IF GOD EXISTS, WHY IS ANYBODY UNHAPPY?

The age of atheism: “If God exists, why is anybody unhappy?”

"We’ve been misled by years of monotheism to think there's one answer to everything," says author Peter Watson

KATIE ENGELHART -- Salon, SATURDAY, FEB 15, 2014 09:45 AM CST

Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins (Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/ABC News/Reuters/Chris Keane)

In 1882, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously declared that “God is Dead.” (And that we killed him.) “The Age of Atheists,” by intellectual historian Peter Watson, begins at this moment — and then traces 130 years’ worth of Atheist philosophy that has aimed “to give meaning to a life lived without God.” The book ends in the present day, with some one-fifth of the American public identifying as religiously unaffiliated, or “none.”

The books’ early chapters are devoted to the history of secularism. Watson argues that religion should be understood in terms of sociology, rather than theology. After all:

“…multivariate analysis [has] demonstrated that a few basic developmental indicators, such as per capita GDP, rates of HIV/AIDS, access to improved water sources and the number of doctors per hundred thousand people, predict ‘with remarkable precision’ how frequently the people of a given society worship or pray.”

Religion exists not where people feel “the absence of transcendence,” he writes, but rather where they feel “the absence of bread, water, decent medication and jobs.”

But most of this book is a survey of “those talented people — artists, novelists, dramatists, poets, scientists, psychologists, philosophers — who have embraced atheism, the death of God, and have sought other ways to live… to overcome the great ‘subtraction.’” We meet with the usual suspects — like Nietzsche and Dawkins — but also romp around with Plato, Wittgenstein, Yeats, George Eliot and Virginia Woolf.

“The Age of Atheists” feels rather timely. Just a few decades ago, Watson acknowledges, “such phrase as ‘the meaning of life’ could have been used only in an ironical or jokey way.” (The 1983 Monty Python film “The Meaning of Life” suggests that life’s meaning is found in principles like “wear more hats” and “avoid eating fat.”) But in the 21st century, Watson proposes, “The Meaning of Life” is “no longer an embarrassing subject.”

We spoke with Peter Watson about living in a post-God world.

In 1882, Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God. What was happening around that time?

I put Nietzsche at the start of the book because it’s only since the mid-19th century that you can really talk about an age of Atheists.

---

ADVERTISEMENT

---

The idea that people are a natural phenomenon, rather than God-given, had been growing since the Scientific Revolution the 17th century. And there had been disbelievers or unbelievers all through history, but they were relatively thin on the ground. Secular thinking really blossomed in the last half of the 19th century when, I think it’s fair to say, most scientists stopped believing in God. They led the way. Obviously, Darwin was the most important — and his book was published in 1859.

A major premise of the book is that religion can’t really be replaced with nothing. Over the years we have used different fillers — from communism to trench warfare to psychology to occultism — but the constant is that we will inevitably seek out something to fill religion’s place.

Yes. I am a great fan of Wallace Stevens, the American poet. And I quote him as saying, we will probably never sort everything out intellectually, but we can sort things out emotionally.

It seems that people need two grounds of meaning, an intellectual meaning and an emotional meaning. That’s one reason why the arts have proved so important. You might expect science to replace religion, and for many people it does. But for others, whilst science in an intellectual answer, it is not an emotional answer. And people need emotional satisfaction. Clifford Geertz, the famous American anthropologist, says the search for significance and meaning is as real as the biological needs of food and sex and warmth and so forth.

That seems to reveal a tension between our desire for meaning and the question of whether we deserve a meaning.

That’s a good question. Do we deserve a meaning? I’m not sure anybody has asked that question in that way. I suppose Beckett did, in “Waiting for Godot”…

What I mean is this: At the start of your book, you talk about “the braver souls who, instead of waiting and wallowing in the cold, dark wastelands of a Godless world, have devoted their creative energies to devising ways to live on with self-reliance, invention, hope, wit and enthusiasm.” Couldn’t we turn this around and say: These are the most cowardly souls — for they try to create meaning out of accident and nothingness?

I don’t think it could be said to be cowardly. People use phrases like… Fall back on belief, Fall back on God. And people say there are no atheists in the foxhole. Well, that’s not true. Not all people fall back on God when their lives are threatened. What I wanted to show is that there are a vast number of people who have tried to answer the question of How can we live without God?

