In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Comment: I am personally awed by the power of religion to do good, and bad, to those that believe. But the question isn't really about respecting the tenets of a religion so much as questioning how far can those tenets be pushed on the non-religious that are, by circumstance, under the control of the religious. I'm all for the freedom of religion. I don't care about the particular tenet of this case, just the collision of religion and secular.

I also acknowledge my view of the situation is as a common citizen, not a Supreme Court judge. So my comments should be taken that way. On a commoner level, does it seem fine to you that a religious organization should try to prevent the government from telling a health insurer that it should provide reimbursement for contraception? It seems even more removed than a religious baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple. The Poor Sisters never see the contraceptives and don't see the transfer of money.
Non-threat