many more. I am going to tell you about Desmond Tutu. Desmond Tutu was born in 1931 on the 7th October. He lived in South Africa, a society where coloured people were considered as outcasts, a racist system of apartheid. They had to learn from an early age that their needs were considered less important than the needs of white people. They were not allowed to mix with the white people. For example black children could not go to the same school as a white child and at all times black people had to carry their passbooks to show who they were and if they had a right to be where they were, they also were not allowed to go into cafes or go to beaches and parks. In the street white police officers would look them up and down as if they were criminals. It was hard for children to grow up watching parents and role models being humiliated in this way. Desmond Tutu went to an all black school. He worked willing and was therefore intelligent. He was a kind and gentle boy. At the age of 14 Desmond got Tb. He was put in hospital for 2 years. An English priest called Father Trevor Huddleston visited him every week. Trevor Huddleston had been trying to make the lives of the black people better. He believed apartheid was evil and very unchristian. He opened hostels and nurseries for homeless people o stay in at night. He also defended black people when they were challenged by the police. A life long friendship blossomed between Desmond and Trevor. During his stay in hospital Desmond became more thoughtful and reflective. He had a strong commitment towards Christianity and a spiritual approach to life. Desmond was influenced by humility, gentleness, selflessness from spiritual people like Trevor. After leaving school Desmond decided train as a teacher. He worked as a teacher for a few years but he couldn’t stand there and watch his people suffer. He wanted to do something about it. So he left teaching and became a priest. In 1961 Desmond was ordained as a priest. He was given his own parish church and a proper house in an area of slum housing. It was rewarding work, a satisfying job with people who loved him having him as their priest. In 1962 he was offered to go to London to study for a second degree in theology. When he got there he couldn’t believe that he was allowed to walk freely and not have to check for signs where they were not allowed. He wasn’t searched by police; he didn’t have to carry a passbook around with him. He loved it. After 3 years when he returned to South Africa, he found it difficult being a second class citizen again. From the understanding of the Bible he saw that Christianity stresses that all people are equal and that God wants people to be free. As a Christian he felt it was his responsibility to help black people become equal with white people. Two years later Desmond took a job in England. In 1975 he was given the post of Dean in Johannesburg. If he accepted it then this meant he would have to move back to South Africa. This post had always been held by white men so he wanted to make a change and accepted the post. The cathedral had a racially mixed congregation and clergy. Desmond bought in changes to the worship including shaking hands, hugging and kissing your neighbour on the cheek which made many fell more comfortable. In 1978 wealthier black people were starting to be allowed into a few public places but the community as a whole were kept as second class citizens. In one of Desmond’s speeches he dramatically promised to burn his Bible on the day that he was proved wrong about apartheid being an evil. Another thing Desmond said in one of his speeches was, â€Å"At home in South Africa I have sometimes said in big meetings where you have black and white together, ‘look at your hands-different colours representing different people. You are the rainbow people of God.’ And you remember the rainbow in the Bible is the sign of peace. The rainbow is the sign of prosperity. We want peace, prosperity and justice and we can have it when all the people of God, the rainbow people of God, work together.† In 1984 he was awarded in the Nobel Peace Prize in America. Soon the whole world came to see Desmond as a symbol for the fight against apartheid. In 1986 he was further promoted to Archbishop of Cape Town, the first black man to hold this post. In 1989 F.W De Klerk became president. The ban on ANC and PAC was lifted symbolising freedom for all black South Africans after so many years of suffering. In 1993 exclusive white rule finally ended. The result of the first democratic election was that in 1994, Nelson Mandela became the first black South African president. By 1996 there was a new constitution aimed at creating a full racial equality and harmony. The hardest challenge facing bereaved families was not only to forgive those whom had caused their suffering, but to make sure that forgiveness was complete and unconditional as with Christian love. This would mean the new South Africa could grow from strong roots, unaffected by blame and bitterness. I think Desmond Tutu was a good Christian disciple as he helped the black people of South Africa. He bought equality in South Africa which is what God says. He is helping others and spreading the good word of God. He is determined and will not give up when things get tough. Another example of a good Christian disciple is a man called Oscar Romero. He was born in Ciudad Barrios, El Salvador in 1917. He was a Catholic man. He thought the best way to help people would be to serve God as a priest. He frequently visited prisoners in Gaol and he worked with alcoholics He promoted the activities of ‘Alcohol Anonymous.’ He set up charities to provide aid for the poor and the hungry. Oscar was a respected man. He spoke for the poor, opposed the government, opposed military and opposed rich families who influenced the politicians behind the scene. He was a determined Christian disciple. Romero’s aim in life was too help the poor and hungry and the only way he could help them was by making sure the church get a say in politics. He started at a seminary in San Miguel, in 1930. A few months later he was sent to Rome to complete his theological studies. In 1942 he is ordained as a priest. In 1943 he returns to El Salvador having witnessed early years of the Second World War, in Europe. From 1944 he worked as a parish priest but a few months later he was called by the bishop to work as the secretary of the diocese, a post which he held for twenty-three years. During this time most of his pastoral work focused on the cathedral parish. Between 1962 and 1965 Romero was a largely important priest in the diocese. He was in charge of the local seminary and editor of the diocesan newspaper. In 1967 he was appointed as sanctuary, ‘General of the National Bishops’ Conference,’ and he moves to San Salvador. Then in 1968 he takes up an additional role for the, ‘Central American Bishops’ Secretariat.’ In 1968 the council of Medellin is held in Colombia. In 1970 Romero is made auxiliary assistant bishop in San Salvador. He becomes increasingly aware of the plight of the oppressed and the poor but resists th e notion that the church should be too involved in politics. In 1974 Romero is made bishop of San Salvador. In 1977 he is made Archbishop of San Salvador. It was dangerous to be a Christian in El Salvador. To speak the Gospel message of God’s love for the poor and suffering of the world was to risk persecution. This was a statement the government could not ignore. A person could not claim to be a Christian if he or she ignored the violence against so many in the country or if they ignored the bombings, the illegal detentions, the torture and the callous murders of men, women and children. These murders were seen as a direct attack on the church itself. It was an assault which the Church could not ignore. This is when Romero decided on his course of action. His thinking on religion and politics develops. He sees an increasing need for the church to have a voice in politics and becomes an outspoken critic of injustice and oppression. On the 24th March 1980 Oscar Romero is assassinated. On the 30th March 1980 the, ‘Palm Sunday Massacre,’ took place. He had the most powerful and influential voice of the Church and he was the spokesperson for the oppressed. Romero believed that the Gospels did not see a division between religion and everyday life. In a world of fear and terror, Romero’s preaching of the Gospel message of love and justice was a source of hope for the people. One of the famous things Romero said was, ‘May Christ’s sacrifice give us the courage to offer our own bodies for justice and peace.’ His last sermon, on the Sunday before his death, was very significant. In it Romero made a special request to those with belief in God and those of Christian faith. It was a sermon which many believe cost him his life. In the sermon Romero said, ‘Nobody has to fulfil an immoral law. Now it is time that you recover your consciences and that you first obey your conscience rather than an order to sin. We want the Government to understand seriously that reforms are worth nothing if they are stained with so much blood. I beg, I ask, I order you in the name of God: stop the repression.’ A week after the preaching these words Oscar Romero was assassinated. In the days before the funeral crowds of people flooded into the city. Visitors arrived from all over the world. Not only the Church leaders but also important politicians from many countries were present. Romero had become a respected political as well as religious leader. Nuns and priests were gathered in a very public hunger strike. In protest at the killing of Romero, they were refusing to eat. This showed how great a person he was. There were as many as a hundred thousand people packed in every available space outside the cathedral, waiting for the funeral service. The solemn funeral service began in a dignified manner. During the sermon everyone listened intently to the words of remembrance for Oscar Romero. During his life Romero tried to put such ideals into practice. His religious belief was always a practical matter and his great desire was to see people work together for a better world. Romero shared, with all who would listen a vision of justice in an injustice world. His life and martyrdom are remembered by millions. In a troubled world Romero remains as a sign of hope. Those who killed him may have thought that they would be silencing a powerful voice against injustice in El Salvador. They may have killed the man but the message of justice for all still lives today.

