Is the Church of Scientology a Hate Group?

[RedShieldwolf]

Radio Paul is a controversial figure for me. I originally subscribed to him because of his awesome slide show presentation style videos. Then he started protesting in Sparrow's stead and his videos became unpleasant. Eventually, I unsubscribed. Now he has gone back to his awesome presentation videos. Wat do? 

BUT...that's neither here nor there. What I want point out is this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vTOzJajjoA

In this video, Radio Paul examines the Church of Scientology's claims that Anonymous is a hate group. According to Radio Paul, only one incident the FBI has on record is a website hacking by an individual who "subscribed to the beliefs of Anonymous". The FBI does not keep track of hate groups nor does it classify groups as hate groups. However, the Southern Poverty Law Center does.

Radio Paul points out that Anonymous is not listed as a hate group, but the Black Separatist group Nation of Islam is. What he proposes is that we make the Church of Scientology a recognised hate group. His arguments:

• Homophobia
• Relationship with the NOI
• Hatred of Psychiatry
• Practice of Disconnection
• Institutional racism
• Human Trafficking
• Abuse of women's reproductive rights
• Supporting murder of critics
• Hostile separatist mentality
• Master race mentality

So can the Church of Scientology be called a hate group? If it can, will the Southern Poverty Law Center be willing to list them as a hate group?

[ethercat]

Radio Paul is a controversial figure for me. I originally subscribed to him because of his awesome slide show presentation style videos. Then he started protesting in Sparrow's stead and his videos became unpleasant. Eventually, I unsubscribed. Now he has gone back to his awesome presentation videos. Wat do? 

Take what you can learn from, and leave the rest?  It doesn't hurt to listen to anyone and take what they say under consideration - as long as you use your own critical thinking skills to decide which parts are worthwhile lines of thought.  (Of course, unless you consider someone a complete waste of time, in which case, feel free to ignore them completely.)  People are rarely never completely good or completely bad.

BUT...that's neither here nor there. What I want point out is this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vTOzJajjoA

In this video, Radio Paul examines the Church of Scientology's claims that Anonymous is a hate group. According to Radio Paul, only one incident the FBI has on record is a website hacking by an individual who "subscribed to the beliefs of Anonymous". The FBI does not keep track of hate groups nor does it classify groups as hate groups. However, the Southern Poverty Law Center does.

Disclaimer: I haven't watched the video (yet).

Certainly, the "Church" of Scientology screams "hate group" at anyone who maligns them, even in the mildest way.  It has also been noticed that the "church" often accuses others of what they do; in fact, Hubbard wrote "THE CRIMINAL ACCUSES OTHERS OF THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF IS DOING." (HCOB 15 September 1981 The Criminal Mind).  Of course, this is not a Hubbard original.  One of Scientology's many enemies, Sigmund Freud, developed the theory of "projection" first.

Radio Paul points out that Anonymous is not listed as a hate group, but the Black Separatist group Nation of Islam is. What he proposes is that we make the Church of Scientology a recognised hate group. His arguments:

<list snipped, discussion below>

So can the Church of Scientology be called a hate group? If it can, will the Southern Poverty Law Center be willing to list them as a hate group?

I guess I would first ask, what is the definition of "hate group" according to the SPLC, or the requirements to be listed as one?  I don't see the term defined on their site.

They seem primarily focused on categorizing what they call "hate groups" as one of the following: Racist Skinhead, Anti-Immigrant, White Nationalist, Christian Identity, Anti-Gay, Holocaust Denial, Neo-Nazi, Neo-Confederate, Black Separatist, Ku Klux Klan, Radical Traditional Catholicism.

These seem to be of mostly racial or religious orientation (except for the Anti-Gay category).  The  only one I can see that Scientology would fit into is "General Hate" but even then, the SPLC defines the "General Hate" category as:

These groups espouse a variety of rather unique hateful doctrines and beliefs that are not easily categorized. This list includes a “Jewish” group that is rabidly anti-Arab, a “Christian” group that is anti-Catholic and a polygamous “Mormon” breakaway sect that is racist. Many of the groups are vendors that sell a miscellany of hate materials from several different sectors of the white supremacist movement.

Next, I would ask, what is to be achieved by having the CoS labeled a "hate group"?  Personally, I view the term "hate group" as being somewhat propagandist, having been overused for the agendas of whoever calls something a "hate group".  But, let's discuss this.  I might change my mind.

