Latest threat to Catholic colleges

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cal_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cal_Catholic

Guest
New federal regulations regarding financial aid could mean imposition of ‘social agendas’ by states, group warns

Full article…
 
Wha? The article is off-base.

"Reporting from Washington —
The Obama administration upset liberals as well as the president’s two Supreme Court appointees Wednesday by arguing that taxpayers had no right to sue the government if it used tax money to fund religious schools.

The surprising argument came in this term’s most important church-state dispute. At issue is the constitutionality of an unusual 13-year-old Arizona law that gives individuals dollar-for-dollar tax credits up to $500 for contributions to private organizations, which in turn allows taxpayers to direct a $500 tax credit to a private organization, which in turn pays tuition for students in private schools. More than 90% of the money goes to religious schools, the challengers said.

Acting U.S. Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal joined Arizona in defending the law but went further, arguing that no one had legal standing to challenge it in court. Since no citizen could prove that “a cent … of his money goes to fund religion,” no one had a right to sue over the alleged unconstitutional subsidy for religion, Katyal said."

chicagotribune.com/news/n…,3850680.story
Edit/Delete Message
 
Your article wasn’t accessible Beau… but why is the original off-base?

Read section 600.9(b) of the proposed regulations. Particularly, parts (2) and (3). The oversight granted to states, particularly with regard to ‘adverse actions’, is neither narrow in scope, nor well-defined. Certainly you can see how that could spell trouble. The language needs to be cleaned up before this gets passed, or it may well open the door for bureaucratic politicization.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Wha? The article is off-base.

"Reporting from Washington —
The Obama administration upset liberals as well as the president’s two Supreme Court appointees Wednesday by arguing that taxpayers had no right to sue the government if it used tax money to fund religious schools.

The surprising argument came in this term’s most important church-state dispute. At issue is the constitutionality of an unusual 13-year-old Arizona law that gives individuals dollar-for-dollar tax credits up to $500 for contributions to private organizations, which in turn allows taxpayers to direct a $500 tax credit to a private organization, which in turn pays tuition for students in private schools. More than 90% of the money goes to religious schools, the challengers said.

Acting U.S. Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal joined Arizona in defending the law but went further, arguing that no one had legal standing to challenge it in court. Since no citizen could prove that “a cent … of his money goes to fund religion,” no one had a right to sue over the alleged unconstitutional subsidy for religion, Katyal said."

chicagotribune.com/news/n…,3850680.story
Edit/Delete Message
Click to expand...
The fact that state and federal money can be channeled to private/religious-based schools has nothing to do with the article. The article talks about government oversight and intrusion into the school curricula! If anything, the funding is the “carrot” and the oversight is the “stick” in a plan to get government control over private schools.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Wha? The article is off-base.

"Reporting from Washington —
The Obama administration upset liberals as well as the president’s two Supreme Court appointees Wednesday by arguing that taxpayers had no right to sue the government if it used tax money to fund religious schools.

The surprising argument came in this term’s most important church-state dispute. At issue is the constitutionality of an unusual 13-year-old Arizona law that gives individuals dollar-for-dollar tax credits up to $500 for contributions to private organizations, which in turn allows taxpayers to direct a $500 tax credit to a private organization, which in turn pays tuition for students in private schools. More than 90% of the money goes to religious schools, the challengers said.

Acting U.S. Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal joined Arizona in defending the law but went further, arguing that no one had legal standing to challenge it in court. Since no citizen could prove that “a cent … of his money goes to fund religion,” no one had a right to sue over the alleged unconstitutional subsidy for religion, Katyal said."

chicagotribune.com/news/n…,3850680.story
Edit/Delete Message
Click to expand...
Typical diversionary tactic from you, Beau.

This has nothing to do with the above article. It is, (like others above have said) about government intrusion into the University Classroom and what it can or cannot teach.:rolleyes:

But hey, who cares, right? It’s “for our own good.”:eek:
 
Bob_Aliano said:
The fact that state and federal money can be channeled to private/religious-based schools has nothing to do with the article. The article talks about government oversight and intrusion into the school curricula! If anything, the funding is the “carrot” and the oversight is the “stick” in a plan to get government control over private schools.
Click to expand...
That’s why Hillsdale College does not accept federal or state taxpayer subsidies for any of its operations.

IMNSHO, more colleges/universities should follow Hillsdale’s lead on this.
 
Erich said:
That’s why Hillsdale College does not accept federal or state taxpayer subsidies for any of its operations.

IMNSHO, more colleges/universities should follow Hillsdale’s lead on this.
Click to expand...
I wish Catholic institutions across the board could wean themselves from the government dole but that’s probably a financial impossibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top