With regards to cults and NRMs, it will be clear that I disagree with the approach of scholars like J. Gordon Melton who minimize every criticism in his, what I believe is his sincere, but misguided attempt to legitimize new religions. I can live with this disagreement but I cannot live with the generalizations that he and Bryan Wilson make about the lack of reliability of critical former members of cults and NRMs. I consider this extremely insulting and unfair. I did my utmost to present a balanced, fair and factual story about SSB. How can I defend myself against such generalizations? It is comparable to saying that e.g. Dutch people, or English people are unreliable. How would contributors in Wikipedia react if I wrote that a considerable amount of people consider Jewish people unreliable (i.e. quit a lot of Muslims which is unfortunately true)? I think I would be blocked if I insisted. I can not live with this because the whole SSB affair was traumatic for me and if I am branded by social scientists as unreliable then this generalizations is just too hurtful. Every time I read it I am angry for the rest of the day.
Well, anyway I have been working a bit and will be working on a website that deals with this subject.
Besides in the Wikipedia criticism of Prem Rawat brands Mike Donner as an apostate which is technically incorrect because he was traced by Jim Heller. He was not really a critic (apostate).
I would appreciate help with this. Has anyone read the books about leaving cults and apostasy by David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, or Stuart West?
Andries
