Operation Clambake present:
Comments from Scientologists
Date: 16 November 2001
OPINIONS FROM A SCIENTOLOGIST by E.J.
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION:
I have been a practicing Scientologist for nearly my whole life. I am a
public member, that is to say, I’m not staff. People typically think I’m
working for the OSA, but that is simply not true. (I suspect they see it as
a way to discredit me among the critics.) In any event, I have known a
great many Scientologists and have spent much time in their presence. I
have trained and gotten auditing. I am very familiar with the teachings and
beliefs of the Church. I can only speak to what I know to be true. Some
have raised questions about the motivations of the upper echelons of the
Church, but I can’t speak to that at least not in more than a limited way.
I only know what I see.
WELCOME TO HATEVILLE:
I’ve invested some time here on Operation Clambake. I actually can’t recall
how I first came across the site. But as a practicing Scientologist, I was
intrigued to see what all the fuss was about. There was so much
misinformation and odd statements here I was shocked.
It’s not as though OC is the only anti-Scientology site around. There are
several. But most are shoddy affairs - poorly laid out, difficult to
navigate, utterly rabid in content. And as, by most accounts, OC is the
most visited site on the subject, I decided to direct my attention here.
DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK:
This site is somewhat deceptive, in my estimation. When one first visits,
they might think this site is intended to present a balanced view of the
Church of Scientology. Of course, this is not the case. As Andreas clearly
says, "It is not unbiased or objective, and it never claimed it was." But
everything is presented as if it is factual not the product of a biased
opinion. One should be careful not to simply believe everything one reads
here. I encourage all to do their own research.
One good place to start would be: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/
On Bernie’s site, [which by the way, is not linked on Operation Clambake],
you’ll find a well researched site, which is far more balanced than OC.
Bernie has also taken up some of the myths that are so commonly put forward
by anti-cultists here on this site and proven them wrong.
Further, the Church of Scientology has it’s own rather extensive web site
which will provide a decidedly positive viewpoint on the subject. There is
a massive amount of information available there. http://www.scientology.org
Andreas has linked to this site, but you’ll have to hunt to find it. Why do
you suppose he doesn’t put this link on the front page?
If you wanted to continue your research, you might want to visit:
Mike’s site is a pro-Scientology site that further debunks many of the
Vigilance is required when you undertake an investigation of this site. A
cursory view will leave you thinking that the Church is totally evil and
must be stopped. But nothing could be further from the truth.
THE ANTI-CULT MENTALITY:
When I first came to this site, I was very naïve. I thought these critics
had just misunderstood things about Scientology and I thought I could help
them better understand this group they were viciously attacking. Boy was I
I soon found my way onto the Message Boards and began posting. I was
immediately attacked and railed against for my beliefs. But I persevered.
What I have come to find, is that despite their claims, these critics are
not interested in the "truth".
THE MYTH OF CRITICAL THINKING AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD:
If you hang around anti-cultists much, you’ll hear lots of talk about
"critical thinking." It’s a catch phrase they love to throw around. But
you’ll quickly find, as I did, that they are not so interested in engaging
in it themselves.
Just try to get an answer about the nefarious activities of the anti-cult
hero Bob Minton around here. No one wants to talk about it. Here’s a prime
SanDiego Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 08:20 pm
"Critic's are not terrorists. They're critics and that's it. Just words."
E.J. Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 08:26 pm
"SanDiego is right. Except about the "just words" part. Many of the critics
here translate their opinions into action."
I-Loki Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 09:05 pm
"Congratulations, E.J. You've outdone yourself, with possibly your most
idiotic statement so far. That utterance is a bald-faced LIE. If not, prove
I then posted several examples of the sort of actions critics are taking.
Some legal and relatively benign activities, some, as with Bob Minton’s
physical assaults on Scientologist not so harmless.
But I went on to underscore my point:
E.J. Thursday, November 15, 2001 - 02:14 am
"I think it is important because I think some of the people posting here are
not aware that there is a network of critics here. And they plan and execute
actions, not just words. Large sums of money change hands. Bob Minton was
given $ 650,000 by the LMT. What's up with this money?"
"Where did it come from?"
