On reading Ya ones post I figured that there would be quite a lot of argument and further discussiojn about this on the web which of course there is.l>Cult Apologistsr has this to say and more (I’ve cut out a lot):

In general, cult apologists are people who are not cult members, but who support cults and defend their unethical activities.

Apostate:
This word is being used by cult apologists to mean someone who has left a group and speaks out against it. "Apostates" are considered unreliable because they "have a motive". Of course, cults like this modified definition. What is also said is that "the anti-cult movement" turns ex-members into "apostates", i.e. that someone who leaves is turned into a militant propagandist by some dark forces.

The logic behind this is that someone who has a motive to make a certain allegation is therefore unreliable. This is a standard of evidence that would never get through in a court - groups of people are simply labelled as liars.

The normal logic is simply to investigate an allegation. If it is untrue, the "victim" of the false allegation can and should sue.

"Ever since the Jonestown tragedy, statements by ex-members turned out to be more accurate than those of apologists and NRM researchers"

Rod Keller (a scientology critic) mentions a theory he heard from Dr. Ben Zablocki: that if the apostate theory was valid, some former members would take a second look eventually. They might say at first that they were brainwashed, but over the years, or even decades, they might recant that claim. They might accept personal responsibility for their time in the group, and that there was no real brainwashing. He said that in his entire research, he has never found such a recanter. Descriptions of mind control do change over the years, but nobody has ever recanted to him their previous claims of brainwashing.

Who are the cult apologists?

David G. Bromley
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dbromley/

Professor of Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and Shupe's academic twin. He and Shupe regularly publish books together about the nastiness of "apostates".

Participated in the filing of an amicus brief in the Molko case "for" the APA/ASA (American Psychological Association / American Sociological Association). Both the APA and the ASA later withdrew their names. David Bromley is on the referral list of the scientology-run Cult Awareness Network and of "The Family"
He supports scientology misrepresenting its beliefs in this "Expertise on Confidential Religious Writings":

Here is one of his theories why mind control does not exist:
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dbromley/paper-satanismandanticultism.htm

"There is no plausible explanation for how such a diverse array of groups from different parts of the world and with no connection to one another -- the Hare Krishnas from India, the Unificationists from Korea, The Family in the United States -- all discovered and implemented this psycho-technology at precisely the same moment."

It is Prof. Bromley's problem that he hasn't found out why all these different groups use the same methods. I guess Prof. Bromley also doubts that e.g. children manipulate their parents at the cash register waiting line; after all, millions of children cannot all have discovered and implemented this "technology".

Bryan Wilson

Not a member of the Beach Boys, this one is a former professor of sociology in Oxford. He is a very faithful sock puppet for scientology, often willing to appear when needed.

Stephen Kent (not a cult apologist) cites a paper by him that says that Scientology may still be called a religion even if the religious appearance was added only for legal reasons.

In his work, "Scientology: An Analysis and Comparison of its Religious Systems and Doctrines", he writes: "A distinctive feature of Scientology is that members are not required to abandon other religious beliefs and affiliations on taking up Scientology."
While he later admits that "while exclusivity is not required, it comes about as a matter of practice", he forgets to mention that scientology has policies about "mixing practices" / "other practices", e.g. in #15 of the auditors code:

"I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will serve."

He is Moon linked (New ERA participant)

6. What are the arguments of the cult apologists?

c) Members of the "Anti Cult Movement" only look at apostates, not at the satisfied members.

This may be true but has a good reason. Anti-cult groups look at harm. Looking at people who (really) had a good time is useless, since these people have not been hurt. One could as well accuse a doctor of only looking at people who are ill, or accuse the Better Business Bureau of only looking at consumers who have been defrauded. Also, they do not look just on isolated cases; rather, they research whether the alleged abuse is systematic, i.e., is it likely to happen again.

f) The "ACM" sees only the "atrocity tales" instead of gathering data with scientific methods.

This argument (coming from the Bromley/Shupe corner and gladly taken up by the rest of the cult apologist world) is that the stories of former members are "atrocity tales" and are not sober, realistic accounts but stories meant to present something out of the ordinary, and this is the reason why they are more successful in persuading the public that cults are dangerous.

Let's use the word "rape" instead of cult membership, and we get this: these raped women do not tell a sober, realistic account but they want to present something out of the ordinary, and this is the reason why they are more successful at criticizing something natural. The women do not present a representative picture. It is well known, and also admitted by the ARM (anti-rape movement), that only a fraction of raped women speak out. So an objective account about rape cannot be based on the minority that complains.

One day in 1998, a German cult apologist posted an off-topic message on a mailing list for "new religious movements" about Chinese Indonesian women being raped and killed, based on news reports. He had to be asked (without response) if there was any scientific evidence about it, or only anecdotal reports, that have no scientific value, i.e. where no scientific methods of gathering data was used? Has anything about the activities been printed in peer-reviewed journals? Has anyone been convicted? Has the Indonesian government been allowed to present its side of the story? None of these were researched, so by the logic of the cult apologists, these murder and rape stories should be ignored. Obviously, sources for these rape and murder allegations are people who do not tell a sober, realistic account, and did not mention the thousands of Chinese Indonesians who have *not* been raped or killed, who are perfectly happy to live there. So, it is a very distorted picture.

A third example would be smoking. "Smoke apologists" would argue that doctors who warn against smoking only consider the few deaths in smoking, and paint all brands of cigarettes with the same brush. Members of the "anti-smoke movement" do not consider that many smokers are quite happy, and enjoy the advantages of smoking: concentrating better, keeping a low weight, hanging around with friends, feeling "cool". The experiences of those who die of lung cancer is not definitive - it is just anecdotal evidence, and just part of the overall evidence. And those who stop smoking and warn others (apostates!) about smoking do not understand the concept of sociological and anthropological study of smoking.

A fourth example of such logic would be to say that the work of Amnesty International is unscientific; after all, most people who work there did not graduate in political science, and also did not work together with the governments involved. Instead, they (AI) believe in one-sided allegations by disgruntled citizens in trouble with the law.

Sounds silly and stupid? Yes. But that is how cult apologists think, when a self-proclaimed "minority religion" complains about criticism.

From http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Vienna.htm

some sort of term is necessary in order to distinguish between "apostates" and other ex-members who do not turn against their former group. Empirical evidence on the prevalence of apostates among former members is available only for a limited number of new religious movements, but uniformly suggests that they are a minority, perhaps between 15 and 20 per cent (Solomon 1981; Lewis 1986; Lewis 1989; Introvigne 1999). Most former members have mixed feelings about their former affiliations and, at any rate, are not interested in joining a crusade against the group they have left. "Apostates" are an interesting minority, and no serious scholar suggest that they should be ignored. The model, however, faulty regards them as if they were the only representatives of the whole larger category of former members.

etc. etc.