Radio Paul's list of why the CoS should be recognized as a hate group (my comments in purple, and I admit, I am playing devil's advocate to some degree here):

Homophobia:  I don't believe this permeates the organization, and while Hubbard viewed homosexuality as an "abberation", as 1.1, and as something to be erradicated, I do not see evidence that the "church" of today wants to erradicate all homosexuals - especially if a homosexual has some money, since gay money, like all money, is seen as something to embrace.

Relationship with the NOI:  Guilt by association?  Isn't that something we all try to avoid for ourselves?  And, if we're more magnanimous, try to avoid applying to others?

Hatred of Psychiatry: Yep!  The president of the American Psychiatric Association President, Nada Stotland, M.D., said that psychiatrists have their own "dedicated hate group", referring to CCHR.

Practice of Disconnection: Yes, undeniably.

Institutional racism: I don't see evidence of this, and it's especially inconsistent with the Relationship with the NOI as above.

Human Trafficking:  I can see this, but it needs to be proven, instead of hearsay.  It's a serious, criminal allegation.

Abuse of women's reproductive rights: One could argue that the women who have coerced abortions do so willingly to remain a member.

Supporting murder of critics: I'd like to see some proof instead of the innuendo that usually surrounds this topic.

Hostile separatist mentality:  Yes, there is this.

Master race mentality: I know what is meant by this, but according to Scientology, this is changeable by becoming a Scientologist.  Race is typically something one cannot change, so there might be a better term for it. (Group superiority over others who are inferior by not being part of the group?)

I guess I should see the video, and I'll reconsider my comments if Radio Paul is convincing enough.   

(Btw, kudos on using the list tags correctly, RSW.)

[RedShieldwolf]

Take what you can learn from, and leave the rest?  It doesn't hurt to listen to anyone and take what they say under consideration - as long as you use your own critical thinking skills to decide which parts are worthwhile lines of thought.  (Of course, unless you consider someone a complete waste of time, in which case, feel free to ignore them completely.)  People are rarely never completely good or completely bad.

You are right about this. I remember a video of Anonsparrow's (someone I look at as a guide for doing it right) where Sparrow decided to protest while drunk.  Not exactly a cool thing to do, but it was something I overlooked.

There are no absolute saints or sinners. Not even Gandhi.

Disclaimer: I haven't watched the video (yet).

You do pretty well here, but I'll keep that in mind.

I guess I would first ask, what is the definition of "hate group" according to the SPLC, or the requirements to be listed as one?  I don't see the term defined on their site.

Well, according to Wikipedia, a hate group is "an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society." The SPLC states that inclusion of a group or individual on the list ""does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."

So I assume that hate groups are loosely defined, at least as far as the SPLC is concerned.

They seem primarily focused on categorizing what they call "hate groups" as one of the following: Racist Skinhead, Anti-Immigrant, White Nationalist, Christian Identity, Anti-Gay, Holocaust Denial, Neo-Nazi, Neo-Confederate, Black Separatist, Ku Klux Klan, Radical Traditional Catholicism.

These seem to be of mostly racial or religious orientation (except for the Anti-Gay category).  The  only one I can see that Scientology would fit into is "General Hate" but even then, the SPLC defines the "General Hate" category as:

These groups espouse a variety of rather unique hateful doctrines and beliefs that are not easily categorized. This list includes a “Jewish” group that is rabidly anti-Arab, a “Christian” group that is anti-Catholic and a polygamous “Mormon” breakaway sect that is racist. Many of the groups are vendors that sell a miscellany of hate materials from several different sectors of the white supremacist movement.

I would go toward the "General Hate" category too. And if they put the Co$ on the list, they would probably list it alongside 'religious' groups, which I would argue against, as I do not recognise them as a legitimate religion (even if faith is a part of it).

Next, I would ask, what is to be achieved by having the CoS labelled a "hate group"?  Personally, I view the term "hate group" as being somewhat propagandist, having been overused for the agendas of whoever calls something a "hate group".  But, let's discuss this.  I might change my mind.

Good question. It may work against some of our goals. Let's discuss it further.

