In ancient Egypt the law, religion and society were predicated upon Ma'at: truth itself and the divine balance and unchangeable law that underlay all creation (similar to the logos and the Tao). It can be found best in the instructional wisdom literature of the period, since the 'negative confessions in the book of the dead deal more with ritual purity.
While I am certain that you and I would differ as to the details of such law, especially when it comes to sex and sexuality (but not the family), I sympathize with having such a transcendental foundation to guide one's life.
And I do own a bayonet, you know 
Not to alarm you, but we have must have had a Vulcan mind-meld at one time regarding the extremes of the various economic systems, which in theory seem appropriate.
Enjoyed your post.
WM
Welcome Winfred! Feel free to leave trackbacks to your posts from your fine blog anytime!
Thanks for the comment Akehetnu, I think there is a wide area of agreement possible on culture and fundamental values between people of faith and of reason. You probably read C.S. Lewis' "Abolition of Man" in which he refers to the Tao as the set of universal norms which are the foundation for all other moral/political reasoning. He was reluctant to use the language of "natural law" seeing as how that discourse has been so abused by modern thinkers. But the perception of a "Tao" is evidence of the universality of norms built into nature--the structure of our humanity that yearns for fulfillment and perfection in truth. What worries people about thinking about natural law is the notion that it might dictate behavior down to dietary habits! But the first principles of the natural law pretty much equal the Tao, and very much are embodied in the 10 Commandments. Applying the first principles in specific cases is a question even of prudence, and of charity, and moral conclusions are not evere mere deductions from abstract rules.
Ironically I think all too many folks make either too much, or too little, out of the sexual aspect of our natures. What reason suggests about sexuality and what various faiths teach about sexuality has both personal and public dimensions. The very idea of morality requires a certain freedom, and freedom requires a certain respect for differing conclusions in faith and/or reason. Drawing the line between personal and public I guess is where our different conclusions arise. In charity we can go further than what natural reason suggests about the utility of toleration, and recognize ourselves, our subjectivity and weaknesses in each other.
Nice Commentary, OX. Leave it to the Pope to discomfit both Liberals and Libertarians. Man-made, Man-centric models of morality are always bound to degenerate into a contest of power, either on an individual basis (Capitalism) or individual versus State/Collective (Marxism).
Commenting by HaloScan
