Chancellor, Apostates, and Fanatics

I understand Chancellor's viewpoint and appreciate his attempts at "objectivity."

The error in his thinking may be in the fact that he should also pursue those who have left the cult, studied seriously, and have educated and equipped themselves to put the cult experience in a rational human perspective because,

Their opinion has weight, because they have means of knowing the opposite opinion.


Something fanatics are incapable of and derisive of by labelling non-Cult members as APOSTATES.

Wild accusations of detractors are just as hideous to my ears as cult simpletons harping on one note: but each achieves its desired effect of stunning the viewer and listener. We wonder--is it really that way? Did that really happen?

Both may be right, both may be wrong: the truth may be in the middle.

But to only take heed to half the dialog is to invite disaster.

History and the laws of the spirit will repair the error.