Andries,

I admit I saw red on this post of yours yesterday.  As I read it, it's a double insult to us.  Rawat's nowhere near as bad as we make him out to be and we, in fact, have just as much to answer for, what with our being an "apostate anti-cult hate group" and all:

I just do not like the black&white perspective of an evil, charlatan cult leader who brainwashes naive innocent youngster and then exploits them. There is of course, some truth in it but reality is more complex than that.

Or the opposite perspective of an apostate anti-cult hate group that threatens peoples' right to exercise freedom of religion.

You are the one equating these two perspectives.  The cat's out of the bag and I insist that you explain yourself fully here.  Do you actually believe that there's any truth at all in that criticism of us?  To what extent do you subscribe to the cult apologist theory of "apostatism"?  What is your definition of a "hate group" and how does that jive with the common definition used worldwide outside of cult apologist circles?

I know, I said "insist" and far be it from me to insist that anyone do anything.  But, to me, your comments above are every bit as inflammatory here as posting on a Holocaust survivors' site something to the effect of:

It's not true that Hitler was all bad just as it isn't true that all Jewish Aushcwitz survivors are whiny exaggerators who are exploiting their experiences for their own selfish motives.

I take your post exactly like that, just so you know.  You are borrowing the language and concepts of the protectors of evil here, as far as I'm concerned.  You better deal with this.