I also have to say that I agree with Nik on this. Andries expressed perspectives, though partly based on some very outdated academic references and in my opinion really missing the mark at times, is hardly painting a rosey picture of Rawat. I don't think one can call him an apologist.I also had the same thought as Nik. The study of cults has largely remained a backwater amongst academics. As a result, the existing work has not been subject to the kind of peer review that would otherwise theoretically weed out the crackpots and they continue to proliferate. There is at least a hope that people like Andries can drag the issue into a more mainstream focus so that it will not continue to be dominated by compromised "authorities".
I should also think that the fallout from Al Qaeda ought to generate more interest in the subject.
Andries comes up with some strange ideas at times, but I at least appreciate that he isn't just taking things at face value and is motivated to probe beneath the surface. The ability to question conventional ideas is the source of innovation. Maybe at some point he'll surprise us all.
I for one am far from satisfied with the present perceptions on cults, both positive and negative. For one thing, the phenomena is so often treated like an anomaly when I suspect that the motivating force behind it all is as basic as hunting and gathering.
On the other hand, I can understand the perspective of some posters on the forum, perhaps best expressed by Cynthia, that this perhaps isn't the place for vivisection. There are real people here hurt by a specific cult and these needs are first priority. So Andries, maybe you should be more careful about treading on people's feet here with your experiments.
