Enzo Piccone <enzo@hermes.it>

Sun, 11 Apr 1999 01:07:22 +0100

Message-ID: <370FE7BA.6782@hermes.it>

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 years.

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 is.