TASK DEFINITION: Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.
PROBLEM: That makes a bad principal?  Seriously!

SOLUTION: No

PROBLEM: Someone asked, and yet again racism is at play, if white children should be adopted by white folks. Yeah, why not. But recent events have allowed white people to adopt and take in as foster children, kids of Native parents and there were LONG lines at the DFYS taking advantage. Why? MONEY. When a Native child is placed in a non-Native home, the payment for care doubles. Another add-on is something called "cultural difference" stipend. So white folks got more money to "care" for Native kids than Native people. Money talks, BS walks. Hence the long list of white folks on the rolls. Yeppers.

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: 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.

SOLUTION:
No