were the grapes of wrath are stored? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe its an evangelical thing.

Italian vineyards where his ancestors are from?

It means hold my vine, squeeze my grapes and I will give you wine ... a bubbling. crude

"This is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"

Still trying to figure this one out. Maybe it was caused by too many hallucinogenics.

Rick says..."We’ve worked together in the vineyards,”

What's he talking about?

I had the same thought. Must be in the same vein as the son-of-a-carpenter spin bible reference. Gad, can these dolts ever speak without referencing some damn theology? Next thing we are going to hear is that Wall Street is representative of the temple of King David and Washington insiders are the money changers. Oh yes, and liberals are the the Romans and Egyptians that persecuted a Jew and the Christians.

Until the religious rhetoric is toned down, we need to bring out the lions.

Barry Goldwater or RR would hurl if they had to listen to this garbage!

Matthew 20

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

¹ “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. ²
He agreed to pay them a denarius^[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

³ “About nine in he morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. ⁴ He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ ⁵ So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. ⁶ About five in the afternoon he went out and found still
others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

⁷ “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

⁸ “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

⁹ “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. ¹⁰ So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. ¹¹ When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ¹² ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

¹³ “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? ¹⁴ Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. ¹⁵ Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

¹⁶ “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Sounds like Ricky has been imbibing too much of the fruit of that vine. ;)

Chilled, you beat me to it. A vineyard?

Amy, well done!!.

Sounds like Ricky has been imbibing too much of the fruit of that vine. ;)

Either that or just drunk on power. He has really been spewing since his recent caucus wins.

@JoAnne in PA...

Trouble ahead JoAnne.....Santorum makes a Biblical reference to 'labor laws' or his own ability to make and have money.

JoAnne, thanks for the refresher.

Trouble ahead JoAnne.....Santorum makes a Biblical reference to 'labor laws' or his own ability to make and have money.

Thanks for bringing us to the light, JoAnne. Santorum seems to be having trouble grasping the concept of the First Amendment. Maybe it's a little preview of his governing style?

He might want to add some references to the Old Testament to capture the Jewish vote, the Book of Mormon if he can steal anyone from Romney, the Koran for the Muslim vote (horrors, NO!), a bit of Buddhist philosophy, and maybe some stuff from Scientology and the Moonies.

Then again, he could just go home and leave us all in peace (the kind of peace you get from not starting a war with Iran.)

Yeah, kaybee, there ought to be a law prohibiting biblical references, using the First Amendment as a justification.

Oops, got distracted and didn't get to add my own comments to what I posted above. I'm no biblical scholar myself, but since the alternative was that Santorum was talking about his "whinery", I had to go look it up. The emphasis on Verse 15 was mine. I think the moral of this parable - at least in Santorum's mind - is that when he's president, those lazy damn food-stamp liberals are never going to get another single one of OUR hard-earned denariuses. Or is it denaria? Denariiii? Back to the googles.....

Meanwhile, now that we've settled that part, what about this one?

"We always talk about how we are going to get the moderates. Why would an undecided voter, vote for a candidate of a party that the party's not excited about?" Santorum said.

Since when is anyone at CPAC concerned about "how we are going to get the moderates"? And can anyone name me a single moderate who would actually vote for Santorum?

Since when is anyone at CPAC concerned about "how we are going to get the moderates"? And can anyone name me a single moderate who would actually vote for Santorum?

The beauty part is that this is a democracy and we all get just one vote.

The only way to win is to get the majority of voters--who are moderate and middle class--to vote for you.

Santorum hasn't got a chance.

Santorum hasn't got a chance.

Spoken like a true one sided liberal. You don't know if he has a chance or not? You aren't going to vote for him... so concern yourself with who you are going to vote for. Making claims like this when you don't even understand the ideology of the other guys is really very silly. I don't blame you... but you speak as if you know something you don't.

Hey kaybeetoys, what about us pagans? What do you think he should do to try and get our vote even though he probably considers us evil and, more likely (and incorrectly) Satan worshippers? We vote too and there's more of us than most people realize.

And for those that are curious, pagans believe in more than one god, we are polytheistic, most "main stream" religions are monotheistic. And there's a cornucopiaof pagans, just like there are Christians. We are not atheists and we do not worship Satan (people that do are usually referred to as Satan worshipers or Satanists).

Brianb-999431

Santorum hasn't got a chance.

Spoken like a true one sided liberal. You don't know if he has a chance or not? You aren't going to vote for him... so concern yourself with who you are going to vote for. Making claims like this when you don't even understand the ideology of the other guys is really very silly. I don't blame you... but you speak as if you know something you don't.

Apparently I know something you don't, Brianb. I've followed Santorum's political career closely for years, probably before you ever heard of him. He will not be the GOP nominee, and you can take that to the bank, my friend.

ScorpiansFan, I don't think you would want to vote for someone like Santorum who would not respect your choice of religion, being as it's not his chosen religion. Pagans won't be on his good list.

My gosh, I'd write George Clooney in before I'd vote for Santorum, I just was wondering out loud if he'd even be willing to pander to us.

And I agree with you about Santorum, no way is he going to be the GOP nominee, he's too far to the right for the average middle-of-the-road GOP voter, who, based on the turnouts, seem to be very quiet regarding their crop of candidates.

Well since Romney is pretending to be Catholic now (defending their Church instead of the LDS Hospital, BYU, etc.), I guess Santorum needs to draw contrast.

There is one very glaring contrast -- Santorum was part of the Terri Schiavo intervention. For those who may have forgotten, this was a turning point for the Bush administration because of religious overreach. It destroyed Bill Frist, even Jeb Bush took a hit, but Rick Santorum was one of the leaders of that "Radical Christianist" imposition of "Christian Sharia Law."

Save our secular government from theocracy. Throw the Teapublicans out!

JoAnne in PA -- I think it was DeMint who said both teams don't share common goals, so why cooperate with the other team? Wow! We are Team America, douche-bag Demint. The nation is NOT a game like football. WTF? How do people like him rise to position of leadership and power in this country?

We now have a new definition for anyone who is a fence sitting windsock ... a Hi-Mitt

Willard will have plenty of time to pick splinters out of his magic underwear!

Quoting a line from an old Roy Rogers Move... "Who's we whiteman?"