We’ve been misled by years of monotheism to think that there is one answer to everything. I don’t think there is. And to call it a distraction puts it down. The search for intensity — knowing that moments can only come fleetingly — is the only answer that people have. And living with that is the human condition.

You write that for many decades, Marxism was an primary substitute for religion. Today, can we say that this role is filled by evolutionary anthropology?

Marxism served as a substitute for perhaps 100 years, but it doesn’t anymore… other than in a general sense. Sociologists and purists will say that we are all still Marxists in the sense that now, human beings are looked upon primarily as economic entities, where the most important thing about them is their earning power and job.

I think that psychology came to replace religion by the ’60s. Today, evolutionary anthropology is at the least seeking to explain the moral basis of life — though that might not explain everything about the purpose of life and the meaning of life.

A part of this quest for the “meaning of life” is linked to the pursuit of happiness. In the beginning of the book, you take issue with the notion that religious people are happier. One of the problems is that journalists tend to cite American statistics when talking about the religion/happiness correlation — whereas, in terms of global trends, America is somewhat anomalous.

I write: “In America it is the churchgoers who are happiest, but worldwide it is those who are existentially insecure (and therefore extremely unlikely to be happy) who most attend church; religion is associated in America with less criminality, but worldwide with more; in America attendance at church boosts income, but worldwide a rise in income fails to increase happiness and it is the poorest who most attend church.” Happiness statistics can be manipulated according to your started point.

I think the feeling of an afterlife does make some people happy. But really, my point is that if God exists, why is anybody unhappy? If religion and God made people happy, why doesn’t he make everybody happy? Why are there so many unhappy people in the world? Do you have to worship God in order to be happy? Is he proposing a deal?

Going back to those statistics, you suggest that secularization theory — the idea that the modernization and economic development will inexorably give rise to secularism — has largely proven true.

Real modernization has brought about secularism, yes. You have these dreadful statistics about African countries that are poorer now than in 1992, when they started keeping figures. There, religion has really taken off — and in particular, primitive forms of religion, like evangelism and speaking in tongues. I think that, for supporters of God, it’s all rather embarrassing.

I’ve attended numerous so-called “Atheist Church” services over the last year, and I notice words like “awe,” “mystery,” and “transcendence” floating around a lot. They make me cringe. Does it seem to you that a new wave of “Atheists” is trying to reclaim an awe or mystery that is actually rooted in early monotheism?

I’m very much against the concept of transcendence. One problem we have is that many religious words, like “salvation” and”transcendence,” are firmly embedded in our vocabulary. Some people try to make secular equivalents, which I think is a mistake. Rather than going back to the old religious vocabulary, we should go to a new one.

But yes, I think there is a sort of midway stage with some people; they’re not religious, but they are probably mystical. That said, I do think that a lot of the New Age people are basically religious. They don’t buy the great monotheisms, but they seek some sort of otherworldly feeling, which I don’t think is available.

We see that in my book section on [philosopher Ludwig] Wittgenstein — in his idea that there is a limit to language. Wittgenstein believed that there are some things that we can’t describe, but that we can show or that we can experience.

For instance, when Wittgenstein talks about painters, he says: We can all recognize the difference between a Degas and a Renoir and a Van Gogh, but if you ask the painter to paint his way of painting, it can’t be done. It’s a limit to the language! A painter can make a painting of what he sees in the world, but he can’t actually paint his way of painting. Wittgenstein would describe that as mystical, though not in any sense religious.

A lot of the spiritual New Age-ism that we see today is based on a preoccupation with health and the body. I see it as a kind of religious exaltation via kale salads.

Yes! I mean, I think that people are joiners; they like groups. But broadly, this obsession with health and a longer life seems to be based on distrust in the idea of an afterlife. If you are convinced of an afterlife, then what is the point of extending this one? The next one is supposed to be most blissful.

There is a famous interchange from some time ago, between one of the Archbishops of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of Canterbury had a fatal disease. And the Archbishop of York said: Well good for you, I wish I was going with you! That is not the kind of response that most people would give, but it is a properly religious response.

We’re all just grasping… What do you want your book to accomplish?

One of the interesting things about the book, it seems to me, is that it is like a reverse scripture. Even atheists or secular people can admit that the King James Version of the Bible is a beautifully written book and a nice piece of literature. Likewise, a lot of my book is in the quotes and the form of words. They might feel particularly appropriate, or beautiful, or apropos, or germane… They can give us momentary pieces of comfort. When you read my book, you will come across, I hope, from time to time, [such] phrases. Did that happen to you?

