Dorothy, I am not enigmatic at all, and, you are very kind to me. Thank you. Sea Horse, I object to your making me wrong because our points of view do not align. Still, I can understand how this would upset you given what you have had to endure. I do not want to upset you. In order to make myself better understood, then, here is my argument and logic for a suggested Summit for Peace:
1. History has shown that the continuous application of maximum pressure against an opponent can drive them to the peace table. The losing side needs to be made to understand the logic and benefits of Peace and Reform as opposed to a continued attrition that will surely lead to its ultimate collapse. It is clear to me that Scientology has been financially and internally staggered by the relentless, non-violent onslaught of its critics. CoS is hemorrhaging members and money. The infrastructure of Scientology has collapsed in crucial areas as evidenced by its need to pay for expensive outside law firms, PI's, corporate crisis management firms, property development and management firms, and various PR consultants, etc.
2. Scientology has utterly failed to sway public opinion with respect to Anonymous. Aside from morons with dubious and murky motive such as Supervisor Jeff Stone, the public does not see Anonymous as a dangerous group. The public sees Anonymous as a group that uses non-violent protest and the internet to expose Scientology's lies and to educate the public and the media about the dangers of this pernicious Cult. Even Law Enforcement, where it has not been unduly influenced by COS (and here I am thinking of LAPD and the RSD), has largely rejected Scientology's false claims about Anonymous as evidenced by the diminished police presence at the monthly protests. As a parent, I am pleased that Anonymous cares enough, and is dedicated enough, to immunize and protect countless millions of young people worldwide against Scientology. I am certain that parents everywhere share my sentiments. No parent wants to lose a child to a Cult. Even Scientology parents have been known to sabotage SO's efforts to recruit their children.
3. To your point Dorothy, I firmly believe that critics need to continue to apply maximum and unrelenting pressure against Scientology. However, there comes a moment in a conflict when the winning side -- and this would be Scientology's critics -- needs to ask their opponent:
3A. Have you had enough?
3B: Are you willing to reform and become a peaceable, humane, and law-abiding group?
3C. Are you willing to peacefully co-exist in this world as the religion that you claim to be?
3D. Are you willing to make the key changes that have been requested?
If CoS remains obdurate and is not amenable to change and Peace, then the critics simply continue in their maximum application of unrelenting, non-violent pressure. But at least it is worth asking Scientology in an open internet post if they would consider a Summit for Peace. By my asking this question, the critics can say that one of their members openly asked for a Summit for Peace and that Scientology accepted or declined. I therefore serve a useful purpose by at least asking the question. CoS knows exactly who I am and how to get in touch with me. I am at
scienowriter@gmail.com.
Dorothy, it is this simple: Scientology can do it the easy way or the hard way. Given the critics' continued victories and Scientology's stunning and continuing series of setbacks, footbullets, and losses, why not make a post in which I ask CoS if it has had enough and wants to talk? Scientologists are supposedly, allegedly, all for communication. I know that Scientology's rank and file are extremely stressed; they must be wondering why all of the mass, agreement, public opinion, and power is on the side of Scientology's critics. They must be wondering why CoS' leaders and the Tech is so powerless. Surely, they must want Peace. If so, they must demand change from within as an act of their own self-determinism -- and damn the consequences!
Perhaps this post will cause lurking Scientologists who have doubts to see that there are Scientology critics who are open to Peace and are asking to set down at a table and talk. It seems to me that CoS might want to talk to its critics given that its very survival is at stake. Tom Cruise sent out a very public signal that he was no longer willing to evangelize for Scientology and would only refer people to its website. Mary De Moss Panton expressed her regrets for her past actions. I saw in these two actions a possibility for a conversation. Why not ask to talk about Peace? The worse that can happen is that the other side will say no. Yet, there is always the possibility that someone will contact me and say, "Okay, let's set up a Summit and talk rationally on neutral territory with a neutral moderator."
I am genuinely interested in what the outcome of such a conversation would be at this moment in history.
/////
