We had the beginnings of a discussion about this on my site a while back. There may have been other posts in the series, but this is the one I remember:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/07/08/is-cult-a-useless-label/
-----

"Cults” can be tricky things. As religious organisations, sure, they can be harmful. But as far as I know, many groups often considered simply religions are technically considered cult groups by the government (in Canada, at least). I know the Mormon sect is considered a cult. And it’s debatable how much good or detriment that they are the cause of. Others groups a little more secretive, such as, say, the Masons, Illuminates of Thanateros, and Mickey Mouse Club, are all very much cults in that they embrace an ideal true to all their members and that is what unites them and gives them strength. I’d say they do more good than harm. As do the cults of Apple, Nike (well, maybe not for third-world countries), Mountain Equipment Co-op here in Canada, and on.

Detrimental cults, me thinks, really deserve a new name. They smear the word for others that would use it for good.

Fell - I think you are right. We seem to have a situation where there are ‘good’ or at least useful/tolerated cults And ‘bad’ ones. This is why i think we need more info. Even some anti-Cult movements seem to be Cults.

Maybe we need a new definition but maybe we just need to redefine what these groups are.

I think the best way is to promote critical thinking and questioning right across the board: question government, religion everything - don’t believe unless there is proof. And then question proof.

If we can return to the kind of philosophical framework which is anyway our inheritance then we will sidestep these problems - the skeptical/Gnostic blogs such as yours, Tim’s and JP’s are an essential part of this process imo - it just needs to feed into the mainstream.