I meant to. Tl;dr: gummints gonna gum.
Or, you seem to imply a foreign policy exceptionalism for the U.S. whose existence is uncertain.

Let me be perfectly clear. Christianity may be my personal life's meaning. It informs my church activities explicitly, my online interactions less so, and is mostly implicit in business activities. That is, I don't run around evangelizing on the job, for all my work activities are not in opposition to my faith.
Government is a wholly secular affair. Despite the occasional "In God We Trust" flourish, I'm quick to point out that "Christian nation" is an oxymoron. Christianity is not carried out at the national level, and the Carpenter didn't lay it down for the United States as such.
All of which leads up to my bewilderment at

Why wouldn't I? Christianity is like chess. It's all there, in plain view, the whole time. Countries are more like poker, bluffing and cheating like. . .governments.

ISWYDT

You are a deeply funny man, no doubt about that.

See, there you go applying rationality to a problem again.
I take the existence of this story to mean that Zuckerberg's campaign contributions aren't meeting Her Majesty's expectations.
Or am I being too cynical?

As Ancient Commenter Solomon noted:

Is it OK if I just hope you are proven correct, while kinda knowing that this story goes another way?

Relax, man. The hedonists won. It's all good. Just ask them.

I rejoice at this report.

Well, yes. One must be in continual prayer along these lines, as you know, if you have ears.

Rick Santorum, or Joe Scarborough? Or do you even really care? ;-)

Oh, the reference answers a multitude of questions. But the reference is of the "he who hath ears, let him hear" variety, and cochlear implants are beyond my scope. You'll have to take that up with the author, sir.

It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.

The Supreme Court did something similar regarding the understanding of the amendment intended to define slaves as full citizens of the US. They stretched that so that anyone born inside the US now is automatically a citizen, even today, so the US is practically unable to control its citizenship that unlike (IIRC) pretty much every other country. Congress's intent was clear, but that didn't stop them.

So are you in for child brides too? There are people in the US that want that. Actually we'll probably end up fighting that battle in 50 years or less.