These topics continue to be debated and discussed over the years on this forum. Premies post and complain that exes are responsible for having gotten involved with Rawat and the cult, and that their life circumstances are the result of choices freely made. Exes ponder why they got involved and why they stayed. We contemplate where responsibility lies for those who lost years of their lives, educational and employment opportunities, and financial stability to Rawat and the cult. I always find exes' soul searching discussions about these issues to be compelling.

Some of these premie posts complain that we are "stuck in the past" - that we can't "move on" and that we are nothing more than personally flawed, professional critics of Rawat.

Rawat, his puff piece PR campaign, premies and the related internet sites never address or consider Rawat's and the cult leaders' choices and responsibilities since Rawat succeeded his father at the tender age of -- what was it, 8? I have forgotten, thank goodness. Notions of choice and responsibility belong to those pathetic unbelievers who have fallen by the wayside. One can only wonder why. Rawat appears to be the only human being who has never made a mistake.

As posters continue to consider these issues, I remind readers that the California Supreme Court decided a case against the Moonies/Unification Church which is relevant to these discussions. The court said that former members could sue the Unification Church for inducing them, through misrepresentation and fraud, into entering an environment where they were subject to coercive persuasion (brainwashing), and then joined the group. I am not offering this information as encouragement to sue. I offer it to show the range of opinions about choice and responsibility for individuals and for cults and their leaders.

Marianne