OK, so that was politically incorrect... sue me. LOL!

BrianB, we blue people, they red people. All of the ideological spectrum have code words to define the others.

Read the book sometime. Some of you might learn something. The vineyard is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Read Matthew 20: 1-16

Reading fiction isn't high on my list of priorities. I get enough of it reading conservative posters on this site.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Somehow, I doubt Santorum will get His endorsement.

Martha Stuart has vineyards, doesn't she? She probably had Santorum over to help her trample out some vintage.

Agreed, RedDevPS - plus, what does a conservative, smaller government have to do with religion? Why is it that to be a small-government conservative, you have to have social conservate morality shoved down your throat?

@ Ursula,

They truly do believe that the Lord wants smaller government. That his would lead to more poverty, illness, early deaths, malnutrition and homelessness matters not. The RWNJ's truly believe God is on their side only. Of course this is the party of evangelism, and they believe they will be the only ones in Heaven. There have been a lot of unholy people who felt God was on their side. One country put it on their soldiers' belt buckles. They read, "Gott Mitt Uns." That's blasphemy!

I think he was watching an old rerun of "I Love Lucy" where she was stomping grapes in the vat.

They truly do believe that the Lord wants smaller government. That his would lead to more poverty, illness, early deaths, malnutrition and homelessness matters not. The RWNJ's truly believe God is on their side only.

One thing we do believe in is charity. Conservatives actually donate considerably more of the time and money than liberals. Studies have shown that to be a fact.

Look at Romney and Obama. Romney gave 17% of his income to charity while Obama gives somewhere between 1 and 5%. Liberals are only good at spending other peoples money. And before you go there Romney's cash went to wounded warriors, ms foundation, st jude's hospital as well as his church.

Wayne-1656909

@ Ursula,

They truly do believe that the Lord wants smaller government. That his would lead to more poverty, illness, early deaths, malnutrition and homelessness matters not. The RWNJ's truly believe God is on their side only. Of course this is the party of evangelism, and they believe they will be the only ones in Heaven. There have been a lot of unholy people who felt God was on their side. One country put it on their soldiers' belt buckles. They read, "Gott Mitt Uns." That's blasphemy!

I can't wait until they're all Raptured up.

Wow, "MITT" got his name on Nazi belt buckles!

No wonder they lost.

Tired Old Guy,

Brings back memories -

Hello friends, I'm your Vitameatavegamin girl.

Are you tired, run - down, listless?

Do you poop out at parties?

Are you unpopular?

The answer to all your problems is in this little bottle. VITAMEATAVEGAMIN.

Vitameatavegamin contains Vitamins, Meat, Vegetables, and Minerals.

Yes, with Vitameatavegamin, you can spoon your way to health. All you do is take a great big tablespoonful after every meal. Mmmmmm.... It's so tasty, too! Tastes just like candy!

So why don't you join all the thousands of happy peppy people and get a great big bottle of Vitameatavegamin tomorrow!

Thats Vita-meata-vegamin! (wink)

Rob,

I have heard about Mitt's generosity and will give him high marks for that. I think you are saying all conservatives are generous, and that is hardly the truth. The problem is that conservatives think charity will solve the safety net problems and easily support the poor, disabled and the aged on fixed incomes. In other words, they will get support when others have a notion to give to the charities that will support you. This is like your boss telling you he will pay you when he feels particularly generous. These same generous conservatives want to cut money to public schools, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a host of others. All those programs are a part of being a benevolent civilization. I don't think we need to go back to the 19th century. Teabaggers would love to see the return of debtor's prisons.

Thetotas ... my wife is a Lucy freak ... has a tape or dvd of every show. Vitameatavegamin, the candy conveyor belt, and the grape stomping are some of the best. Simpler times.

Once I was at my sister's place and she watched Lucy for three days straight! She used to play records over and over and over again too. Enough is enough!

As a devote Mormon wouldn't at least 10% of Mitt's 17% of charitable contributions be to the church? And as for conservatives giving more time and money than liberals, most liberals don't put "conditions" on their contributions unless it's to specify that money be directed to a certain "pet" project within the charity or to something they personally object to, i.e., you can give to Planned Parenthood and tell them you don't want any of it to go toward abortion, or to any charity and say you don't want it going toward administrative costs.

The problem is that conservatives think charity will solve the safety net problems and easily

Not this conservative. However, this conservative thinks that the safety net is being abused in a serious serious fashion. I live in Brockton. It's about the 5th largest city in MA. My girlfriend has been approached on two occasions from EBT card holders telling her that they would let her buy $200 worth of groceries on the card if she gave them $100 in cash. After saying no she went to the curtosity counter to grab stamps and noted another EBT card hold withdraw $100 in cash from the ATM and wire the cash to Haiti. What goes on in my city alone is astounding. It is a complete free for all. I am not for the total elimination of entitlements just being serious about the waste fruad and abuse. Every candidate promises but then never delivers particularly dem candidates.

So Rob,

You would punish everyone for the sins of a few? You are an angry guy, aren't you? Or perhaps you feel all people living in poverty are evil and deserve what they get?

My BS detector went off halfway through your posts.

That's not what I said. Not even close. The elimination of abuse and fraud would save hundreds of millions of dollars. As far as social security we live a lot longer than when the program was introduced eligiblity age needs to move up a couple years for those under say 55 like me. And I'm not opposed to means testing social security. The left points fingers at the right saying they are only for the rich. Well plenty of republicans don't think very wealthy people should get social security and medicare benefits even if they paid into the program. Entitlements needs reform. Ryan was lambasted for his and yeah I wasn't loving his medicare plan but it was the opening salvo in a negotiation but the dems never countered. The dems are not serious about our countries financial future. Obama talks about 2 trillion is imaginary cuts. he won't utter any specific reforms. He is a charlatan.

he should be angry, aren't you angry at the debt Obama is running up to leave to your children if there is a country left

Wow naked, your head must have exploded when the debt blew past the GDP by 125% during WWII. Were you out there screaming about debt then?

I wasn't even a thought during WWII, so I was not doing any screaming at all.

The screaming came later...

Buck - What you fail to realize is no matter WHO the president was in 2009 he was going to have to run massive deficits for the next few years..

That's the country the GOP left us with. McCain wouldn't have been able to do anything about it either, and had he done nothing (like many on the right propose), well, we tried that in 1929....didn't work out so well.

You have a problem with the deficits took straight at the GOP....all Obama's doing is trying to fix the problem. Laying off millions of Federal workers isn't the answer...it's getting people back to work. Maybe if the GOP helped with that, since that's what they ran on we'd be a little further along.

I would to see you get any Repub to admit that, as true as it is.

that is an easy fix, quit spending money that does not exist, let's live within our means. the tax cuts will not cover the debt I am pretty sure, but have not researched it.

Amy---maybe he meant those tough battles where Bush started a war based on faulty (or worse) intelligence while we were already fighting another war and did nothing to pay for either of them.

Buck

I think the tough battles he referenced were his struggles to get his earmarks through congress. Do you really believe the guy who never met a spending bill for his constituents he didn't like is going to do anything serious about government spending?

there is: limit federal spending

I hope you told Bushie that, Buck.

Heart? What heart?

Wow. I really just considered the possibility of Santorum winning this nomination.

Six months ago I would have given any odds it wouldn't happen. Now, the odds aren't looking quite so long.

Regardless of who wins the GOP nomination, they are all extremely flawed candidates. Worst crop of candidates to ever run for office.

The GOP as a whole seems to be a bunch of lost souls...and imbecile's to boot.

Don't give it another thought, Paul M. Santorum is just the flavor of the month, same as Perry and Cain were.

He will be gone soon enough, leaving a bad taste in our mouths.

I can't wait to see the flavors they come up with in 2016.

I can't even imagine a flavor that could be worse than the taste of santorum. I've never tasted it and I don't ever want to.

Yeah, credit where credit's due. That's a pretty funny joke. And I actually believe that Santorum would be a lot more electable in a general election than Romney, contrary to the conventional wisdom.

For one, Rick's not a heartless robot (more like a brainless scarecrow).

For another, Rick won't be backed into a corner trying to win over his own base and convince them that he's really a conservative (everybody already believes he's a radical conservative extremist because he is).

Finally, Rick's not a creature of the corrupt Wall Street culture who made millions taking money from workers and funneling it to investors (he's a creature of the corrupt Virginia/DC lobbying culture who made millions taking power from voters and funneling it to special interests).

Santorum would be a lot more electable in a general election than Romney, contrary to the conventional wisdom.

Santorum does not have the support of the GOP establishment.

In an NPR interview in the summer of 2005, Santorum discussed what he called the "libertarianish right," saying "they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone..."

In addition, his views are too extreme and his attitude too uncompromising to win him the independent votes he would need. Santorum is a strict anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage social conservative with a lucrative career as a Washington consultant, a la Newt Gingrich.

In 2006, Pennsylvania voters rejected Santorum's bid for re-election by 18 points. That was the largest margin of defeat in U.S. history for a sitting senator.

Not a chance.

kaybee, for some reason I got the impression the party establishment might be reconsidering that. Don't know anything - just a gut feeling.

When they decided on Romney, it was a process of elimination. The other guys who seemed to have a shot weren't as safe as Romney, in terms of delivering the economic argument against Obama. Make no mistake - nobody likes Romney. The party establishment just didn't want a candidate who was likely to make him or herself (Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, Perry) more of a campaign issue than the economy.

Was Santorum ever considered as in the running? I'm not sure. He got so little traction so early on, he and Huntsman and of course Ron Paul may have just not even been thought of in that 'possible nominee' category.

Why wouldn't the establishment find Santorum acceptable? Yeah, he's socially a little more conservative than most Republican nominees. But let's face it, the party would be more comfortable with a Catholic than a Mormon (ideally they would have a mainstream protestant, but what can you do?). So what are the other strikes against Santorum. He got trounced in a re-election? Okay, maybe they can live with that.

And the bottom line here is the Republican establishment might see a need for some damage control.

Their prospective nominee just had his integrity questioned... in a joke by a supporter of another candidate that everyone at the CPAC conference understood without explanation.

Let's face it. Their plan of having a nominee who won't be the issue is already shot with Romney. When your own party starts telling those kinds of jokes about you, it's pretty tough to ever be believable again. And trustworthiness absolutely, positively is the most important attribute for a presidential candidate to portray.

Paul M in Wbridge

kaybee, for some reason I got the impression the party establishment might be reconsidering that. Don't know anything - just a gut feeling.

It's clear the GOP isn't in love with Romney. But Santorum is simply not electable. He does not have the money, the establishment endorsement, the campaign organization, or the ideas to draw people to vote for him.

He has too many negatives: his extreme religious and cultural views about contraception and abortion are out of step with the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. The LGBT faction will fight him tooth and nail. He has nothing to show for his years in the senate in the way of leadership.

Romney will come out with the big guns if and when he feels it's time to shut down Santorum. It could get very ugly.

The money and establishment will get behind the nominee, whoever it is (except maybe Ron Paul). The right wing media? Not so much.

To be clear, I think Santorum would be a more electable candidate than Romney in the general election, but I'll be shocked if he actually wins the nomination. At best, he sets himself up as next in line in 2016 or 2020.

King - How is wanting all women to have access to preventative care somehow making a mockery of "Freedom of Religion".

I find these statements to be extremely narrow minded and untruthful. What's more, stupid people believe this crap.

The whole 'freedom of religion' thing would serve this country a hell of a lot better if we looked at it as freedom FROM religion.

it is easy Don, try to think for a minute and you might actual understand the issue. Certain religious organizations are opposed, on religious grounds, to providing services or payments for contraceptives, abortions, morning after pills , etc.. Forcing them to provide for and/or pay for those service, either directly or via an insurance policy they are forced to pay for, is a violation of their right to practice their religion as they see fit. I suggest you do some reading on the right to exercise ones religious freedom here in the US, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. You might start out with the very recent, 9-0 US Supreme Court decision striking down wrongful termination actions against religious institutions. It has an excellent over view of the Constitutional guaranties and the concept of religious freedoms as they have developed in this country under our Constitution. Maybe then you will understand that this is not just wanting women to have access to birth control, abortions and the morning after pill. Try educating yourself on the issue, instead of swallowing left wing Dem talking points, before you spout off your ill informed views.

If the religious organizations that don't want to provide access to birth control to their employees are receiving even one penny from the federal government, they should return the money post-haste and refuse to take any more so they can be free from governmental requirements.