It did. I have one of your quotes written down right here. It’s [poet] W. H. Auden: “We are here on earth to do good to others. What the others are here for, I don’t know.” I thought that was wonderful. Do you have a favorite quote from the book?

My favorite is another Auden: “If equal affection cannot be, Let the more loving one be me.” When I say it in a talk, a lot of people go Ahhh. They realize that it has enlarged their lives.

###

Past Lessons Remembered

“…we know without a doubt that Republican ideas of more freedom and less taxes — while sounding good and repeated by any and all candidates – are in fact, worth no more than the paper that they are written on.”

These are words written by 13 life-long members of the Maine Republican Party… officials within the party… as they resigned that membership and walked away from the former Grand Old Party.

In the letter (full text below) dated August 18, 2013, the former Republicans outline many of the same grievances expressed over the past several years by this writer. The defectors feel that the party of their fathers has lost sight of the goal; that there is an element within the modern GOP that has forsaken the true meaning of conservatism and steered the party into the netherworld of bigotry, divisiveness, social engineering, irrational spending and blatant unconstitutional actions. 

That last sentence at one time described Southern Democrats… The Party of Jackson... but those roles reversed shortly after Jack and Bobby Kennedy went to Washington.

The campaign for the Presidency in the waning years of the Eisenhower Administration illustrated all to well a schism within the Democrat Party… with much of the divisive rhetoric emanating from Southern Democrats. Jack Kennedy was Catholic, and there had never been a Catholic elected to high office. The last one to try was Al Smith in 1928. Fear mongers mindlessly and endlessly promoting the trope that the Pope would be running the White House if Smith won proved effective. Southern Democrats sat out the election and Smith was crushed… Hoover took the White House and the nation sunk into the Great Depression. The only winner in that election was bigotry.

32 years later another Catholic found himself fighting the very battles that sunk Al Smith. The dirty tricks weren’t as effective this time and Mr. Kennedy went on to win the Presidency in the closest election in history. Mr. Kennedy won 49.7% of the popular vote to Nixon's 49.5% with Kennedy polling only about 100,000 more votes than Nixon out of over 68 million votes cast. Nixon won more states than Kennedy but the Electoral College awarded the election to Kennedy by a 303-219 margin. The only southern states not called for Nixon were Mississippi and Florida. Anti-Catholic bigotry is blamed for a million and a half lost votes.

Three assassinations, two paradigm changing bills, an impeachment leading to the only resignation of a sitting president and a whole bunch of cross burnings later finds the freedom loving folks of the U.S.A. still fighting the battles of social injustice and fiscal conservatism. The political party names and the memes spouted haven’t changed, but the demographic certainly has. The once fiscally conservative GOP still proudly wears the mantle of conservatism, but has forgotten what that word really means. Many of those calling themselves Democrat still shout for social justice, but their actions seem more inclined toward social control.

Where once the southern bigots were the tail wagging the Democrat’s dog, following a decade of country-shaking events they abandoned the Democrats for the GOP. The Party of Eisenhower became infested with the parasites of the Party of George Gordon and John Clinton Porter.

Those of us in the middle… moderates yearning for a day when the search for social consciousness, constitutional justice and conservative fiscal policy can be balanced by compromise… find ourselves politically homeless.

Of the two available options, some choose simply to check None of the Above, but is that a logical option? The pragmatist’s answer is a resounding NO! Opting out and wasting a vote may make a valiant statement, but it solves no problem. The only real solution is to hold nose, vote for a candidate with whom one cannot 100% agree because that candidate represents a less oppressive path, and then work from within to weed out blind partisanship and taking a stand against hatred, bigotry and divisiveness.

The promise of Eisenhower conservatism has been lost in the swill of religio-political rhetoric, as the modern GOP has become the spend-spend-spend party of no compromise tirelessly struggling to elevate the almighty corporation to the tyrannical level we see today. Damn near every major Republican effort since the McCarthy/Nixon era has concentrated on things and people of which we should be afraid, why we should hate certain elements within our own house, constantly starting wars justifying the need to give more money to the defense industry corporatists.

Every Republican Administration from Reagan through George W. Bush has dramatically increased the war budget, increased the deficit and pushed the country into further debtor status, yet the echo machine perpetuates the myth that the Democrats are the party of tax & spend and the meme that the deficits created by their own party are actually the responsibility for the Democrats. Facts prove this to be a lie, but corporate puppets never let facts get in the way of a good myth while blinder-wearing sheep wag tail and follow.

