CathInfo.com

Most of the objections on this thread are from women, which is understandable since it's in the nature of women to nurture and be overprotective of children.  But boys aren't children and they need men to guide/discipline them; they can't be nurtured/protected forever - or else they'll never learn to be men...a fact which happens all too often in our society and is a consequence of both feminism and the acceptance of single mothers.  There are HUNDREDS of videos on youtube which explain why single mothers can't raise a boy to be a man.  You can't give what you don't have.

Secondly, yes, this is both an over-reach of the police-state and also an attack on fatherhood/masculinity/american independence/the family. 

Most of the objections on this thread are from women, which is understandable since it's in the nature of women to nurture and be overprotective of children.  But boys aren't children and they need men to guide/discipline them; they can't be nurtured/protected forever - or else they'll never learn to be men...a fact which happens all too often in our society and is a consequence of both feminism and the acceptance of single mothers.  There are HUNDREDS of videos on youtube which explain why single mothers can't raise a boy to be a man.  You can't give what you don't have.

Secondly, yes, this is both an over-reach of the police-state and also an attack on fatherhood/masculinity/american independence/the family.

Absolutely right on both counts.  Boys need to be toughened up ... to a point.  That's why drill sergeants do what they do.  That's why coaches do what they do.  Again, I've had coaches subject me to more than what this guy did.  Boys NEED that toughness and discipline to become men.  Yes, there's a line that can be crossed over into abuse, but it's not for the state to decide.  If there's a question, fathers should consult with a learned priest.  What's next?  If I have a boy who's 50 pounds overweight, and I want to restrict his calories so that he gets into shape, will that be the next "abuse"?  Where's the line?  And who's entitled to draw it?  An increasingly liberal-leftist state that will consider it abuse to raise your voice to an unruly child but not abuse to teach them all kinds of sɛҳuąƖ perversions in school?

Looks alone aren't enough to convict and he's only been arrested, but if the article can be taken literally when it stated he forced his kids to "eat soap" instead of merely placing it in their mouths for a fixed amount of time without swallowing, coupled with the other signs of extreme punishments. 30 minutes of pushups only for adults, let alone kids, who presumably haven't built up to that level of fitness is a guaranteed muscle pull if not worse and I'd be interested to see upon further investigation if these kids have long term damage to their growing bodies as a result of these kinds of outlandishly protracted physical "exercises" which are really just instruments of torture. So yeah, I think they're definitely onto something with this guy and no, any reasonable human being wouldn't go to those absurd lengths to discipline their children.

I can tell he's not that bright, so maybe he has that going for him as a defense. Maybe he'll beat the rap.

Well, don't ask for help when they arrest you for spanking your kids.  I've had coaches go to more "absurd lengths" to whip me into shape.  And obviously you've never been in the military.  I had a school principal make me do "nose touches" (a very difficult and painful variant on a pushup).  My parents once made me kneel for an hour.  I've known Traditional Catholics who did the same for their kids.  Perhaps they too should be arrested for "torturing" their children.  Where is the line and who draws it ... contrary to the authority of fathers and parents in general over their children?

This reminds me of that little "First they came ..." thing written by the Lutheran minister (just ignore the Jєωιѕн propaganda aspect for now)

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

First they came for those who used switches or paddles.  Then they came for the spankers.  Then they came for those who yelled at their children.  Then they came for those who disapproved of their children changing genders.  Then they came for those who caused psychological harm to their children by teaching them about hell.