KingK

it is easy Don, try to think for a minute and you might actual understand the issue. Certain religious organizations are opposed, on religious grounds, to providing services or payments for contraceptives, abortions, morning after pills , etc.. Forcing them to provide for and/or pay for those service, either directly or via an insurance policy they are forced to pay for, is a violation of their right to practice their religion as they see fit.

Let's examine this more deeply, KingK.

It is the followers of a religious dogma who are defined as the "practitioners" of the religion, not the church. The Catholic church sets its rules about birth control, but those who are members of the church decide for themselves whether or not to use contraceptives. A majority of practicing American Catholics do use birth control, non church approved.

The Catholic church does not employ bedroom spies. The Catholic church cannot mandate behavior. The Pope can set rules as he sees fit, but he cannot enforce personal sexual or reproductive behavior.

Nor does he have any business deciding on medical care for Catholics. The church is not a medical institution. This is a medical issue, not a religious issue.

If it meant so much to Catholics to faithfully follow the religious dogma regarding contraception, we would not be discussing this silliness at all.

What individuals may or may not do does not dictate what the Church can be forced to do/pay for in violation of the Churches beliefs. See the Supreme court cases. I know it is hard for you knuckleheads to understand, but religious institutions are given protection under the Constitution. If individuals want to ignore or not abide by the church doctrine/beliefs, they are free to do so by purchasing insurance elsewhere or having someone else pay for it (perhaps out of their own pocket from the money they earned working for the Church). While I personally I am not opposed to the use of contraceptives, I recognizes that making others or religious institutions made up of groups of individuals, that object to paying for it on religious grounds, pay for my choice to use contraceptives does indeed violate their right to religious liberty.

BTW, this is not limited to the Catholic Church. many other religions are opposed to the use of contraceptives, abortion, the morning after pill, etc...

John Adams believed that the Constitution he drafted was vulnerable to uneducated voters flocking to charismatic caricatures or religious fanatics. For that reason he was one of the early and most energetic proponents of public education in Massachusetts.

KingK, which supreme court rulings should we see? I'm honestly curious since you didn't name any particular cases.

nathan

Here is the most recent one just issued a few weeks ago. It does a fairly good jo9b of giving the history or religious freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution, in this country. Notice that the decision was 9-0 in favor of the Church.

.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 10–553 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, PETITIONER v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT [January 11, 2012] CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of theCourt. Certain employment discrimination laws authorize employees who have been wrongfully terminated to suetheir employers for reinstatement and damages. The question presented is whether the Establishment and FreeExercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an action when the employer is a religious group and theemployee is one of the group’s ministers. I A Petitioner Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Churchand School is a member congregation of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, the second largest Lutherandenomination in America. Hosanna-Tabor operated a small school in Redford, Michigan, offering a “Christcentered education” to students in kindergarten througheighth grade. 582 F. Supp. 2d 881, 884 (ED Mich. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court The Synod classifies teachers into two categories:“called” and “lay.” “Called” teachers are regarded ashaving been called to their vocation by God through acongregation. To be eligible to receive a call from a congregation, a teacher must satisfy certain academic requirements. One way of doing so is by completing a “colloquy” program at a Lutheran college or university. The program requires candidates to take eight courses of theological study, obtain the endorsement of their local Synod district, and pass an oral examination by a faculty committee. A teacher who meets these requirements maybe called by a congregation. Once called, a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.” App. 42, 48. A commissioned minister serves for an open-ended term; at Hosanna-Tabor, a call could berescinded only for cause and by a supermajority vote of the congregation. “Lay” or “contract” teachers, by contrast, are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran. At Hosanna-Tabor, they were appointed by the schoolboard, without a vote of the congregation, to one-yearrenewable terms. Although teachers at the school generally performed the same duties regardless of whether theywere lay or called, lay teachers were hired only when called teachers were unavailable. Respondent Cheryl Perich was first employed byHosanna-Tabor as a lay teacher in 1999. After Perich completed her colloquy later that school year, Hosanna-Tabor asked her to become a called teacher. Perich accepted thecall and received a “diploma of vocation” designating her a commissioned minister. Id., at 42. Perich taught kindergarten during her first four yearsat Hosanna-Tabor and fourth grade during the 2003–2004 school year. She taught math, language arts, social studies, science, gym, art, and music. She also taught a religion class four days a week, led the students in prayer and Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 3 Opinion of the Court devotional exercises each day, and attended a weekly school-wide chapel service. Perich led the chapel service herself about twice a year.Perich became ill in June 2004 with what was eventually diagnosed as narcolepsy. Symptoms included sudden and deep sleeps from which she could not be roused.Because of her illness, Perich began the 2004–2005 schoolyear on disability leave. On January 27, 2005, however, Perich notified the school principal, Stacey Hoeft, that shewould be able to report to work the following month. Hoeft responded that the school had already contractedwith a lay teacher to fill Perich’s position for the remainder of the school year. Hoeft also expressed concern that Perich was not yet ready to return to the classroom. On January 30, Hosanna-Tabor held a meeting of itscongregation at which school administrators stated thatPerich was unlikely to be physically capable of returning to work that school year or the next. The congregationvoted to offer Perich a “peaceful release” from her call, whereby the congregation would pay a portion of her health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation as a called teacher. Id., at 178, 186. Perich refused to resign and produced a note from her doctor stating thatshe would be able to return to work on February 22. The school board urged Perich to reconsider, informing her that the school no longer had a position for her, but Perichstood by her decision not to resign.On the morning of February 22—the first day she wasmedically cleared to return to work—Perich presented herself at the school. Hoeft asked her to leave but she would not do so until she obtained written documentation that she had reported to work. Later that afternoon, Hoeft called Perich at home and told her that she would likely befired. Perich responded that she had spoken with anattorney and intended to assert her legal rights. Following a school board meeting that evening, board 4 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court chairman Scott Salo sent Perich a letter stating that Hosanna-Tabor was reviewing the process for rescinding her call in light of her “regrettable” actions. Id., at 229. Salo subsequently followed up with a letter advisingPerich that the congregation would consider whether to rescind her call at its next meeting. As grounds for termination, the letter cited Perich’s “insubordination and disruptive behavior” on February 22, as well as the damage she had done to her “working relationship” with theschool by “threatening to take legal action.” Id., at 55. The congregation voted to rescind Perich’s call on April 10, and Hosanna-Tabor sent her a letter of termination the next day. B Perich filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that her employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 104 Stat. 327, 42 U. S. C. §12101 et seq. (1990). The ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability. §12112(a). It also prohibits an employer from retaliating “against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by [the ADA] or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted,or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [the ADA].” §12203(a).1 —————— 1The ADA itself provides religious entities with two defenses to claims of discrimination that arise under subchapter I of the Act. The first provides that “[t]his subchapter shall not prohibit a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society from giving preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion toperform work connected with the carrying on by such [entity] of its activities.” §12113(d)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. III). The second provides that“[u]nder this subchapter, a religious organization may require that all applicants and employees conform to the religious tenets of such organization.” §12113(d)(2). The ADA’s prohibition against retaliation, Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 5 Opinion of the Court The EEOC brought suit against Hosanna-Tabor, alleging that Perich had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit. Perich intervened in the litigation, claiming unlawful retaliation under both the ADA and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil RightsAct, Mich. Comp. Laws §37.1602(a) (1979). The EEOC and Perich sought Perich’s reinstatement to her former position (or frontpay in lieu thereof), along with backpay,compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other injunctive relief.Hosanna-Tabor moved for summary judgment. Invoking what is known as the “ministerial exception,” theChurch argued that the suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims at issue concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers. According to the Church, Perichwas a minister, and she had been fired for a religiousreason—namely, that her threat to sue the Church violated the Synod’s belief that Christians should resolve their disputes internally.The District Court agreed that the suit was barred bythe ministerial exception and granted summary judgmentin Hosanna-Tabor’s favor. The court explained that “Hosanna-Tabor treated Perich like a minister and held her out to the world as such long before this litigation began,” and that the “facts surrounding Perich’s employment in areligious school with a sectarian mission” supported theChurch’s characterization. 582 F. Supp. 2d, at 891–892. In light of that determination, the court concluded that it could “inquire no further into her claims of retaliation.” Id., at 892. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated and —————— §12203(a), appears in a different subchapter—subchapter IV. The EEOC and Perich contend, and Hosanna-Tabor does not dispute, that these defenses therefore do not apply to retaliation claims. 6 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court remanded, directing the District Court to proceed to the merits of Perich’s retaliation claims. The Court of Appeals recognized the existence of a ministerial exception barring certain employment discrimination claims against religious institutions—an exception “rooted in the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious freedom.” 597 F. 3d 769, 777 (2010). The court concluded, however, that Perich did not qualify as a “minister” under the exception, noting in particular that her duties as a called teacher were identical to her duties as a lay teacher. Id., at 778– 781. Judge White concurred. She viewed the questionwhether Perich qualified as a minister to be closer thandid the majority, but agreed that the “fact that the dutiesof the contract teachers are the same as the duties of the called teachers is telling.” Id., at 782, 784. We granted certiorari. 563 U. S. __— (2011). II The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We have said that these two Clauses “often exert conflicting pressures,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 719 (2005), and that there can be “internal tension . . . between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause,” Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 677 (1971) (plurality opinion).Not so here. Both Religion Clauses bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to fire one of its ministers. A Controversy between church and state over religious offices is hardly new. In 1215, the issue was addressed in the very first clause of Magna Carta. There, King Johnagreed that “the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired.” Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 7 Opinion of the Court The King in particular accepted the “freedom of elections,”a right “thought to be of the greatest necessity and importance to the English church.” J. Holt, Magna CartaApp. IV, p. 317, cl. 1 (1965). That freedom in many cases may have been more theoretical than real. See, e.g., W. Warren, Henry II 312(1973) (recounting the writ sent by Henry II to the electorsof a bishopric in Winchester, stating: “I order you to hold a free election, but forbid you to elect anyone but Richard my clerk”). In any event, it did not survive the reign ofHenry VIII, even in theory. The Act of Supremacy of 1534, 26 Hen. 8, ch. 1, made the English monarch the supreme head of the Church, and the Act in Restraint of Annates, 25 Hen. 8, ch. 20, passed that same year, gave him the authority to appoint the Church’s high officials. See G. Elton, The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary 331–332 (1960). Various Acts of Uniformity, enacted subsequently, tightened further the government’s grip onthe exercise of religion. See, e.g., Act of Uniformity, 1559,1 Eliz., ch. 2; Act of Uniformity, 1549, 2 & 3 Edw. 6, ch. 1. The Uniformity Act of 1662, for instance, limited service as a minister to those who formally assented to prescribed tenets and pledged to follow the mode of worship set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. Any minister who refusedto make that pledge was “deprived of all his Spiritual Promotions.” Act of Uniformity, 1662, 14 Car. 2, ch. 4. Seeking to escape the control of the national church, thePuritans fled to New England, where they hoped to elect their own ministers and establish their own modes of worship. See T. Curry, The First Freedoms: Church andState in America to the Passage of the First Amendment 3 (1986); McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev.1409, 1422 (1990). William Penn, the Quaker proprietorof what would eventually become Pennsylvania and Delaware, also sought independence from the Church of Eng-8 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court land. The charter creating the province of Pennsylvaniacontained no clause establishing a religion. See S. Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America 440–441 (1970). Colonists in the South, in contrast, brought the Churchof England with them. But even they sometimes chafed at the control exercised by the Crown and its representativesover religious offices. In Virginia, for example, the law vested the governor with the power to induct ministers presented to him by parish vestries, 2 Hening’s Statutesat Large 46 (1642), but the vestries often refused to makesuch presentations and instead chose ministers on their own. See H. Eckenrode, Separation of Church and Statein Virginia 13–19 (1910). Controversies over the selection of ministers also arose in other Colonies with Anglican establishments, including North Carolina. See C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom from Federal Establishment: Formation and Early History of the First Amendment Religion Clauses 10–11 (1964). There, the royal governor insisted that the right of presentation laywith the Bishop of London, but the colonial assemblyenacted laws placing that right in the vestries. Authorities in England intervened, repealing those laws as inconsistent with the rights of the Crown. See id., at 11; Weeks, Church and State in North Carolina, Johns Hopkins U. Studies in Hist. & Pol. Sci., 11th Ser., Nos. 5–6, pp. 29–36 (1893).It was against this background that the First Amendment was adopted. Familiar with life under the established Church of England, the founding generation sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church. See 1 Annals of Cong. 730–731 (1789) (noting that the Establishment Clause addressed the fear that “one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform” (remarks of J. Madison)). By forbidding the“establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 9 Opinion of the Court exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that thenew Federal Government—unlike the English Crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. The Establishment Clause prevents the Government fromappointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.This understanding of the Religion Clauses was reflected in two events involving James Madison, “ ‘the leadingarchitect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.’ ” Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U. S. ___, __— (2011) (slip op., at 13) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 103 (1968)). The first occurred in 1806, when John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States, solicited the Executive’s opinion on who should be appointed to direct the affairs of the CatholicChurch in the territory newly acquired by the LouisianaPurchase. After consulting with President Jefferson, thenSecretary of State Madison responded that the selection of church “functionaries” was an “entirely ecclesiastical” matter left to the Church’s own judgment. Letter from James Madison to Bishop Carroll (Nov. 20, 1806), reprinted in 20 Records of the American Catholic Historical Society 63 (1909). The “scrupulous policy of the Constitutionin guarding against a political interference with religious affairs,” Madison explained, prevented the Governmentfrom rendering an opinion on the “selection of ecclesiastical individuals.” Id., at 63–64. The second episode occurred in 1811, when Madison wasPresident. Congress had passed a bill incorporating theProtestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria inwhat was then the District of Columbia. Madison vetoed the bill, on the ground that it “exceeds the rightful authority to which Governments are limited, by the essentialdistinction between civil and religious functions, andviolates, in particular, the article of the Constitution of the 10 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court United States, which declares, that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’ ” 22 Annals of Cong. 982–983 (1811). Madison explained: “The bill enacts into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be madetherein by the particular society, or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognises.” Id., at 983 (emphasis added). B Given this understanding of the Religion Clauses—and the absence of government employment regulation generally—it was some time before questions about government interference with a church’s ability to select its own ministers came before the courts. This Court touched upon theissue indirectly, however, in the context of disputes over church property. Our decisions in that area confirm that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers. In Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872), the Court considered a dispute between antislavery and proslavery factions over who controlled the property of the WalnutStreet Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church had recognized the antislavery faction, and this Court—applyingnot the Constitution but a “broad and sound view of the relations of church and state under our system of laws”—declined to question that determination. Id., at 727. We explained that “whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of [the] church judicatories to whichthe matter has been carried, the legal tribunals mustaccept such decisions as final, and as binding on them.” Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 11 Opinion of the Court Ibid. As we would put it later, our opinion in Watson “radiates . . . a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.” Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94, 116 (1952).Confronting the issue under the Constitution for thefirst time in Kedroff, the Court recognized that the“[f ]reedom to select the clergy, where no improper methods of choice are proven,” is “part of the free exercise of religion” protected by the First Amendment against government interference. Ibid. At issue in Kedroff was the rightto use a Russian Orthodox cathedral in New York City. The Russian Orthodox churches in North America had split from the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow, out of concern that the Authority had become a tool of the Soviet Government. The North American churches claimed that the right to use the cathedral belonged to anarchbishop elected by them; the Supreme Church Authority claimed that it belonged instead to an archbishop appointed by the patriarch in Moscow. New York’s highest court ruled in favor of the North American churches, based on a state law requiring every Russian Orthodoxchurch in New York to recognize the determination of thegoverning body of the North American churches as authoritative. Id., at 96–97, 99, n. 3, 107, n. 10. This Court reversed, concluding that the New York law violated the First Amendment. Id., at 107. We explained that the controversy over the right to use the cathedral was “strictly a matter of ecclesiastical government, thepower of the Supreme Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church to appoint the ruling hierarch of thearchdiocese of North America.” Id., at 115. By “pass[ing]the control of matters strictly ecclesiastical from one 12 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court church authority to another,” the New York law intrudedthe “power of the state into the forbidden area of reli- gious freedom contrary to the principles of the First Amendment.” Id., at 119. Accordingly, we declared