So many false equivalences.
When Christian missionaries back up their lie with facts, you can say "That's not a difference" Otherwise. It's a big fucking difference.
To deny science you have to believe a lie and then lie about that lie. If you don't want to live in reality you should not get the benefits of the reality you deny.
I respect the Amish, they walk the walk and build the barn. They earn the right to deny things. Hypocrites, do not.
Oh and Junk food is not free speech. Start with a false equivalence end with a false equivalence.
Huh? You seem to miss the point. The question is, if a group don't want to be persuaded to adopt a (contemporary, Western) scientific world-view, under what circumstances is it morally-OK to attempt to persuade them to do so? I find that a genuinely tricky question.
And it's no different from the question of spreading other world-views, such as feminism, say. (After the Iranian revolution a bunch of US feminists headed out there to spread the word, only to be immediately deported by the Mullahs).
Should one send teachers to all the isolated peoples of the world to explain to them their particular spiritual beliefs are factually-incorrect, and not-scientifically valid? Forcibly invade countries that are based on religious beliefs that contradict the findings of science, in order to educate them?
As I said, it seems to be the key point is not 'whether the ideas are backed with evidence' or not (and how much evidence is requred, exactly?) but the nature of the relationship between the proselytizer and the proselytized.
And 'junk food is not free speech' - no clue what your point is there. Nobody said food was speech. But advertising it is.
Modern capitalist societies are absolutely riven with attempts to prosyletise and persuade, largely based on who has the most money.
Countries often strictly limit things like advertising cigarettes or alcohol, and increasingly junk food has come under scrutiny. But the US seems to make a particularly big deal about 'free speech' and it in fact appears whether such restrictions that exist will continue, yet alone expand, is dependent on who gets political control of the Supreme Court (the institution that people weirdly pretend is above politics when it is obviously entirely political)
It just seems a bit inconsistent to object to 'missionary work' in very strong terms while ignoring the proselytizing that is an inherent part of capitalism.