Within our western societies there are many different worldviews. From worldview to worldview and even within worldviews, there is not always intellectual agreement on what is 'truth' and what is 'fact'.
I am at least somewhat concerned that some persons, even within the Christian community, both online and offline, seemingly support sanction and/or censorship for those that present views considered not truth and not fact by his/her particular group.
Rather, I would prefer to see even obviously, with relative certainty, false views and these premises and conclusions, or simply proposition's (conclusions), demonstrated as false.
This includes within science.
I know there is the type of argument, that these falsehoods will continue, unless ended by the force of government. 'People will die', etcetera is stated. Well, that is an aspect of living in a democratic, free society. People have the right to hold to many fallacious paradigms and even a false worldview.
Indeed people do hold to false paradigms and worldviews.
To be clear, I support, reasonable, law and order from governments in western democracies, including libel and slander laws. These laws along with laws already on the books, in many jurisdictions, against 'hate speech' should suffice. With all government laws, rules and regulations, freedom and liberty needs to be measured against the public good. To be clear, for example, I wear pandemic masks and plan on consulting my MD for the right COVID19 vaccine for me with my medical profile, when a vaccine is available.
I am significantly concerned with liberty and freedoms to express opinions and evidences for truth and fact, or not, without being sanctioned and/or even censored by extreme political correctness.
I am less concerned with attempts to harmonize agreement between the worldviews on certain aspects of truth. That is certainly not a gospel mandate.
From a Christian perspective, consider that many religious claims, if evidentially true as fact, based on historical, biblical, theological and philosophical evidences within a Christian worldview, may be considered false and non-fact by critics. The critics may insist on modern empirical methods within forms of naturalism and secularism.
For example, if God is not is empirically provable, as God is Spirit (John 4: 24), this might mean that to publicly state propositions or arguments for theism and Christianity, could theoretically lead to sanction and/or censorship. Similarity, and a more extreme example, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was not photographed or caught on video or a motion picture and should therefore, according to some, theoretically, be silenced from the public forum as 'dangerous religious mythology'.
To be clear, I do not hold to a slippery slope argument, considered fallacious by philosopher, Pirie, see link below with three entries. Things do not always gets worse, or more extreme in a direction. However, there is at least a theoretical danger of out of control, unchallenged, political correctness prohibiting religious liberty, theological liberty and philosophical liberty.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