Last month a Pew study found 54% of self-identified Republicans believed that the GOP should “move in a more conservative direction” and 35% feel that Republicans compromise “too much” with Democrats. Less than half of GOP voters, 40%, say they feel the GOP should become more moderate and 27% felt their party hadn’t compromised with Democrats enough.

The reason we are seeing high profile defections from the GOP is represented by that poll. No reasonable human can fail to notice the blinders of a demographic a third of which believes Republicans compromise “too much”.

Further evidence of the blindness endemic in the GOP herd was evidenced in the results of a Public Policy Poll of Louisiana residents in which a greater number of respondents blamed Barak Obama for the poor response to the hurricane Katrina disaster than blamed George W. Bush.

The full text of the letter referenced above follows. Emphasis I've added it to illustrate where I find agreement. My more liberal friends will likely take issue with the fact that I agree with them on the gun legislation and that the FDA sometimes oversteps, but if so you need to understand that being a moderate means supporting our Constitution, regardless of emotion. 

August 18, 2013

To Maine State GOP Secretary Chuck Mahaleris:

There are times in your life when you must choose between two paths.

The first path, if taken, would require us to remain within the Republican Party despite the fact that we know without a doubt that Republican ideas of more freedom and less taxes — while sounding good and repeated by any and all candidates – are in fact, worth no more than the paper that they are written on.

The second path leads to a principled preservation of our individual integrity, helping out our fellow citizens at the local level, and doing our level best for our Creator, our families, and our friends.

We have therefore chosen to follow the path of the latter.

Effective immediately, we the undersigned are unenrolling from the Maine Republican Party. Furthermore, those of us who hold official Party positions, be they at the Republican National, State, County or even Town Committees, hereby resign. Our reasons for doing so are as follows:

The RNC:

At the RNC, we have fought the good fight and kept the faith with regards to the rules. The Resolution that was passed in January 2013 by the Maine Republican State Committee put the RNC on notice that the grassroots were listening (and watching), leading to the rules battles which have taken place consistently since the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. The duplicity and lack of political courage which has been on display in this matter has sealed the fate of this Party.

Furthermore, it has become clear to us now that the RNC has no intention of reforming and would rather fly under invalid rules than to right the wrongs of Tampa. We therefore cannot, in good faith, support or defend the actions of the RNC. To violate our consciences and support those actions would make us part of the problem – especially after we clearly provided and handed the RNC the solution which was flatly rejected. The RNC now owns their demise.

Congressional Republicans:

In the House of Representatives, the cowardly leadership of John Boehner reached a new low in December 2012 when he purged the most fiscally conservative GOP members from leadership positions, citing their “unwillingness to be team players.” Political punishment such as this from Speaker Boehner has garnered justifiable rage from conservative groups, and from us, as we expected better.

Furthermore, the House Republican leadership’s utter disdain for the United States Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, was on full display as they worked overtime to kill the Amash Amendment which would have gone a long way toward constraining the NSA to the boundaries of the Constitution and seriously curbed their ability to conduct mass surveillance of Americans. Be it known that we cannot and will not support nor defend these actions.

In the United States Senate, we see Republicans all too willing to pass unconstitutional bills related to subjects such as the Internet Sales Tax and Immigration. Whether through arrogance or ignorance, they fail to understand the simple fact any revenue generating legislation must originate in the House of Representatives.

Additionally, the Senate Republicans continue to support undeclared wars, meet in secret and supply arms to our “terrorist enemies” who we vowed to destroy after 911, and then tell us they love our troops – so long as it’s our kids and not theirs who have to go fight.

Lastly, all too many Senate Republicans are more than willing to pass new “feel good” gun control legislation that would do nothing to stop another Sandy Hook massacre, all the while restricting 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens. We cannot support nor defend these actions in good faith.

Maine Republican Legislators:

In Maine, the Republican legislators in the House and Senate failed to sustain the Governor’s veto on one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 126th. Maine Republicans were justifiably outraged, especially at those legislators who campaigned on lower taxes.

We have been told that many donors have refused to donate one more cent to the MEGOP due to this budget debacle, but nevertheless we are expected to ignore these facts and get out there and raise funds for the party. This we cannot do in good faith; the Republican Party has lost its way and the donors know it.

The LePage Administration:

Not to be outdone by the legislators, this Administration’s support for Common Core Education Standards, the Internet Sales Tax, the atypical meddling in the business of the Maine State Committee, as well as the vetoes of the Drone and Cell Phone bills left many of us incredulous.

However, the straw that broke the camel’s back for many of us was the veto of LD 1282 (the “Raw Milk Bill”) and those who voted to sustain it: a sad day indeed for the small farmers of Maine. We want our God-given rights to buy, sell and consume what we want protected by the law – not restricted by FDA or USDA directives. These actions we cannot explain nor defend in good faith – the Republican Party has lost it’s way.

Therefore, for the above-stated reasons, we can no longer allow ourselves to be called nor enrolled as Republicans; we can no longer associate ourselves with a political party that goes out of its way to continually restrict our freedoms and liberties as well as reaching deeper and deeper into our wallets.

We instead choose the path that focuses on ways to help our fellow Mainers outside of party politics.

Some of us may be town officers or board members. Some of us may leave all options on the table with regards to running for higher office as Independents.

Some of us may be small farmers and gardeners who desire to help feed their communities.

Others may simply want to just get part of their life back, catching up and spending more time with friends and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Republican National Committee Member:Mark Willis, Washington County

Maine Republican State Committee Members:Thomas Barry, Androscoggin County

Ann-Marie Grenier, Cumberland County

Gregory Hodge, Lincoln County

Olga LaPlante, Cumberland County

Russell Montgomery, Knox County

Violet Willis, Washington County

Maine Registered Republicans:

Sam Canders, Penobscot County

Bryan Daugherty, Penobscot County

Maria Hodge, Penobscot County

Randall J. Grenier, Cumberland County

L. Scott D’Amboise, Androscoggin County

Debbie D’Amboise, Androscoggin County

###

Kent State Remembered

THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: 

THE SEARCH  FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY

BY

JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY

On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4th, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.

In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4th and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970 at Kent State University.⁽¹⁾

Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses,⁽²⁾ contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.

This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4th shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.

WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?

The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970 by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.

Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.

Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.

The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?

Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protesters were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.

Sunday, May 3rd was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protestors and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.

WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?

At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3000 people.

Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.

Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.

WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?

Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4th. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.

The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4th rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.

WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about ten minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, twenty-eight of the more than seventy Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13 second period.

HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?

Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.

Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13 second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about sixty feet; he was standing still with his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.

WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?

The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.

The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.

The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants⁽³⁾ as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:

In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.

Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.

We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.

A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?

While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13 second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.

Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about twenty minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.

Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.

The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.

WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?

A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a fourteen year old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.

The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.

John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.

WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.

First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.

Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students. 

Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.

Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State ten days after Kent State.

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?

Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.

(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?

(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?

(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?

(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?

(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?

(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?

WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?

In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."

The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4th at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.

Dean Kahler, who was paralyzed when he was shot in the May 4 shootings, looks at an exhibit in the new May 4 Visitors Center in Taylor Hall at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bills, Scott. (1988). Kent State/May 4: Echoes Through a Decade. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. This book provides town and gown reactions to May 4th. It has the best annotated bibliography available on the literature on the shootings and is the basis for the annotations that follow.

Casale, Ottavio M. & Paskoff, Louis (Eds.) (1971). The Kent Affair: Documents and Interpretations

Boston: Houghton Mifflin. This is an early, useful volume which reproduces local and national newspaper articles on the shootings as well as radio and television broadcasts.

Davies, Peter. (1973). The Truth About Kent State: A Challenge to the American Conscience. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. This is a detailed narrative and analysis of the events of May 4 and their aftermath. He argues that the Guard conspired to fire upon the students. 74 photographs are included.

Eszterhas, Joe & Roberts, Michael D. (1970). Thirteen Seconds: Confrontation at Kent State. New York: Dodd, Mead. A very quick publication by two Cleveland journalists who use interviews of students, faculty, and Guardsmen to provide a background and narrative of May 1970 events.

Grant, Edward J. & Hill, Michael (1974). I Was There: What Really Went on at Kent State . Lima, OH: C.S.S. Publishing Co. The only book written by members of the Ohio National Guard, the authors provide a view of the hostile environment in which the Guardsmen found themselves.

Hare, A. Paul (Ed.) (l973). Kent State: The Nonviolent Response. Haverford, PA: Center for Nonviolent Conflict Resolution. A series of articles by noted peace activist Paul Hare as well as many Kent State faculty members. The common theme is the search for nonviolent approaches to conflictual situations.

