How could this be? Well, what are they teaching them at Harvard (or any university’s political science/philosophy program)? Here at the local public university, rated one of the best in the U.S., public or private, the political science and philosophy departments have a sharp division between them: The bigger one, to paint in broad strokes, is a modernist (or post-modernist) school of thought, the other, smaller but still strong one is Thomistic (Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and the contemporary Thomists).

Natural law is focused on heavily by the Thomistic division, but I do not think it forms a large part of the modernist division. It is likely that Senator Obama learned philosophy gravely deficient in natural law and classical Western thought.

What about faith and reason? Has either Senator Obama or Dr. Dobson read Fides et Ratio or Veritatis Splendor? I would tend to doubt it. Reclaiming more of the universities’ philosophy departments to teach natural law and Thomistic thought would go a long way and is a good place to start.

In short, I agree with you that this was a great opportunity to discuss the natural law and the relationship between faith and reason, which Dr. Dobson missed. At the same time, like you, I do think that Senator Obama’s interpretation of Scripture and his theology are distorted.

Part of the problem is that we have lost lots of our salt and light because we are so afraid to actually use Scripture in an intelligent way with unbelievers, even if they scoff at it.

I don’t think it is either/or. We need to use scripture effectively as well. I do think natural law has a major role to play. It gives us a framework for talking about morality in a multifaith environment. So we can say that Moslems may not teach their children that killing Jews is OK but that does not mean Christians can’t say gay marriage is wrong.

So, you want to bring back the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. all the Roman Catholic Church’s doing? That is the implication of you wanting to solve the “that’s your interpretation” problem. Seems like the USA principle was a good one.

We have the inquisition, minus some of the excesses. It is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is a good thing. Soon we may need crusades as well. Again minus the excesses but moslem agression needs to be dealt with some how.

The USA principle does not solve the interpretation problem. It is simply a way of living with disagreement. When you want to know the truth or fight for the truth you are simply stuck. You have to somehow pick a tradition. But how can you know you are even close to God’s truth if you do that. Only if the tradition you pick is guarenteed to be in tune with God’s mind. You need a sacred tradition. Not a human tradition. Where could you find one of those?

So, you want to bring back the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. all the Roman Catholic Church’s doing? That is the implication of you wanting to solve the “that’s your interpretation” problem. Seems like the USA principle was a good one.

Where is the link to that?

natural law would also indicate in your heart that adultery is wrong and sin, etc. but our culure seems to have watered that one down over the years.

I agree that Christians should be able to intelligently articulate natural law without always putting a Bible verse on every point; but I also think that we should not be afraid of using the Bible. Part of the problem is that we have lost lots of our salt and light because we are so afraid to actually use Scripture in an intelligent way with unbelievers, even if they scoff at it.