Definition: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: the clergy were more qualified than the civil courts in resolving and interpreting ecclesiastical law and religious faith. Id. The Watson Court, concluding that the local Presbyterian congregation was part of a hierarchical church struc ture, ordered deference to the policies of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Id. at 726, 738-34. In subsequent rulings, the United States Supreme Court continued to establish limits on judicial determinations of religious congregation disputes. See Bouldin v. Alexander, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 131, 140, 21 L.Ed. 69 (1872) (in a congregational church an "expulsion of the majority by the minority [was] a void act"); Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1, 16-17, 50 S.Ct. 5, 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929) (<HOLDING>); Presbyterian Church in the United States v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract (B) holding that there was subject matter jurisdiction in dispute relating to archbishops refusal to appoint a candidate to chaplaincy position because he was seeking relief as beneficiary of a trust but further finding that the determination of what the essential qualifications of a chaplain are and whether the candidate possesses them was an ecclesiastical matter which will be accepted as conclusive in secular courts (C) holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction (D) holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act (E) holding that where an objection was made and trial courts ruling was treated as conclusive by state and defense counsel there was no need for further objections when evidence was presented to jury
Output:
holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract