[dragonwriter]

> The reality of the situation is the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality, and the nuclear family

The truth is it absolutely wasn't. It's true that various forms of Christianity (with more virulent anti-Semitism than any “Judeo” component) were broadly popular with the general population at the time of founding, the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely members of the Enlightenment faction that started the whole idea of anti-religious secular liberalism.

The nuclear family also played little role in America’s foundation, only becoming dominant in the US sometime early in the latter half of the 20th Century, quite late in US history.

Though both the nuclear family and “Judeo-Christian” values being essential to the foundation of the American nation is one of the (fact-free) defining myths of American social conservatism of the late-20th Century to the modern day.

[tyri_kai_psomi]

If you really think this, then all I have to say to you is you must read the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence and Constitution with quite the set of blinders on my friend. For example, consider this quotation from John Jay in Federalist No 2: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1329146-it-has-often-given-...

> the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely members of the Enlightenment faction that started the whole idea of anti-religious secular liberalism.

Really going to need a citation on this. Besides that point, the Enlightenment being anti-religious is a myth in of itself as well. Most standard taught US history on the events that took place basically from the split of the One Catholic Church, through the dark ages, and up to just before the founding of this country is woefully inaccurate. We are pretty good at documenting things that occurred on this continent roughly mid 1700s on.

[dragonwriter]

> Most standard taught US history on the events that took place basically from the split of the One Catholic Church, through the dark ages, and up to just before the founding of this country is woefully inaccurate.

I don't think anyone who places the East-West Schism before the Early Middle Ages (on top of the still using the term “Dark Ages”) really has any leg to stand on in accusing any other portrayal of history as “woefully inaccurate”.

[tyri_kai_psomi]

Did I place it before the early middle ages? Whoops! Not my intention. The schism took place in 1054 officially, however it was very much in the works before that. Thanks for pointing out my comment read as such. I use the term dark ages purely because that is the term the greatest amount of people will be familiar with, and I am referring to the period roughly between 1330 to enlightenment period.

[dragonwriter]

> I use the term dark ages purely because that is the term the greatest amount of people will be familiar with, and I am referring to the period roughly between 1330 to enlightenment period.

I am pretty sure “Dark Ages” is not a term people are generally familiar with for the period from the Late Middle Ages through the Renaissance, since even when the term was more popular, that's not at all what it referred to.

[ryacko]

The Anti-Masonic Party was a thing for a time.

There are certainly mood and history defining events for various historical periods that are under reported.

The earliest secularists were all freemasons.