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

Answer: No


Question: Why not just shoot him and put him in the freezer?

Answer: Yes


Question: Jim, I think you miss the point.  BOG is not balanced.  They get money from target shooters who do not hunt, or use any state owned ranges.  Therefore, BOG should be denied funds from ammo sales not related to hunting.  Or BOG can be balanced.  But you can not be unbalanced AND spend the money of the people who are not hunters.

Answer:
No