"Stacy Brooks of the LMT: "The LMT received $300,000 from Operation Clambake
and the rest of it came from an anonymous source who I don't know who it
"It's an interesting question that no one wants to talk about here. I wonder
Now we see the kind of blind loyalty the anti-cultists so often criticize in
Curious Thursday, November 15, 2001 - 09:49 pm
"I am confident that the money was put to a useful purpose. Exactly how it
was used is of no concern to me nor I am certain, to the other posters in
this forum. We're confident that it was used for a noble purpose, whatever
it may be."
Bob Minton and the LMT are hardly ‘noble’. But the larger issue is that
they can’t even investigate it for themselves. Further, they can’t even
concede that it is hypocritical.
The Anti-Defamation League, who’ve been fighting Anti-Semitism, Bigotry and
Extremism for many years published their perspective on The Internet as a
"For years, hate groups have created written materials of every kind to
spread their propaganda, including books, glossy magazines, newspapers,
flyers and even graffiti. As communication technologies advanced, these
groups have kept up. First, they used standard broadcast-band and shortwave
radio, audiotape, videotape and public-access cable TV. More recently,
bigots of all kinds recognized the Internet's power and rushed to use it to
rally their supporters, preach to the unconverted, and intimidate those whom
they perceive as their enemies."
Religious tolerance is of vital importance to all races, creeds, and peoples
of the world. And you’ll find most critics will pay tolerance some lip
service as well. But their actions betray their true feelings.
There is some commonly used slang among the Scientology critics. "Clam",
"Co$", "L.Con. Nutbard", and plenty of others. They are used to dehumanize
Scientologists, plain and simple. And once you dehumanize a group you can
do anything you want to them. The parallels to the treatment of other
minority groups is clear. It conjures imagery of graffiti on synagogues and
There are anti-cultists who have no other interest than hate, bigotry, and
Here are a few examples of some particularly threatening hate posts I
received on this message board:
Slicer: "E.J shall be gangraped and crucified with anthrax-laden spikes."
Slicer: "...murdering Scientologists has just been declared legal and I've
got a very real .45 in my hand..."
Slicer: "Slicer hates this idiot. Meatgrinder bait. May be deprived of
property or injured by any means by anyone, and Slicer will buy the guy a
beer. May be tricked, sued, lied to, destroyed, shot in the back in the head
with a .45, decapitated, incinerated, run over, horribly maimed, or thrown
in the fucking meatgrinder."
And then with this, we see that perhaps Slicer would like to try to find me
by using an IP tracer:
Slicer: "And Andreas without an IP tracer. Who wants to bet that Lennox,
E.J., and Harper are the same idiot?"
This sort of behavior is not as uncommon as one might believe. I found that
many critics simply could not confront the idea that this is the way many of
their brethren think. A ‘clam’ is just a ‘clam’ to them, after all.
Just look at the name of the site! Operation Clambake? What if it were a
Klu Klux Klan site called "Operation Niggerbake?" Or a neo-Nazi site called
"Operation Jewbake"? I ask you, would you visit such a site looking for
information on those groups?
The level of religious intolerance is incredible. And even more incredible
than that, is they will DENY that it is intolerance when applied to
Scientology. Of course, the critics will jump in with all the tired old
arguments: "But Scientology is not a religion!"
I’m amazed anyone even tries to make this claim. There are several sites
with a thorough analysis of this point. But the summation is quite simple:
Scientologists, members and leaders alike, sincerely believe that they are
spiritual beings who take on other bodies after they die and can improve
through Scientology. This alone already qualifies Scientology as a religious
And even if it were not a religion, that does not excuse hate and bigotry.
Tolerance should extend to all groups whether religious, racial or of sexual
But around here a "clam is a clam."
a-pos-ta-sy (ú-pÄs2tú-sT) n. 1. Abandonment of one's religious faith, a
political party, one's principles, or a cause.
The anti-cult movement is largely [with a few notable exceptions] made up of
apostates: ex-members of Scientology. One might think, as is commonly
implied, ‘who better to know the truth about what goes on behind closed
But in reality the reverse is often true.
"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can
readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence.
