Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Ex Input:
My 'commoner viewpoint'  believes that the Establishment of Religion Clause has been so perverted from the original intent of those who wrote it as to be nothing but a title.  At the time, Maryland had been established as a Catholic Colony, for one example.  That is what the framers were trying to prevent.  

Banning religious symbols such as the cross on Skinner's Butte as 'establishment of religion' is nonsense in my 'commoner viewpoint'.  

As a non-religious person, I can have no valid opinion on any religious belief. 

 Forcing my non-religious opinions on those who have them seems wrong to me, however.  When the government chooses a policy which directly attacks such a belief, it should only be as the only alternative; not just because the majority has the power to do so, in my opinion.

As an example, Islam requires female genital circumcision.  I believe that religious belief to be sufficiently perverse to be banned by our governments.  I see no alternative.

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
Yeah, I see Russia, like a drunk and dangerous snow machiner buzzing Iditarod mushers. Very tRUMP & cRUSE like of you, Mr. Putin.

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
I wonder what portion of commenters on here are paid by special interest PR groups to push a specific agenda in the comments.  My only complaint is the complete lack of subtlety...I mean come on, romance us, ease us into your rhetoric, don't just beat us over the head with it.

Ex Output:

No