I am convinced that the battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroon by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preacher.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery." - John Dunphy, from an essay in The Humanist, published more than 25 years ago, in 1983.
The title of the essay was "A Religion for the New Age."
More quotes from Dunphy:
Have I mellowed over the past 11 years? Of course, who hasn't? But have I repudiated or even questioned the basic tenets of 'A Religion For A New Age"? No, nor can I envision myself ever doing so. How do I respond to the fundamentalists who are so incensed by the essay? If they have the decency to confront me to my face instead of sending anonymous hate-letters, I usually say something to the effect that Pat Buchanan was right at the 1992 Republican National Convention when he stated that a cultural civil war rages across America. While the struggle is certainly quite complex and multi-faceted, I continue, a significant aspect of it is comprised of the conflict between the totalitarian Christianity of the Radical Right and the force of humanism. And then I add, 'But here's something that Mr. Buchanan neglected to mention in his address: humanism is going to win.' ''
It seems to me that over the last quarter century this trend, which was already underway at the time the essay was written, has accelerated, and in fact is going on all over our society, not just in classrooms. It's also going on within Christianity itself, as many Christian denominations and churches are incorporating much of this 'new faith' as part of their 'Christianity.' And the 'new faith' is being promoted by the media, as in the example of Eckhart Tolle.
I heard about Tolle from a devout church-going Christian who was quite excited about him and his book, which she heard about at church. The book, A New Earth, has been touted and promoted by Oprah. Tolle supposedly has a new message or new spiritual insight to teach Christians. Oprah is a professed Christian although she has a syncretistic 'all paths lead to God' belief system which tries to blend various conflicting 'spiritual paths.'
For A New Earth, Winfrey wanted to do more: "Many people aren't that familiar with spiritual growth. They might need some help at first with the languaging of new consciousness and things like that. So I thought, 'Wouldn't it be great to have classes to help people through the process?' "
He says his philosophy, which includes Buddhist, Christian and Islamic influences, is "not like academic study with new information you have to absorb. Rather, it's about uncovering what's already in you, getting at that deeper level."
Faith is not the issue
He says he's not offering a religion or a set of beliefs, but appeals to people of different faiths or "no faith at all."
If it's on Oprah, you can be sure millions of credulous, fawning Oprah fans, mostly female, will be ga-ga over it.
More from the article:
Winfrey calls the book "a wake-up call for the entire planet, one reader at a time. It helps us to distance ourselves from our egos, which, of course, we all have, and to open ourselves to a higher self, which he calls consciousness. It helps us to stop creating our own suffering and obsessing over the past and what the future might be, and to put ourselves in the now."
So the media, both the entertainment media and the 'news' media will be doing their part in spreading this 'new faith', which is in fact not new at all, but is just a refurbished, psychology-laced update of the old syncretistic religious systems which appeal to the naive, universalistic types or the mere novelty-seekers who appear in every generation. However with this 'new faith' being proselytized everywhere, and with the weakening of Christianity, the younger generations are adopting the 'new faith' almost by default, as a lot of its presuppositions and dogmas have been taught them in school and on TV since they were toddlers.
This 'new faith' is the perfect fit for our Politically Correct, diversity-obsessed, 'one world' age. Christianity is, by its nature, divisive, and that's exactly as it should be. A Christianity which does not practice separation and division from 'the world', and does not discern between true religions and false religions, good and evil, is no Christianity at all. So in this age in which 'division' and discrimination are the greatest sins of all, Christianity will be increasingly under attack, and to the extent that Christians react by accommodating to the world and becoming less 'divisive' and more 'inclusive', Christianity is being swallowed up by 'the new faith.'
The new faith will be the official state religion of the One World system, the 'global empire' we are heading towards, and in fact the political side of this is part of the plan.
Some would argue that there is no global plan; it's all just "evolving" naturally with no direction from above.
However people who are considered movers and shakers in this new faith, or who laid the philosophical groundwork for it or who write apologetics for it, say things like this:
"Another approved hierarchical project is the uniting of the nations of Europe into one cooperating peaceful community...''
He mentions a failed attempt to do this, and says ''Now another attempt is in full swing, namely the European Common Market."
Foster Bailey, who with his wife Alice was an influential figure in this movement, wrote the above in Things To Come, in 1974.
We can see how the European Union, or the 'Common Market' as was, has grown into an Orwellian entity with aims toward becoming part of a global order.
I've always believed that the talk of a world government seemed plausible, although I could not envision how it could happen in my lifetime. I saw too much nationalism, tribalism, and just plain divisiveness among people to see how people could move, willingly, towards such a system. I imagined it would take generations to get there. Even up until, say, 9/11, I thought we must be decades away from any true global government, although as a Christian I know the one world system is foretold in the Bible.
Now I can see that 'divisiveness' is a good thing if it keeps this sinister one-world agenda from being realized.
I've been shocked in recent years at how far and how fast we've gone down that path. Now we hear of a 'North American Union' which would unite Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, and this in turn would be one of several 'regional' unions which would be subsumed under a global government. It seems ominously possible to me now.
It's troubling to see how little resistance there is to this idea; the ordinary people I talk to about it express, at most, only a mild annoyance, no shock or outrage, just a slightly peeved attitude. They don't, in most cases, seem to realize how radical a thing that would be, and they don't seem troubled by the fact that we have had -- and will have -- no say in the matter, despite our vaunted 'freedoms' and our 'democratic' system. They don't seem to realize that our system, flawed as it is, still has some respect of our liberties and those safeguards would not be there in a 'North American Union' which includes corrupt Mexico and leftist Canada as partners.
The younger generations, having been indoctrinated into the 'new faith', not only the political but the 'spiritual' aspects, have no problems with this move.
One thing I've noticed when I visit, as I frequently do, a liberal 'community blog' is that the younger generations, besides being mostly politically liberal, have a radically different worldview than we of the pre-PC era. In my youth there was much talk about the 'generation gap' between us and our parents. We, too, had been partially indoctrinated into the 'new world order' way of thinking then, but there was still the foundation of old American ideas and values we received as young children. So the gap between us and our parents was as nothing compared to the gulf that exists between my generation and the post-PC young people. They have radically different standards, mores, beliefs, preferences, and attitudes for the most part.
Now lately I am getting accused of over-generalizing, so let me say it for the umpteenth time: there are exceptions, and I recognize those exceptions. Some of my regulars here are young people who have, to their great credit (and by the grace of God) escaped from the conditioning. But just because there are escapees, let's not say there is no prison. Most of the younger people have been imprisoned by the dogmas they've been fed through the media, the schools, and their peers, ever since they were born.
The Communists always talked about 'the new Soviet man', this new being who would be created when the Revolution was fully realized. The prophets of the 'new faith' talk about 'Homo Noeticus', a new species of human who will be beyond 'divisiveness' and 'separativeness', beyond tribalism, nationalism, and other such 'un-evolved' behaviors, who will be beyond sexual prudishness and Christian inhibitions and all 'judgmentalism.' It looks to me like they've just about succeeded, after decades of conditioning, in producing their new species, so bring on the New World Order. The young people over at that community blog seem to fit the description of the 'new man' to a 'T'.
It isn't just a political struggle, much as we like to blame all of this on 'liberalism' and Democrats and/or Karl Marx. There are beliefs that have come to pervade all of society, and all classes and age groups, which are not political. What we are up against is an all-encompassing belief system that is underpinned by syncretistic religious beliefs and the faith in pop-psychology (the self as center of all things) which together make up this soup that we call 'liberalism.'
Many of the people who will vote for our pre-anointed next President are people who are apolitical, really; they have never read Karl Marx or any of the leftist philosophers or propagandists. They simply live and breathe this 'new faith' which just coincidentally fits very well with the leftist politics. The systems work together, the 'spiritual' metaphysical side and the 'lifestyle' side which encourages hedonism and narcissism, and the political aspect. We need to take notice of other factors besides the Democrat party, which is only one head of the hydra.