He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias
with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the
suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate
himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first
a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various
instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to
enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist
whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of
-Bryan Ronald Wilson
-December 3, 1994
- Apostates and New Religious Movements
One must treat with some skepticism the personal accounts that are related
on this site. This should not be taken to mean that they are pure
fabrications. I don’t believe that is the case in the majority of
incidents. However, the temptation to exaggerate may be too much to resist
for some. And at best they seem to leave out the role they may have played
in any difficulty.
I’m not suggesting the Church is perfect. In fact, neither did L.R.H.
"Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean that it is the best
possible system or a perfect system." L.R.H.
I’m sure mistakes are made. And the technology is misapplied sometimes. In
fact, I’ve experienced that myself on occasion. But to throw the baby out
with the proverbial bathwater is a bit extreme.
THE BLATANT LIES:
There are so many it’s hard to even count them all. But one I hear a lot in
critical circles is that Scientology doesn’t permit any dissenting views.
This is simply not true. In fact there is an internal system within the
Church to air such grievances and resolve them. Of course, there are also
many Scientologists on the net with their own web pages which don’t follow
the Church’s doctrine to the letter. And yet they are not attacked, sued or
Here’s an example if you don’t believe me:
Then there are fantasies of frivolous lawsuits undertaken by the Church
against any critic who speaks his mind. Of course the reality is quite
different. The Church aggressively protects its scripture from copyright
infringement, this is true. And just as the laws of the land condemned
Napster for facilitating the theft of intellectual property, so is it the
Church’s right to pursue people who violate their rights. The critics
distort the facts of the matter in their favor.
Other lies concern the claims made by critics regarding the ‘secret
scriptures’ of Scientology. There is a popular belief among the critics
that the philosophical core of the Church is hidden from its parishioners.
But this is inaccurate at best. There is a gradient scale of enlightenment
in Scientology, just as there is in many other religions. Scientology was
developed to be a path that could be walked by many, not just a chosen few.
And as such, one must crawl before he can walk, walk before he can run, and
But the critics believe that if people knew the ‘truth’ about these beliefs
they would never engage in the activity. Specifically, critics take issue
with the ‘science fiction-like’ nature of these beliefs. While you may not
agree with these beliefs and you may find them ‘crazy’, they are certainly
not hidden. One need only pick up a book. They are widely available. In
fact, the free introductory video shown to any new parishioner addresses
these beliefs openly. And as far as ‘un-believability’ goes, one could say
the same about most spiritual belief systems. Who are they to judge what
someone else can believe?
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN:
Certainly, it’s not fair for me to paint all critics with the same brush.
Just as it’s not fair to consider all ‘clams’ equal. And I must acknowledge
that some critics are more moderate than others. The critics are motivated
by different things and to different ends.
Some seek reform of the Church. They hope to inform current and potential
members of the ‘truth’ as they see it.
These moderate critics are more apt to engage in an intelligent debate. And
perhaps consider some logical arguments. They usually advocate only legal
means of resistance against Scientology. I have little to complain about
when I consider the moderate critics. They are totally free to have their
own opinions and I support their right to pursue any legal means to get
their message out.
But many seek the utter destruction of Scientology and its beliefs. They
advocate legal injunctions against belonging to the religion or the ability
of the religion to exist at all. And I cannot support any act which
attempts to curtail my right to believe what I will.
If you don’t agree with the critics, then you’re either an apologist or
brainwashed. There is no other explanation for them. And so, it’s
difficult to have an intelligent conversation with an anti-cultist. They
simply discount anything you say. It doesn’t matter to them that there are
literally millions of written testimonials over the last fifty years from
Church members extolling the virtues of Scientology. They would rather put
undue weight on the tiny minority of ‘horror stories’ that can be dredged
In the mind of an anti-cultist there is simply no room for any positive
information regarding Scientology. So you will never gain any ground on any
issue. I would suggest you not waist your time trying.
There are legitimate issues regarding Scientology. And reasonable people
can disagree. But the fervent, malicious, extremists who frequent this
board and others like it are not interested in anything but their point of
view - and IMPOSING IT ON YOU.
I should add that IF Andreas has the guts to add this message to his board,
we might assume there is hope for him yet.
There has always been a link to www.scientology.org on the front page of Operation Clambake. Andreas
Back to Comments from Scientologists
Brought to you by: