Mennonite Measles in Texas

[Szdfan]

It was partly derived from the inverse square law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

As such, it was the best one could do within reason.

Then why did it persist for two years?

Remember, these were things imposed with legal consequences for anyone who dared not to. And yes, we were told at church we had to sit so far apart from each other. It turns out it was actually based on nothing at all, but the powers that be decided to just release a rule anyway so that... they could have the appearance of doing something. (If you want references and citations, I'll be glad to give 'em.)

That kind of thing doesn't inspire confidence in public health. Instead, it reveals the "public health" profession for what it was all along: a sham mostly populated by busybodies who liked to go on power trips to control other people's lives. It is a feature of the totalitarian state. It is one that I plan to never submit to again.

Fine. There is no way to experimentally test this, without a “challenge test” which is clearly unethical with a potentially fatal infection. So public health did the best it could to limit a potentially FATAL infection. And, yes, it CAN and must impose restrictions during an emergency, such authority has been a part of established law since the late 1800s. Your “it is all about me and my rights” reflect poorly on you and I hope do not reflect the position of your branch of the Mennonite church.

Most of your other comments are beginning to smack of “vain jangling “ 1 Tim 1:6.

It’s striking that someone who sees six-foot distancing in church as totalitarian has no problem with the state disappearing people and imprisoning them without due process in a foreign country. That’s not opposition to state power—it’s a willingness to embrace it, as long as the targets are people they don’t like.

The problem isn’t with authoritarianism. It’s with being subject to it. This contradiction reveals a deeper truth: they’re fine with the government crushing people—just not themselves.

[JohnH]

It’s striking that someone who sees six-foot distancing in church as totalitarian has no problem with the state disappearing people and imprisoning them without due process in a foreign country. That’s not opposition to state power—it’s a willingness to embrace it, as long as the targets are people they don’t like.

I've never said I'm OK with that. Do you want to have a discussion about it? (Would this discussion be veering into politics?)

The problem isn’t with authoritarianism. It’s with being subject to it. This contradiction reveals a deeper truth: they’re fine with the government crushing people—just not themselves.

I'm not OK with the government crushing people.

[Szdfan]

It’s striking that someone who sees six-foot distancing in church as totalitarian has no problem with the state disappearing people and imprisoning them without due process in a foreign country. That’s not opposition to state power—it’s a willingness to embrace it, as long as the targets are people they don’t like.

I've never said I'm OK with that. Do you want to have a discussion about it? (Would this discussion be veering into politics?)

The problem isn’t with authoritarianism. It’s with being subject to it. This contradiction reveals a deeper truth: they’re fine with the government crushing people—just not themselves.

I'm not OK with the government crushing people.

I think this conversation veered into politics the moment you started attacking public health officials. I try to follow the forum’s rules, but there’s a lot of ambiguity. The definition of what belongs in the politics section feels a bit like Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”

What stands out to me here is the authoritarian logic I see across many of your posts. You defend sending immigrants to a human rights black hole like CECOT—without due process, without recourse—and then compare public health restrictions during a global pandemic to totalitarianism. That’s not a consistent concern with state power. It’s a confusion between inconvenience and oppression.

At the core of this logic is a troubling belief — rights for me, but not for those I believe don’t deserve them. That’s not liberty. That’s authoritarianism.

[Bootstrap]

​The epicenter of the measles outbreak is the Mennonite community in Seminole. Low vaccination rates and distrust of government are a big reason they are not getting vaccinated. 700 people have gotten sick, two have died.

I think most people believe there is good, established medical knowledge of measles vaccines.

[JohnH]

​The epicenter of the measles outbreak is the Mennonite community in Seminole. Low vaccination rates and distrust of government are a big reason they are not getting vaccinated. 700 people have gotten sick, two have died.

Would you support calling something “Haitian tuberculosis”?

I think most people believe there is good, established medical knowledge of measles vaccines.

Not everyone does. In this country, people are allowed freedom to believe different things.

[Judas Maccabeus]

​The epicenter of the measles outbreak is the Mennonite community in Seminole. Low vaccination rates and distrust of government are a big reason they are not getting vaccinated. 700 people have gotten sick, two have died.

I think most people believe there is good, established medical knowledge of measles vaccines.

One of the barriers are the falsehoods some of our own spread about the measles vaccine. A few have reasons that I believe are founded on a misunderstanding of the technology involved. Most seem to do it because it makes them feel important.

[Szdfan]

I think this conversation veered into politics the moment you started attacking public health officials. I try to follow the forum’s rules, but there’s a lot of ambiguity. The definition of what belongs in the politics section feels a bit like Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”

What stands out to me here is the authoritarian logic I see across many of your posts. You defend sending immigrants to a human rights black hole like CECOT—without due process, without recourse—and then compare public health restrictions during a global pandemic to totalitarianism. That’s not a consistent concern with state power. It’s a confusion between inconvenience and oppression.

OK, I guess we’ll have this debate here.

I believe that Kilmer Garcia was not deprived of due process. He entered in 2012. In 2019, he was detained and said he did not fear returning to El Salvador at his initial hearing. Then he got a lawyer and his story changed. He then applied for asylum and was denied, after going through appropriate due process for that. He was given plenty of notice that he was denied and had no legal right to stay in the United States.

The judge granted him relief not to be deported to El Salvador. That’s an Article II judge, and the Presidency can override such a decision. Nearly everything involving immigration is reserved for Article II powers by established legislation.

In 2025, he was removed, six years later. He’s had plenty of due process, including being accused by his wife of domestic violence on two occasions (the hearings of which he didn’t show up for) and having multiple traffic tickets he failed to show up to court for. He could have had his wife apply for a green card for him, although I’m not clear on how a history of domestic violence would affect that. Given his history of not respecting due process and showing up for court dates, holding him in detention seemed reasonable.

After 6 years of being told by a judge he is not eligible to stay in the United States, he was finally removed. He is now in the country he is a citizen of. He appears healthy and does not appear to be being harmed. I simply do not see the problem.

Of course, you are welcome to your own opinion. But I think 6 years of time to leave the U.S. is plenty of due process.

What is your legal position on what right he has to stay in the United States?

At the core of this logic is a troubling belief — rights for me, but not for those I believe don’t deserve them. That’s not liberty. That’s authoritarianism.

If I were an illegal alien who beat his wife to the point she told the cops she fears for her life, kept getting traffic tickets I don’t pay or show up to court for, drive around without a valid license, have my asylum claim denied after being given full due process for that… I would expect to be removed.

Long ago I lived in Canada on a TN visa. After a year, it was clear to me it would be difficult to renew it without making questionable statements. I decided to change my plans and voluntarily remove myself from Canada before my visa expired. I also avoided getting traffic tickets or other run ins with the law while I was there, and would fully expect to have been removed if I had.

You’ve offered a detailed justification for one person’s removal, but that doesn’t address the broader concern: you’re defending a system that disappears people into a foreign prison without trial or the ability to challenge their detention. That’s not due process—that’s authoritarianism.

My concern isn’t with your interpretation of one case—it’s with the logic beneath it: that some people, based on your judgment of their worth, deserve fewer rights and less protection under the law. You’ve called public health measures totalitarian, but defend this kind of state power as reasonable. That’s a deep and troubling contradiction—and it’s that double standard I’m naming.

[Bootstrap]

​The epicenter of the measles outbreak is the Mennonite community in Seminole. Low vaccination rates and distrust of government are a big reason they are not getting vaccinated. 700 people have gotten sick, two have died.

Would you support calling something “Haitian tuberculosis”?

I think most people believe there is good, established medical knowledge of measles vaccines.

Not everyone does. In this country, people are allowed freedom to believe different things.

Sure. And I'm guessing you and Szdfan will not convince each other. And I won't convince you either. I'm convinced that the medicine behind measles vaccines is well understood. And Mennonites do seem to be at the heart of spreading measles.

You disagree, and you seem to be offended at calling this Mennonite Measles. You will probably continue to feel that way, I will probably continue to feel differently.

[ohio jones]

Unless Kilmar Ábrego García becomes a Mennonite, contracts measles, or is extradited to Texas, discuss him elsewhere.

[JohnH]

My concern isn’t with your interpretation of one case—it’s with the logic beneath it: that some people, based on your judgment of their worth, deserve fewer rights and less protection under the law.

This is a completely unfair description of what I believe and I’d appreciate it if you’d retract it.