Whatever one thinks of Sociology, the academic study of societies and social phenomena is surely a valid academic enterprise - and  the study of religions and cults must be part of that.

I haven't seen anything that Andries has written that is unequivocally Rawat apologism - and his attempts (although IMO fatally undermined by the Wikipedia managment) to achieve a balanced article on Wikipedia deserve to be applauded.

Academic study rarely allows an unalloyed critical treatment of a subject and exs can not expect Social Scientists to adopt a single style of approach to cults. What we can expect is that academics act with probity - and it is the likes of Geaves and Melton whose works are demonstrably tainted who deserve the label 'apologist'.

The academic apologists have only been allowed to prosper because they have occupied a backwater of Sociology  where unexposed to the rigors of the wider discipline - a single, narrow perspective has governed their work. To rectify the position we should look to a wider examination of the apologists work - and that will involve critical examination of 'the apostate postion' - it will involve discussion that treats cult leaders as having value - it will involve arguments about the validity of belief - and it will involve propositions of the value of non judgmental observationalism. It seems to me that all Andries is doing is starting out on that process - personally I welcome it.

Nik