I've added some additional comments in red here:

Homophobia:  I don't believe this permeates the organization, and while Hubbard viewed homosexuality as an "abberation", as 1.1, and as something to be erradicated, I do not see evidence that the "church" of today wants to erradicate all homosexuals - especially if a homosexual has some money, since gay money, like all money, is seen as something to embrace.

Actually an excellent point. It would seem any prejudices (or morals) held disappear in the prospect of gaining more money. Even the practice of "curing" homosexuality can be tied to monetary gain.

However, Paul Haggis left over the San Diego branch's support of Prop 8. When Paul Haggis wrote to Tommy Davis asking him to denounce this, he didn't even receive a reply.

Relationship with the NOI:  Guilt by association?  Isn't that something we all try to avoid for ourselves?  And, if we're more magnanimous, try to avoid applying to others?

Radio Paul explains that the Church of Scientology's relationship goes beyond simply associating with them. They are actively supporting and promoting the Nation of Islam and money is exchanged between the two groups. I would agree that this by itself isn't enough to make them a hate group, though.

Hatred of Psychiatry: Yep!  The president of the American Psychiatric Association President, Nada Stotland, M.D., said that psychiatrists have their own "dedicated hate group", referring to CCHR.

YES! THIS! I can give a better argument for making the CCHR a hate group. Perhaps this is a more viable option. (I'll explain in a later post why we should do this.)

Practice of Disconnection: Yes, undeniably.

Ditto.

Institutional racism: I don't see evidence of this, and it's especially inconsistent with the Relationship with the NOI as above.

I do. Similar to Hubbard's attitudes on homosexuality, LRH clearly defined characteristics of different races and held racist beliefs that were common at the time. Some of this appeared in his works and still appears in his works.

NOI is still a black separatist group, despite its marriage of convenience with the CoS. In the same way the CoS still holds some of the same attitudes about race.

Human Trafficking:  I can see this, but it needs to be proven, instead of hearsay.  It's a serious, criminal allegation.

True.

Abuse of women's reproductive rights: One could argue that the women who have coerced abortions do so willingly to remain a member.

Unfortunately shown to be true with the Marc Headley case.

Supporting murder of critics: I'd like to see some proof instead of the innuendo that usually surrounds this topic.

Fair Game policy and auditing process R2-45 as shown in a declare.

Hostile separatist mentality:  Yes, there is this.

Indeed.

Master race mentality: I know what is meant by this, but according to Scientology, this is changeable by becoming a Scientologist.  Race is typically something one cannot change, so there might be a better term for it. (Group superiority over others who are inferior by not being part of the group?)

Master group mentality then.

(Btw, kudos on using the list tags correctly, RSW.)

I wanted to make it a decimal list!

Oh well. I'll figure it out eventually. 

[mefree]

Abuse of women's reproductive rights: One could argue that the women who have coerced abortions do so willingly to remain a member.

Unfortunately shown to be true with the Marc Headley case.

I don't know if I agree with this. Ordered coerced abortions seem to be part and parcel of life in the Sea Org, where not only status as a member is at stake, but future negative consequences.

Never having been the victim of Sea Org indoctrination, I'm not certain I could truly understand the ultimate repercussions of refusing such an order or the intimidation that may be involved in enforcing it. For those who grew up in the organization, know no other way of life, have no money, no insurance, no housing, and are refused contact with husband and family, I would imagine outside influences would have a great impact.

Just my two cents.

Back to scientology as a hate group. I need to watch the video.

Hatred of Psychiatry: Yep!  The president of the American Psychiatric Association President, Nada Stotland, M.D., said that psychiatrists have their own "dedicated hate group", referring to CCHR.

YES! THIS! I can give a better argument for making the CCHR a hate group. Perhaps this is a more viable option. (I'll explain in a later post why we should do this.)

I do agree with this.

[ethercat]

Well, according to Wikipedia, a hate group is "an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society." The SPLC states that inclusion of a group or individual on the list ""does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."

So I assume that hate groups are loosely defined, at least as far as the SPLC is concerned.

Not meaning to be contrary, and not meaning in the least to defend any of the groups they've listed as hate groups because I don't know enough about them, but if they're using such a loaded term to define these groups, shouldn't they define the term? 

I guess this could be considered a definition, of sorts, from the hate map page:

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.
...
Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

I have some problems with this definition. 

