I think that the only truly safe path, as with attempting to categorize any group, is to deal with individuals. There are Scientologists who are good people, and scientologists who are bad people. There are Christian Scientists who have let their children die rather then letting them have a basic medical procedure, and there are ones whose children have grown up healthy.
There's far less "Black and White" in this than there is "Gray Area".
For instance (and without turning this into an abortion debate, because that's not the central point): There are people who want all abortions to be banned, even those where the fetus is endangering the mother to the point where she is going to die, likely taking the fetus with her. A medical procedure exists which can save her, but it is rejected by some because it involves killing the fetus. So here we have objection to a medical procedure necessary to the survival of a person, on moral grounds. The fact that Christian Scientists object to a broader range of medical procedures is, at that point, a simple matter of degree.
A further (and perhaps better) example: Suppose the government decides that "for the children", to protect them from child predators, all children will be surgically "chipped", so they can be immediately tracked and located in case of abduction. If someone opposes this procedure on moral grounds (perhaps citing the Mark of the Beast), and prevents their child from being chipped, is that person then culpable if the child is later abducted and killed? Simple medical procedure, yet prohibited by faith, leading to a child's death. How is that different from a Christian Scientist refusing a medical procedure that is prohibited by faith, which ultimately leads to a child's death?
Scientology is largely a fee-based construct. You pay for your various levels of treatment and advancement. Most other churches collect money in some manner or other, whether voluntary or required. The collection plate in most churches is voluntary, although there's often a social mandate to give, so that one is not seen to be not giving, and often a theological mandate as well. As I recall (and I could be wrong, here, so Marnoot et al can correct me if I am), the Mormon church actually requires members to tithe at 10%; I seem to recall a Mormon friend of mine having to fill out forms not unlike tax forms, back when I was in high school. So. Money for services rendered, so to speak. The Scientologists are more direct about it, but the vast majority of churches collect money.
The level of condemnation that it is justifiable for any person to have for any religion definitely includes "Not for me", in that everyone is free to choose not to follow a given path. However, when that condemnation starts to get into the realm of "not for thee", we get into the area of rights infringement. Telling someone else that they cannot (or should not) follow a given path because you disagree with that path's basis is wrong.
If scientology actually helps someone, then does it matter to that person whether it was founded as a money-collecting scam?
If we condemn Christian Scientists for following their faith simply because it differs from our own and thus leads them to make moral choices that are different from our own, on what moral grounds to we stand when we reject some other thing being done to us, claiming it is against our beliefs?
To judge a faith is to border on defining thought-crime. People must be free to believe as they choose. So the only thing left to us to judge is the actions of individuals; what they do with their faith is the key.