Hensley, Thomas R. (1981). The Kent State Incident: Impact of Judicial Process on Public Attitudes. Westport, CONN: Greenwood Press. This is a detailed examination of the legal aftermath of the shootings, focusing upon the impact of various legal proceedings on public attitudes about the shootings.

Hensley, Thomas R. and Lewis, Jerry M. (1978). Kent State and May 4th: A Social Science Perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. This collection brings together a number of previous articles on May 4 that were published in social science journals, but articles covering the Kent State litigation and the 1977 gymnasium controversy were written specifically for this volume. This book also contains the excellent analysis of the events of May 4 written by James Best.

Kelner, Joseph and Munves, James. (1980). The Kent State Coverup . New York: Harper and Row. Kelner was the chief legal counsel for the students and parents in the 1975 federal civil trial. He presents a harsh analysis of the handling of the trial by Judge Donald Young. The book has a strong bias, but it provides the only detailed analysis of this long and important trial.

Michener, James. (1971). Kent State: What Happened and Why . New York: Random House and Reader's Digest Books. This is undoubtedly the most widely read book on May 4th because of Michener's reputation and the wide publicity it received. The book suffers from being produced so quickly, however, containing numerous factual errors.

Payne, J. Gregory (1981). Mayday: Kent State. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. The book provides a rather sketchy overview of the May 4 events, presents excerpts from letters written by participants in the events, and discusses the made-for-TV movie on May 4 to which Payne served as a consultant.

Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest. (1970) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reprint edition by Arno Press. This remains the best single source for understanding the events of May 4. The report examines not only the shootings at Kent State but also the student movement of the sixties and the shootings at Jackson State University. Excellent photographs are included.

Stone, I. F. (1971). The Killings at Kent State: How Murder Went Unpunished. New York: Review Book. This is a rather sketchy book written with a strongly held viewpoint that the Guardsmen committed murder.

Taylor, Stuart; Shuntlich, Richard; McGovern, Patrick; & Genther, Robert. (1971). Violence at Kent State, May 1 to 4, l970: The Student's Perspective. New York: College Notes and Texts, 1971. A study of the perceptions, feelings, attitudes, and reactions of Kent State students based upon a questionnaire sent to all Kent State students shortly after the shootings. Seven thousand students responded, and although this is not a random sample, it has the best data available about the views of Kent State students about May 4.

Tompkins, Phillip K. and Anderson, Elaine Vanden Bout. (l971). Communication Crisis at Kent State: A Case Study. New York: Gordon & Breach. This book presents a harsh analysis of the communications problems that permeated the University during May 1970.

Warren, Bill (Ed.) (1970). The Middle of the Country: The Events of May 4th As Seen by Students & Faculty at Kent State University . A hastily compiled set of essays put together by a Kent State University sophomore containing various reactions to the shootings by Kent State students and faculty members.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Best, James J. (1978). "Kent State: Answers and Questions" in Thomas R. Hensley and Jerry M. Lewis .) Kent State and May 4th: A Social Science Perspective . Dubuque, IA:

Kendall/Hunt.

Haldeman, H.R. (1978). The Ends of Power. New York: Times Books.

McNamara, Robert. (1995). In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. New York: Times Books.

Norton, Mary Beth; Katzman, David M.; Escott, Paul D.; Chudacoff, Howard P.; Paterson, Thomas G.; & Tuttle, William M. (1994). A People and a Nation: A History of the United

States. Fourth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

NOTES

1.In addition to the many books on the Kent State shootings, numerous reports, book chapters, and articles have been written. The most comprehensive and accurate commission investigation is The Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest (1970) chaired by William W. Scranton. An excellent book chapter on the shootings is by James J. Best (1978). The most comprehensive bibliography on the shootings is in Bills (1988).

2. Professor Hensley, the co-author of this article, became aware of this reference to the Kent State shootings because his daughter, Sarah, was taking Advanced Placement United States History at Kent Roosevelt High School with Mr. Bruce Dzeda. We thank Mr. Dzeda for reading this article and offering his reactions, although he bears no responsibility for the ideas expressed in this article.

3. In addition to Guard officers and enlisted men, Governor James Rhodes was also a defendant in the civil trial and signed the statement.

PUBLISHED IN REVISED FORM BY THE OHIO COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES REVIEW, VOL 34, NUMBER 1 (SUMMER, 1998) PP. 9-21

###