First and foremost, with the first part: "beliefs or practices that attack or malign"

Practices?  Let us examine the definitions of attack:
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.
6. to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.
7. (of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.

Do we not, in the sense of definitions 4,5, and 6, attack scientology as an organization?  Do ex-members not, in the sense of definition 3, attack scientology?  Do we not think that (perhaps) definition 7 is being achieved?   

Are we not engaging in practices that attack?

Beliefs?  When one begins to determine what beliefs are right and wrong, one enters the dangerous territory of establishing "thought crime".  One is still allowed, in the US anyway, to think whatever one wants, no matter how it is thought of by the vast majority of the people.  I strongly reject the authority of anyone who tries to dictate how I am allowed to think, no matter how repugnant my thoughts might be to someone.

Secondly, I don't consider "marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing" to be hateful activities.  These are rights guaranteed to us by the 1st Amendment, and I have engaged in all of them.  Certainly, though, criminal acts are something to be concerned with, and something which I can't condone, but criminal activity is not required to be on the SPLC list.

Considering the definition the SPLC seems to follow, if we would seek to have scientology listed, we must be careful that we don't get ourselves listed as a "hate group," which, of course, is something the CoS is keen on.

The  only one I can see that Scientology would fit into is "General Hate" but even then, the SPLC defines the "General Hate" category as:

These groups espouse a variety of rather unique hateful doctrines and beliefs that are not easily categorized....

I would go toward the "General Hate" category too. And if they put the Co$ on the list, they would probably list it alongside 'religious' groups, which I would argue against, as I do not recognise them as a legitimate religion (even if faith is a part of it).

My opinion is the same as yours about scientology not being a legitimate religion, but, again, the definition of the category is vague.  Who determines what constitutes a hateful doctrine or belief?

hateful: unpleasant; dislikable; distasteful

Because someone might find my beliefs distasteful or unpleasant, because they don't like them, that allows them to categorize me as hateful?  Conversely, if I don't like what you say, that means you're hateful?  I don't think so.

I guess what I'm trying to get across is the importance of not letting our desire to do something about scientology change what principles we stand for ourselves.  If we give up our own principles to affect scientology's standing in the world, what have we gained?

Next, I would ask, what is to be achieved by having the CoS labelled a "hate group"?  Personally, I view the term "hate group" as being somewhat propagandist, having been overused for the agendas of whoever calls something a "hate group".  But, let's discuss this.  I might change my mind.

Good question. It may work against some of our goals. Let's discuss it further.

I think any formal categorization of the CoS would be best done by an organization considered as an unimpeachable authority (if such a thing exists) or as a neutral party (again, if such a thing exists).  The reason for this is that the absence of any agenda or bias; i.e., impartiality, would make the categorization more reliable, less questionable.  I'd also like to point out that the SPLC is not without controversy itself.  (I found this out when I searched for "definition of hate group", in an effort to add to our definition.)

I also wonder if the time and effort spent might be better spent on other activities.  But of course, different people have different goals, different approaches, and are free to spend their efforts in any way they choose.   

Hatred of Psychiatry: Yep!  The president of the American Psychiatric Association President, Nada Stotland, M.D., said that psychiatrists have their own "dedicated hate group", referring to CCHR.

YES! THIS! I can give a better argument for making the CCHR a hate group. Perhaps this is a more viable option. (I'll explain in a later post why we should do this.)

Looking forward to hearing your reasons why we should do this.   

Institutional racism: I don't see evidence of this, and it's especially inconsistent with the Relationship with the NOI as above.

I do. Similar to Hubbard's attitudes on homosexuality, LRH clearly defined characteristics of different races and held racist beliefs that were common at the time. Some of this appeared in his works and still appears in his works.

Hubbard did have racist views, unarguably, but does the organization as it is today?  I don't see that it does.  Certain individuals, yes.  (For comparison's sake; the Old Testament of the Bible contains instances of violence, but should we also list all Jewish and Christian groups on the "hate groups" list because they believe in and follow the teachings of the Bible?  How about Muslims and the Koran? These are rhetorical questions, not meant to veer off-topic.)

Supporting murder of critics: I'd like to see some proof instead of the innuendo that usually surrounds this topic.

Fair Game policy and auditing process R2-45 as shown in a declare.

How about evidence not of wishful thinking on their part, but of actual action? 

(Btw, kudos on using the list tags correctly, RSW.)

