Harlan Messinger wrote:

Let's compare apple and apples. Compile a list of churches whose
members, in the past ten years, have committed unspeakable
atrocities on thousands.
Oh, I see, it has to have been in the last ten years, and then the
vile and ignorant acts of a few become the fault of every member and
every congregation of the major world religion to which they
subscribed and society gets to indulge its grief by blaming them in
their entirety and it becomes OK to set up arbitrary barriers and
subject them to discriminatory treatment. Grief and outrage always
justify the passing on of retribution to others. These centuries- and
millennia-long cycles of resentment and scorn and redirected
comeuppance are really, really healthy for the world and we should
encourage them as much as we can.

That wasn't my point, but to answer you question, sure.

If someone joins a group or remains a member knowing the reputation of the
group, it is presumed they agree with that reputation.

As for visiting a sanction on an entire group for the acts of its individual
members, that's called "corporate guilt." "Corporate guilt" as a technique
for enforcing conforming behavior has been around, like, forever. It works
in the kindergarten class. It works in the Marine Corps. It works between
nations. It worked when God rained fire down on Sodom.

Quite simply, if a group cannot control its members, they we (whoever "we"
might be) will control or eliminate the group.