the law unconstitutional because it “directly prohibit[ed] the free exercise of an ecclesiastical right, the Church’s choice of its hierarchy.” Ibid. This Court reaffirmed these First Amendment principles in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976), a case involving a dispute over control of the American-CanadianDiocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church, including its property and assets. The Church had removed DionisijeMilivojevich as bishop of the American-Canadian Diocese because of his defiance of the church hierarchy. Followinghis removal, Dionisije brought a civil action in state courtchallenging the Church’s decision, and the Illinois Supreme Court “purported in effect to reinstate Dionisije as Diocesan Bishop,” on the ground that the proceedings resulting in his removal failed to comply with church lawsand regulations. Id., at 708. Reversing that judgment, this Court explained that theFirst Amendment “permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations forinternal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.” Id., at 724. When ecclesiastical tribunals decide such disputes,we further explained, “the Constitution requires that civilcourts accept their decisions as binding upon them.” Id., at 725. We thus held that by inquiring into whether the Church had followed its own procedures, the State Supreme Court had “unconstitutionally undertaken the resolution of quintessentially religious controversies whose resolution the First Amendment commits exclusively to the highest ecclesiastical tribunals” of the Church. Id., at 720. Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 13 Opinion of the Court C Until today, we have not had occasion to consider whether this freedom of a religious organization to select its ministers is implicated by a suit alleging discrimination inemployment. The Courts of Appeals, in contrast, have had extensive experience with this issue. Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., and other employment discrimination laws, the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized the existenceof a “ministerial exception,” grounded in the First Amendment, that precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.2 We agree that there is such a ministerial exception. The members of a religious group put their faith in the handsof their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retainan unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governanceof the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the FreeExercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right toshape its own faith and mission through its appointments. —————— 2See Natal v. Christian and Missionary Alliance, 878 F. 2d 1575, 1578 (CA1 1989); Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F. 3d 198, 204–209 (CA2 2008); Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F. 3d 294, 303–307 (CA3 2006); EEOC v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 213 F. 3d 795, 800–801 (CA4 2000); Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference, 173 F. 3d 343, 345–350 (CA5 1999); Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc., 474 F. 3d 223, 225–227 (CA6 2007); Schleicher v. Salvation Army, 518 F. 3d 472, 475 (CA7 2008); Scharon v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Presbyterian Hospitals, 929 F. 2d 360, 362–363 (CA8 1991); Werft v. Desert Southwest Annual Conference, 377 F. 3d 1099, 1100–1104 (CA9 2004); Bryce v. Episcopal Church, 289 F. 3d 648, 655–657 (CA10 2002); Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F. 3d 1299, 1301–1304 (CA11 2000); EEOC v. Catholic Univ., 83 F. 3d 455, 460–463 (CADC 1996). 14 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions. The EEOC and Perich acknowledge that employment discrimination laws would be unconstitutional as applied to religious groups in certain circumstances. They grant, for example, that it would violate the First Amendment for courts to apply such laws to compel the ordination ofwomen by the Catholic Church or by an Orthodox Jewishseminary. Brief for Federal Respondent 31; Brief forRespondent Perich 35–36. According to the EEOC and Perich, religious organizations could successfully defendagainst employment discrimination claims in those circumstances by invoking the constitutional right to freedomof association—a right “implicit” in the First Amendment. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 622 (1984). The EEOC and Perich thus see no need—and no basis—for a special rule for ministers grounded in theReligion Clauses themselves.We find this position untenable. The right to freedom of association is a right enjoyed by religious and secular groups alike. It follows under the EEOC’s and Perich’s view that the First Amendment analysis should be thesame, whether the association in question is the LutheranChurch, a labor union, or a social club. See Perich Brief 31; Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. That result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the ReligionClauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers. The EEOC and Perich also contend that our decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), precludes recognition of aministerial exception. In Smith, two members of the Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 15 Opinion of the Court Native American Church were denied state unemployment benefits after it was determined that they had been fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote, a crime under Oregonlaw. We held that this did not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even though the peyote had been ingested for sacramental purposes, because the “right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on theground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct thathis religion prescribes (or proscribes).” Id., at 879 (internal quotation marks omitted).It is true that the ADA’s prohibition on retaliation, likeOregon’s prohibition on peyote use, is a valid and neutral law of general applicability. But a church’s selection of its ministers is unlike an individual’s ingestion of peyote. Smith involved government regulation of only outward physical acts. The present case, in contrast, concernsgovernment interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself. See id., at 877 (distinguishing the government’s regulation of“physical acts” from its “lend[ing] its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma”). The contention that Smith forecloses recognitionof a ministerial exception rooted in the Religion Clauses has no merit. III Having concluded that there is a ministerial exceptiongrounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, we consider whether the exception applies in this case. We hold that it does. Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limitedto the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough 16 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment. To begin with, Hosanna-Tabor held Perich out as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members. When Hosanna-Tabor extended her a call, it issued her a “diploma of vocation” according her the title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.” App. 42. She was tasked with performing that office “according to the Word of God and the confessional standards of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as drawn from the Sacred Scriptures.” Ibid. The congregation prayed that God “bless [her] ministrations to the glory of His holy name, [and] the building ofHis church.” Id., at 43. In a supplement to the diploma,the congregation undertook to periodically review Perich’s“skills of ministry” and “ministerial responsibilities,” and to provide for her “continuing education as a professionalperson in the ministry of the Gospel.” Id., at 49. Perich’s title as a minister reflected a significant degreeof religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning. To be eligible to become a commissioned minister, Perich had to complete eight college-level courses in subjects including biblical interpretation, churchdoctrine, and the ministry of the Lutheran teacher. She also had to obtain the endorsement of her local Synod district by submitting a petition that contained her academic transcripts, letters of recommendation, personal statement, and written answers to various ministryrelated questions. Finally, she had to pass an oral examination by a faculty committee at a Lutheran college. It took Perich six years to fulfill these requirements. And when she eventually did, she was commissioned as a minister only upon election by the congregation, which recognized God’s call to her to teach. At that point, hercall could be rescinded only upon a supermajority vote ofthe congregation—a protection designed to allow her to Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 17 Opinion of the Court “preach the Word of God boldly.” Brief for Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod as Amicus Curiae 15. Perich held herself out as a minister of the Church byaccepting the formal call to religious service, according toits terms. She did so in other ways as well. For example,she claimed a special housing allowance on her taxes that was available only to employees earning their compensation “ ‘in the exercise of the ministry.’ ” App. 220 (“If youare not conducting activities ‘in the exercise of the ministry,’ you cannot take advantage of the parsonage or housing allowance exclusion” (quoting Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod Brochure on Whether the IRS Considers Employees as a Minister (2007)). In a form she submitted to the Synod following her termination, Perich againindicated that she regarded herself as a minister at Hosanna-Tabor, stating: “I feel that God is leading me to serve in the teaching ministry . . . . I am anxious to be inthe teaching ministry again soon.” App. 53.Perich’s job duties reflected a role in conveying theChurch’s message and carrying out its mission. HosannaTabor expressly charged her with “lead[ing] others towardChristian maturity” and “teach[ing] faithfully the Word of God, the Sacred Scriptures, in its truth and purity and asset forth in all the symbolical books of the EvangelicalLutheran Church.” Id., at 48. In fulfilling these responsibilities, Perich taught her students religion four days a week, and led them in prayer three times a day. Once a week, she took her students to a school-wide chapel service, and—about twice a year—she took her turn leading it, choosing the liturgy, selecting the hymns, and delivering a short message based on verses from the Bible. During her last year of teaching, Perich also led her fourthgraders in a brief devotional exercise each morning. As a source of religious instruction, Perich performed an important role in transmitting the Lutheran faith to the nextgeneration. 18 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court In light of these considerations—the formal title givenPerich by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religiousfunctions she performed for the Church—we concludethat Perich was a minister covered by the ministerial exception.In reaching a contrary conclusion, the Court of Appealscommitted three errors. First, the Sixth Circuit failed to see any relevance in the fact that Perich was a commissioned minister. Although such a title, by itself, does not automatically ensure coverage, the fact that an employeehas been ordained or commissioned as a minister is surely relevant, as is the fact that significant religious training and a recognized religious mission underlie the description of the employee’s position. It was wrong for the Court of Appeals—and Perich, who has adopted the court’s view,see Perich Brief 45—to say that an employee’s title does not matter. Second, the Sixth Circuit gave too much weight to thefact that lay teachers at the school performed the samereligious duties as Perich. We express no view on whethersomeone with Perich’s duties would be covered by the ministerial exception in the absence of the other considerations we have discussed. But though relevant, it cannot be dispositive that others not formally recognized as ministers by the church perform the same functions—particularly when, as here, they did so only because commissioned ministers were unavailable. Third, the Sixth Circuit placed too much emphasis on Perich’s performance of secular duties. It is true that her religious duties consumed only 45 minutes of each workday, and that the rest of her day was devoted to teachingsecular subjects. The EEOC regards that as conclusive,contending that any ministerial exception “should belimited to those employees who perform exclusively religious functions.” Brief for Federal Respondent 51. We Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 19 Opinion of the Court cannot accept that view. Indeed, we are unsure whether any such employees exist. The heads of congregations themselves often have a mix of duties, including secularones such as helping to manage the congregation’s finances, supervising purely secular personnel, and overseeing the upkeep of facilities.Although the Sixth Circuit did not adopt the extremeposition pressed here by the EEOC, it did regard the relative amount of time Perich spent performing religiousfunctions as largely determinative. The issue before us, however, is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch. The amount of time an employee spends on particular activities is relevant in assessing that employee’s status,but that factor cannot be considered in isolation, without regard to the nature of the religious functions performedand the other considerations discussed above. Because Perich was a minister within the meaning of the exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of this employment discrimination suit against her religiousemployer. The EEOC and Perich originally sought anorder reinstating Perich to her former position as a called teacher. By requiring the Church to accept a minister itdid not want, such an order would have plainly violated the Church’s freedom under the Religion Clauses to selectits own ministers. Perich no longer seeks reinstatement, having abandoned that relief before this Court. See Perich Brief 58. But that is immaterial. Perich continues to seek frontpay in lieu ofreinstatement, backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. An award of such relief would operate as a penalty on the Church for terminating anunwanted minister, and would be no less prohibited by the First Amendment than an order overturning the termination. Such relief would depend on a determination thatHosanna-Tabor was wrong to have relieved Perich of her position, and it is precisely such a ruling that is barred by 20 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court the ministerial exception.3 The EEOC and Perich suggest that Hosanna-Tabor’sasserted religious reason for firing Perich—that she violated the Synod’s commitment to internal dispute resolution—was pretextual. That suggestion misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exceptioninstead ensures that the authority to select and controlwho will minister to the faithful—a matter “strictly ecclesiastical,” Kedroff, 344 U. S., at 119—is the church’s alone.4 IV The EEOC and Perich foresee a parade of horribles that will follow our recognition of a ministerial exception toemployment discrimination suits. According to the EEOCand Perich, such an exception could protect religiousorganizations from liability for retaliating against employ-—————— 3Perich does not dispute that if the ministerial exception bars herretaliation claim under the ADA, it also bars her retaliation claim under Michigan law. 4A conflict has arisen in the Courts of Appeals over whether the ministerial exception is a jurisdictional bar or a defense on the merits. Compare Hollins, 474 F. 3d, at 225 (treating the exception as jurisdictional); and Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria, 442 F. 3d 1036, 1038– 1039 (CA7 2006) (same), with Petruska, 462 F. 3d, at 302 (treating the exception as an affirmative defense); Bryce, 289 F. 3d, at 654 (same); Bollard v. California Province of Soc. of Jesus, 196 F. 3d 940, 951 (CA9 1999) (same); and Natal, 878 F. 2d, at 1576 (same). We conclude that the exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar. That is because the issue presented by the exception is “whether the allegations the plaintiffmakes entitle him to relief,” not whether the court has “power to hear[the] case.” Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U. S. ___, __— (2010) (slip op., at 4–5) (internal quotation marks omitted). District courts have power to consider ADA claims in cases of this sort, and todecide whether the claim can proceed or is instead barred by the ministerial exception. Cite as: 565 U. S. ___— (2012) 21 Opinion of the Court ees for reporting criminal misconduct or for testifyingbefore a grand jury or in a criminal trial. What is more, the EEOC contends, the logic of the exception would confer on religious employers “unfettered discretion” to violate employment laws by, for example, hiring children oraliens not authorized to work in the United States. Brief for Federal Respondent 29.Hosanna-Tabor responds that the ministerial exceptionwould not in any way bar criminal prosecutions for interfering with law enforcement investigations or other proceedings. Nor, according to the Church, would theexception bar government enforcement of general laws restricting eligibility for employment, because the exception applies only to suits by or on behalf of ministers themselves. Hosanna-Tabor also notes that the ministerial exception has been around in the lower courts for 40 years, see McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F. 2d 553, 558 (CA5 1972), and has not given rise to the dire consequences predicted by the EEOC and Perich. The case before us is an employment discrimination suitbrought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit. We express no view onwhether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exceptionto other circumstances if and when they arise. * * * The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important.But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was dis-22 HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC Opinion of the Court criminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.

Spoken like a true Christian, Damage.

Hey Damage, I have nothing against Mormons or Catholics (my husband is Catholic in fact) holding the office of President. I have a problem with candidates that use their religious beliefs as part of their plank (Santorum); with Romney, I just don't like what he says he'd try to do if he were President. I have a real problem with Christians that try to force Christianity down my throat and claim that anyone that's against what they stand for is an "asshats who will make excuse after excuse for radical, Islamic killers . . . ". In this country we have freedom of religion, which means we have the right to not be a Christian, to be a radical, to be Islamic, to be an atheist or to keep our beliefs to ourselves.

"...same asshats who will make excuse after excuse for radical, Islamic killers"

Forget the excuses, it's the similarities between the right and jihadists that glare!!!

Let's face it, if the far right had their way we'd all be fundamental Christians waiting for the Rapture. I wonder when there's going to be an attempt at a constitutional amendment stating that you have to be Christian to be a citizen.

I wonder when there's going to be an attempt at a constitutional amendment stating that you have to be Christian to be a citizen.

Over my dead body.

George Washington professed belief in a higher power but was somewhat ambivalent about organized religion. He was emphatic that religion should have no part whatsoever in any political undertakings.

So much for the Evangelical Christians respect for the intent of the Founding Fathers.