Buddhist Views on War

To Buddhists, war is akusala—unskillful, evil. Still, Buddhists sometimes fight in wars. Is war always wrong? Is there such a thing as a just war theory in Buddhism? Warrior Monks Although Buddhist scholars say there is no justification for war in their teachings, Buddhism has not always separated itself from war. There is historical documentation that in 621, monks from the Shaolin Temple of China fought in a battle that helped establish the Tang Dynasty. In centuries past, the heads of Tibetan Buddhist schools formed strategic alliances with Mongol warlords and reaped benefits from the warlords victories.​ The links between Zen Buddhism and samurai warrior culture were partly responsible for the shocking collusion of Zen and Japanese militarism in the 1930s and 1940s. For several years, a virulent jingoism seized Japanese Zen, and teachings were twisted and corrupted to excuse killing. Zen institutions not only supported Japanese military aggression but raised money to manufacture war planes and weapons. Observed from a distance of time and culture, these actions and ideas are inexcusable corruptions of dharma, and any just war theory that arose from them were the products of delusion. This episode serves as a lesson to us not to be swept up in the passions of the cultures we live in. Of course, in volatile times that is easier said than done. In recent years, Buddhist monks have been leaders of political and social activism in Asia. The Saffron Revolution in Burma and the March 2008 demonstrations in Tibet  are the most prominent examples. Most of these monks are committed to nonviolence, although there are always exceptions. More troubling are the monks of Sri Lanka who lead the Jathika Hela Urumaya, National Heritage Party, a strongly nationalist group that advocates a military solution to Sri Lankas ongoing civil war. Is War Always Wrong? Buddhism challenges us to look beyond a simple right/wrong dichotomy. In Buddhism, an act that sows the seeds of harmful karma is regrettable even if it unavoidable. Sometimes Buddhists fight to defend their nations, homes, and families. This cannot be seen as wrong, yet even in these circumstances, to harbor hate for ones enemies is still a poison. And any act of war that sows the seeds of future harmful karma is still akusala. Buddhist morality is based on principles, not rules. Our principles are those expressed in the Precepts and the Four Immeasurables—loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. Our principles also include kindness, gentleness, mercy, and tolerance. Even the most extreme circumstances do not erase those principles or make it righteous or good to violate them. Yet neither is it good or righteous to stand aside while innocent people are slaughtered. And the late Ven. Dr. K Sri Dhammananda, a Theravadin monk  and scholar, said, The Buddha did not teach His followers to surrender to any form of evil power be it a human or supernatural being. To Fight or Not to Fight In What Buddhist Believe, the Venerable Dhammananda wrote, Buddhists should not be the aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced the worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world. It is the duty of every cultured person to find all possible ways and means to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, without declaring war to kill his or her fellow human beings. As always in questions of morality, when choosing whether to fight or not to fight, a Buddhist must examine his own motivations honestly. It is too easy to rationalize one has pure motives when in fact one is fearful and angry. For most of us, self-honesty at this level takes extraordinary effort and maturity, and history tells us that even senior priests with years of practice can lie to themselves. Love Your Enemy We are called upon also to extend loving kindness and compassion to our enemies, even when facing them on a battlefield. Thats not possible, you may say, yet this is the Buddhist path.   People sometimes seem to think that one is obligated to hate ones enemies. They may say How can you speak well of someone who hates you? The Buddhist approach to this is that we can still choose not to hate people back. If you have to fight someone, then fight. But hate is optional, and you may choose otherwise.   So often in human history, war has sewn seeds that ripened into the next war. And often, the battles themselves were less responsible for evil karma than the way occupying armies treated civilians or the way the victor humiliated and oppressed the conquered. At the very least, when it is time to stop fighting, stop fighting. History shows us that the victor who treats the conquered with magnanimity, mercy, and leniency is more likely to achieve the lasting victory and eventual peace. Buddhists in the Military Today there are more than 3,000 Buddhists serving in the U.S. armed forces, including some Buddhist chaplains. Todays Buddhist soldiers and sailors are not the first in the U.S. military. During World War II, approximately half of the troops in Japanese-American units, such as the 100th Battalion and the 442nd Infantry, were Buddhists. In the Spring 2008 issue of Tricycle, Travis Duncan wrote of the Vast Refuge Dharma Hall Chapel at the U.S. Air Force Academy. There are 26 cadets currently at the academy who practice Buddhism. At the dedication of the chapel, the Reverend Dai En Wiley Burch of the Hollow Bones Rinzai Zen school said, Without compassion, war is a criminal activity. Sometimes it is necessary to take life, but we never take life for granted.