His stand on religious freedom. And the fact that he wasn't driven by vindictiveness in his analysis, unlike most cults.
His actual analyis of apsotates, though, and his opinion of their reliability is complete garbage, nevertheless.
Like I say, he took a lonely position in defending new religions and cults and, IMO, foused on apostates as an answer to his critics. I don't think he was dishonest or an out and out apologist per se, I just think he was plain wrong.Too skewed, allowing all the freedom to the actual cults as that was his " baby".
In his case, a prime example of the need to be out of the ivory tower to really comprehend what's going on in the street.
Not nasty, just clueless.
