Let's separate out and also
clarify a few things, as we're looking at a
number of factors here. There's Scientology doctrine; the C of S as an
organisation, including its staffs; public (non-staffmember)
Scientologists; and perhaps other things I'm not looking at right now,
such as C of S social programmes.
The most important of these
factors is Scientology doctrine, and I've no
problem supporting of it. There are some things I consider are in
drastic and increasing need of critical examination, re-evaluation, and
subsequent revision or cancellation. But I've thought this for
twenty-seven years or thereabouts, and I rather doubt that the sky will
fall if they're not adequately addressed for another twenty-seven
If enough people in or out of
Scientology were *really* determined about
handling whatever might be wrong with it, we'd see considerably more
intelligent and effective criticism than we do see.
So, far be it for me to put any
more of my own demand for change into
such a sluggish scene than I already do.
No problem, then, with the
doctrine. The doctrine -- complete with its
faults and the problems these create -- isn't the problem.
And now let's lump the doctrine
back in with all of the other factors
and try for some brevity.
I could give you any number of
what I would consider catastrophic
scenarios, such that I'd no longer be able to consider Scientology
doctrine to be Scientology doctrine or the C of S to be the C of S,
etc.. If any of these scenarios materialised, that would be the end of
my support for those involved in them and the beginning of my support
for whomever I considered capable of taking up the fallen banner.
But such scenarios aren't going
to happen. Sure, anything can happen,
but their unlikelihood precludes all but idle speculation at this point.
So, I currently don't see my
support going anywhere other than where it