I wanted to make it a decimal list!

Oh well. I'll figure it out eventually. 

Don't work too hard on figuring it out yet; it's a bug in this version of the forum software.  As possible bugs go, however, it's relatively benign compared to other types of bugs that could exist.  It's been fixed in a later RC (release candidate) version, which we will be switching to when it's declared a stable Final Release version by the developers.

[mefree]

A Rick Ross reference:
The seven-state hate model: The psychopathology of hate groups
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin/March 1, 2003
By John R. Schafer, MA and Joe Navarro, MA

The Hate Model

The manifestations of hate are legion, but the hate process itself remains elusive. Limited research in this field precluded the development of a comprehensive hate model. Understanding hate groups is essential for the development and implementation of successful intervention strategies, which depend on an understanding of the hate process. The proposed hate model consists of seven stages, including how hate groups define themselves, how hate groups target their victims and taunt them with verbal insults and offensive gestures, and how hate groups attack their victims with or without weapons.1
Definition of Hate

Hate, a complex subject, divides into two general categories: rational and irrational. Unjust acts inspire rational hate. Hatred of a person based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin constitutes irrational hate.

Both rational and irrational hate mask personal insecurities. Everyone experiences personal insecurities in varying degrees throughout their lives. The more insecure a person feels, the larger the hate mask. Most people concentrate on the important issues in life, such as earning a living, rearing a family, and achieving personal goals. These pursuits give meaning and value to life.2 Nonetheless, irrational hate bleeds through day-to-day activities in the form of racial barbs and ethnic humor. Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people.

With respect to rational hate, haters do not focus as much on the wrong done to them or others, but, rather, on their own helplessness, guilt, or inability to effect change. The object of rational hate often is despised or pitied.3 In the same way, irrational hate elevates the hater above the hated.4 Many insecure people feel a sense of self-worth by relegating a person or group of people to a lower status.5

more at http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups355.html

[RedShieldwolf]

Not meaning to be contrary, and not meaning in the least to defend any of the groups they've listed as hate groups because I don't know enough about them, but if they're using such a loaded term to define these groups, shouldn't they define the term?

Yes, they probably should.

I guess this could be considered a definition, of sorts, from the hate map page:

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.
...
Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

I have some problems with this definition.

I do too. Sounds kind of fascist actually. Even certain criminal acts could be labeled as instances of civil disobedience, rather than acts of a hate group.

Don't "hate" me for this, but I'm going to have to cut this part of the discussion short.  Suffice it to say that I agree with all of the points made here about definitions and the SPLC. To me, the Church of Scientology is a corporate cult that practices hateful activity. Even if I were to think of them as a hate group, I would be wary to label them as one.

Hatred of Psychiatry: Yep!  The president of the American Psychiatric Association, Nada Stotland, M.D., said that psychiatrists have their own "dedicated hate group", referring to CCHR.

YES! THIS! I can give a better argument for making the CCHR a hate group. Perhaps this is a more viable option. (I'll explain in a later post why we should do this.)

Looking forward to hearing your reasons why we should do this.   

Cool. I think it will deserve its own thread though.

Institutional racism: I don't see evidence of this, and it's especially inconsistent with the Relationship with the NOI as above.

I do. Similar to Hubbard's attitudes on homosexuality, LRH clearly defined characteristics of different races and held racist beliefs that were common at the time. Some of this appeared in his works and still appears in his works.

Hubbard did have racist views, unarguably, but does the organization as it is today?  I don't see that it does.  Certain individuals, yes.  (For comparison's sake; the Old Testament of the Bible contains instances of violence, but should we also list all Jewish and Christian groups on the "hate groups" list because they believe in and follow the teachings of the Bible?  How about Muslims and the Koran? These are rhetorical questions, not meant to veer off-topic.)

Alright, the Bible. I'm game. Well, the Old Testament also has explicit sexual content. But, as you are probably aware of, there are Christians with Victorian era views on sexuality that rival Scientology's repressive atmosphere.

So what's the difference? KSW. Scientology is a fundamentalist organisation. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have different ideas about God and scripture. There is no liberal, conservative, mainstream or fringe Scientology. There is only Source. As long as you have Source, you may justify any attitude you wish.

If we are to believe Jesse Prince, who was once second in command, David Miscavige "is a racist and extremist." How is this tolerated? Well, it is sanctioned... Standard Policy, if you will. Just like the beatings of David Miscavige, racism has precedent in the church as well. L. Ron Hubbard supposedly gave lectures supporting genocide.

Ask yourself this: If the Pope were to hold racist attitudes, and racist comments made by the Pope were simply ignored by the Catholic Church, wouldn't a critic say that the church sanctioned racism? David Miscavige is not simply a "certain individual." He is the Chairman of the Board, Religious Technology Center. In effect, the leader of the Church of Scientology. If the Church of Scientology does not address his bigotry, then they are certainly not anti-racist.

Supporting murder of critics: I'd like to see some proof instead of the innuendo that usually surrounds this topic.

Fair Game policy and auditing process R2-45 as shown in a declare.

How about evidence not of wishful thinking on their part, but of actual action?

Well...I remember a couple who were critics back in the 70s or so. They died under mysterious circumstances, and in the Discussion page for the Wikipedia article their was a professor who was quite convinced that they were murdered. Granted, that is hardly proof, but I wish I could recall them anyway. It is an interesting conspiracy theory.

(Btw, kudos on using the list tags correctly, RSW.)

I wanted to make it a decimal list!

Oh well. I'll figure it out eventually. 

Don't work too hard on figuring it out yet; it's a bug in this version of the forum software.  As possible bugs go, however, it's relatively benign compared to other types of bugs that could exist.  It's been fixed in a later RC (release candidate) version, which we will be switching to when it's declared a stable Final Release version by the developers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7pX9IHTDn8

[ethercat]

Don't "hate" me for this, but I'm going to have to cut this part of the discussion short. 

Oh, no, never!  I wouldn't "hate" you, or even get mad and/or dislike you; it's all in a day's discussion.   

Cool. I think it will deserve its own thread though.

Ok.

Alright, the Bible. I'm game. Well, the Old Testament also has explicit sexual content. But, as you are probably aware of, there are Christians with Victorian era views on sexuality that rival Scientology's repressive atmosphere.

So what's the difference? KSW. Scientology is a fundamentalist organisation. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have different ideas about God and scripture. There is no liberal, conservative, mainstream or fringe Scientology. There is only Source. As long as you have Source, you may justify any attitude you wish.

If we are to believe Jesse Prince, who was once second in command, David Miscavige "is a racist and extremist." How is this tolerated? Well, it is sanctioned... Standard Policy, if you will. Just like the beatings of David Miscavige, racism has precedent in the church as well. L. Ron Hubbard supposedly gave lectures supporting genocide.

Ask yourself this: If the Pope were to hold racist attitudes, and racist comments made by the Pope were simply ignored by the Catholic Church, wouldn't a critic say that the church sanctioned racism? David Miscavige is not simply a "certain individual." He is the Chairman of the Board, Religious Technology Center. In effect, the leader of the Church of Scientology. If the Church of Scientology does not address his bigotry, then they are certainly not anti-racist.

You have a very good point there.  Religions (if we agree to the assumption that scientology is one, which I know we both don't actually) have to consider and take into account the changing attitudes of changing times, and sometimes even proven scientific evidence, and denounce that which is considered wrong in modern times.  Failure to do this leaves them in a position where they should be held accountable for the views of a dead founder, by their own complacency.

Well...I remember a couple who were critics back in the 70s or so. They died under mysterious circumstances, and in the Discussion page for the Wikipedia article their was a professor who was quite convinced that they were murdered. Granted, that is hardly proof, but I wish I could recall them anyway. It is an interesting conspiracy theory.

I'll also agree there have been some quite suspicious deaths, and bodies that have turned up in some unusual places. 

You may be thinking of Flo Barnett (David Miscavige's mother-in-law), the 3-shot suicide: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/flo_barnett/coroner.html

Or Susan Meister, perhaps? http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/susan_meister/index.html

I just haven't seen evidence that any of the numerous suspicious deaths were murder, definitely suspicious, but not without a shadow of a doubt, murder.  I think it's ok for us to view them as suspicious, and even believe that some were murder, but I think when we try to sway others to our point of view, we need to be as accurate as possible and not all  .  This, so our credibility is unimpeachable. 

I do think, though, that it could be said without a doubt that scientology has induced people to suicide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7pX9IHTDn8