Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


A Scientologist's View on the Critical Movement


E.J. is a Scientologist who has read a substantial amount of critical information and participated in direct debates with critics. Though he is not the only Scientologist to have done so, he has submitted a synthetic summary of his experience in this field. It largely reflects the failure of the critical movement to reach out to reasonable members.


---------- Start of E.J.'s Essay ----------

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.  Critics typically think I’m working for the OSA [Scientology's Office of Special Affairs], but that is simply not true.  (I suspect they see it as a way to discredit me among their fellow 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 on a critical web site called 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 O.C. 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 to it.

Do Your Own Homework

The O.C. site is somewhat deceptive, in my estimation.  When one first visits, they might think it is intended to present a balanced view of the Church of Scientology.  Of course, this is not the case.  As the site’s creator, 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.  I encourage all to do their own research.

One good place to start would be Bernie's site.

On Bernie’s site, [which by the way, is not linked on Operation Clambake for some reason], 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 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.

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: http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/

Mike’s site is a pro-Scientology site that further debunks many of the popular myths.

Or you can explore my own collection of pages, HERE.

Vigilance is required when you undertake an investigation of Operation Clambake (and all the critical data regarding Scientology, really).  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 O.C., 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 wrong.

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 example:

SanDiego

November 14, 2001

“Critic's are not terrorists. They're critics and that's it. Just words.”
 

   

E.J.

November 14, 2001

“SanDiego is right. Except about the "just words" part. Many of the critics here translate their opinions into action.”
 

   

I-Loki

November 14, 2001

“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 it!”
 

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 unprovoked physical assaults on Scientologists, not so harmless. 

But I went on to underscore my point:

E.J.

November 15, 2001

“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  was."

“It's an interesting question that no one wants to talk about here. I wonder why.”
 


Now we see the kind of blind loyalty the anti-cultists so often criticize in Scientologists:

Curious

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.

Religious Intolerance

The Anti-Defamation League, who’ve been fighting Anti-Semitism, Bigotry and Extremism for many years published their perspective on The Internet as a Hate Tool.

“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 racial epithets.

There are anti-cultists who have no other interest than hate, bigotry, and violence.

Here are a few examples of some particularly threatening hate posts I received on the OC message board:

Slicer


Slicer: "E.J shall be gangraped and crucified with anthrax-laden spikes."
 

   

Slicer


Slicer: "...murdering Scientologists has just been declared legal and I've  got a very real .45 in my hand..."
 

   

Slicer


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."
 

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 many of 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?  Would you expect it to be an accurate representation of the beliefs of Judaism, for example?

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 group.

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 preference.

But around Operation Clambake a “clam is a clam.”

Apostates

a•pos•ta•sy 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 doors.’

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 the truth.”
--Bryan Ronald Wilson, December 3, 1994, Oxford, England, Apostates and New Religious Movements

One must treat with some skepticism the personal accounts that are related on O.C.  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 they have had.

Most critics consider the choice of Scientologists to believe and practice their religion to be the result of mind control.  They have no respect for their fellow man, and his ability to make his own choices.  It simply isn’t possible that someone could honestly believe something that conflicts with their critical point of view.  Of course, this is precisely the kind of elitist thinking that leads toward forcible deprogramming and is in direct conflict with religious freedom and tolerance.

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. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 14 FEB 1965, "Safeguarding Technology"]

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 its hard to even count them all.  But one I hear a lot in critical circles is that Scientology doesn’t permit any discussion or debate among its members.  This is simply not true. Hubbard himself, in The Dynamics of Life says "The most desirable state in an individual is complete self-determinism." So, to suggest that the Church's objective is to create docile robots is absurd. Freddie T's site is a good example of a public Scientologist who has entertained much discussion and analysis of various aspects of Scientology and yet has not been attacked, sued or excommunicated.

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.  They intend to preserve the orthodoxy of the practice, and use the copyright laws to do so.  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.

This is yet another example of the hypocrisy critics are so often guilty of.  They will violate the law, and call themselves freedom fighters on one hand, while accusing the Church of any and all manner of wrongdoing, often with little or no hard evidence.

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 (such as Buddhism).  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 so on.

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?

Another common critical argument regards the lack of a public demonstration or scientific proof of the miracles supposedly promised by Scientology.

Of course, there are countless written testimonials from Scientologists regarding the positive gains they have personally experienced.  But the critics totally discount these. 

As for demonstrating super-powers, I believe L.R.H.’s views were similar to the one illustrated in this story from Buddhism:

One of his followers urged the Buddha to perform a miracle in order to attract some nonbelievers.

The Buddha replied: "I detest and will not undertake the so-called miracles of magic power and divination. I and my followers attract non-believers only by the miracle of truth."

In Scientology, one need only learn and apply the data and then decide for himself.  There is no faith required.

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.

Conclusions

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 up.

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 waste your time trying.

There are legitimate issues regarding Scientology.  And reasonable people can disagree.  But the fervent, malicious, extremists who frequent the Operation Clambake site and others like it are not interested in anything but their point of view - and IMPOSING IT ON YOU.

Thoughtfully yours,

 -E.J.

-11/2001

For a more thorough look at the myths surrounding Scientology click HERE.

---------- End of E.J.'s Essay ----------



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless