Neville,

Being emotional and passionate about a topic, or a period in one's life, such as having been in a cult, or a victim of child abuse, doesn't make the facts about one's past false or untrue.  I've been accused of being too emotional about this subject.  I find that accusation to be disingenuious considering the subject of this forum and the extent of my own involvement in the Rawat cult and how much the involvement harmed me. I've never claimed to be unbiased or dispassionate -- am I supposed to be?

Andries comes here and says things that denigrate what I have said about my involvement with Rawat by saying and implying that because I'm an apostate, that what I say about Rawat, DECA, and other things, are automatically untrue and unreliable, by virtue of the high regard he has for known cult apologists and those apologists' definition that apostates are automatically liars and unreliable sources.  That pretty much goes for what every ex-premie says about their life with Maharaji, too.  And he's not being accused of black and white thinking.  Apostate = unreliable source/disgruntled former cult member/liar.

I don't claim to have a picture perfect memory of every day I lived in Rawat's cult or of my child abuse.  That would be impossible.  I may come across too as too emotional but you know what?  To bad. I don't apologize for it  This is a forum for ex-premies to talk about their involvement with a very destructive cult leader, not a BB for scholars of NRMs or wannabe scholars of NRMs to correct how I or anyone else thinks. 

I had a discussion with Andries about Gordon Melton recently, explaining that that particular "scholar of NRMs" is a proven cult apologist and why. Andries already knows about all of this Melton stuff, but he denies it, or for some reason, won't acknowledge and accept it.  Andries uses Melton on Wiki  (and here) as an established, reliable resource.  Andries still gives Gordon Melton full credibility, even though Melton is a proven cult apologist because he accepted money from the The Family (formerly Children of God) cult to give that cult and its leader a positive spin as a new religious movement of the bible based kind.  Proof is not just in Melton's writing but on black and white on the cult's IRS income tax form from that cult made out to Melton.   Turns out, that cult was not a "developing new religion," but nothing more than a dangerous, child abusing cult with a leader who had written policies advocating and demanding that sex with kids is not only acceptable, but the word and work of God.

I wonder what other destructive cults Melton has written about that should be called into question?  Since the January tragedy involving the murder/suicide of Ricky Rodriguez, the step-son of David Berg, The Family's founder and leader, there has been quite a bit of media attention and scrutiny of that cult, as well as Melton's involvement with it as a scholar.

Andries still thinks to some extent that his own guru, Sai Baba, has redeeming value to those followers who were not in his inner circle and those who were not sexually abused by that guru.  That's one a combination of three things:  denial,  ignorance and/or cult apologia.  It stinks, and in real life, these kinds of apologetic "scholars" make it their mission in life to to purposely discredit people like me and other former cult members so that these creepy cult leaders can continue to have their freedom of religion and to hell with the vulnerable people who happen to become followers, and subsequently get so badly abused in the name of god and religion, and then recover and speak out about it.  IMO, Andries is on the wrong team, because there are plenty of other sociologists of NRMs, such as Stephen Kent, who have plenty of their own credibility in their field but have openly discredited the likes of Melton, Introvigne, Barker and that lot.

This isn't necessarily issue of "black and white" thinking, either, and I suspect Andries doesn't fully understand black and white thinking as it is applied to destructive cult leaders.   

Things are black or white, wonderful or terrible, a great success or a total failure, brilliantly clever or really stupid, a certainty or a complete mystery, friend or enemy, love or hate - there is no middle ground, no room for improvement, no room for mistakes. judgments on self and others swing from one emotional extreme to another and are easily triggered. It is important to remember that human beings are just too complex to be reduced to dichotomous judgments, and that all qualities fall somewhere along a continuum, containing elements of either extreme.

As applied to destructive cults and especially their leaders, I strongly suggest that there are no redeeming values in cult leaders, especially ones like Rawat, Jim Jones, Baba, Hubbard, definitely Berg (the COG guy) and that lot.  Andries says that's b&w thinking, therefore I'm wrong, polemic, and rhetorical.  But, Andries is fair and balanced and a neutral observer, because he's the casual observer here and what he says is okay and acceptable because he's not an ex-premie.

It's my point of view that by the sheer definition of what those cult leaders do to their followers and how they do it, they are bad for society and for people.  No redeeming qualities  Period.  Andries wants to be fair and balanced and give these guys a chance.  Fine.  Let him do it at Wikipedia, where the only thing that NPOV (neutral point of view) has served to to is to distort and revise just about everything (in Prem Rawat's favor) about the Prem Rawat cult.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with Nik and Dan.  I think that on many occasions Andries has proven himself to be a cult apologist here.

Cynthia