The definition of any object is dependent on one's perspective.
If a particular group values something and holds it up as the object of religious veneration and yet is deemed over-controlling, sinister, foul, or malicious in nature, then yes, one may define it as a cult.
However, those within the group may not see it that way.
Not to mention, it depends on what one perceives as "good" or "bad".
Now, if the requirements of membership in the said group include adherence to a specific mindset or a certain amount of emotional control, then I would say if you do not like it, do not participate in said group.
HOWEVER, in an organization such as our own, as to what level of control higher-ranking members have over lower-rankings members is not strictly determined (from what I have seen, we aren't oligarchical in nature).
I have always thought of us as open-minded, but it has been obvious as of late, some higher-ranking members may have been overstepping their boundaries.
We are a group of free-thinkers and open-minded individuals, yes, we do have a specific doctrine, but there is room to maneuver within that doctrine.
The obvious solution to this problem is that the member/s with the highest authority need to establish SPECIFIC boundaries for what can and cannot be controlled.
Obviously we must allow room for free thought, and yet chastise those who are unnecessarily histrionic and combative (troublemakers, trolls, etc).
However, beyond that, you must not inhibit an individual's RIGHT to free expression and inquiry, however much you may disapprove of their perspective.
There is a clear separation between opinion and fact, and it is a fact that any member, no matter how high your rank may be, does not have the right to attempt to control others just because you disagree (unless, as I already said, they are deliberately making trouble).
Beyond this issue, however, I would say we are a pretty solid group.
AND CERTAINLY NOT A CULT.
(but don't drink the Kool-Aid)
MEESA HAVE SPAKE
