Back to Blessed Cause
From www.crossroad.to

Advancement of Teaching).  Boyer, in turn, supported Charles Haynes' agenda for using the Bible to spur interest in interfaith dialogue. In his Preface to Schooling for a Global Age, Goodlad wrote:

“Enlightened social engineering is required to face situations that demand global action now…. Parents and the general public must be reached also, otherwise children and youth enrolled in globally oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home.” 

Does this sound like manipulation and brainwashing? It should! Successful "social engineering" must mold the minds of the masses so effectively that no rational argument can persuade the people to turn back. In the light of Professor Goodlad's vision -- and of the paradigm shift shown above -- consider the meaning behind the following statements from UNESCO’s report, Our Creative Diversity:

“Education must inform… but it must also form, it must provide them with a sense of meaning to guide their actions….  Education should promote ‘rational understanding of conflict, tensions, and the processes involved, provoke a critical awareness… and provide a basis for the analysis of concepts that will prevent… chauvinist and irrational explanations from being accepted….’

"Its primary task is to provide information, explain and analyze problems and subject them to criticism….  It should cover adults as well…. The principle of lifelong education… should be the aim of all societies.” [10]

The second paragraph shows three important steps in the consensus process: Provide the selected pieces of  information needed to persuade the group members, explain the problems (or crises) from the global or pluralistic perspective, then subject it to the criticism of the group. The members will think their ideas are their own, never realizing they were suggested to them by the information and context provided by the facilitator. Eventually, these steps to "Finding Common Ground" becomes a lifestyle.

 

Back in the fifties, Edward Hunter wrote the book, Brainwashing, an insightful expose documenting Soviet brainwashing strategies in China and other Communist countries. A summary of his book can be found in the U.S. Congressional Record. (See Communist Psychological Warfare) Mr. Hunter's warnings should shine a red light into our foolish presumptions that this process couldn’t be used in our free nation.[11] Compare his warning below with the above comment from Our Creative Diversity:

“Even when he stands by himself, the truly indoctrinated communist must be part of the collective. He must be incapable of hearing opposing ideas and facts, no matter how convincing or how forcibly they bombard his senses.  A trustworthy communist must reach in an automatic manner without any force being applied.”[12]

Finally, the following statement from "The Relationship of Religion to Moral Education in the Public Schools" by Charles Haynes and Warren Nord is less explicit but brings a similar message:

“Moralities are grounded in worldviews that make sense of them, that render them rational, that give them cultural and intellectual force."[13]     

In other words, the key to change is establishing in the minds of people the new world view -- the collective way of thinking, of seeing and of understanding social issues. The main strategy for accomplishing this change is the consensus process.

Break down boundaries and build consensus

The UN vision for global solidarity demands continual measurement of social capital in every community. To raise their score on this international assessment of community oneness, leaders are seeking ways to involve everyone in the consensus process.  Two of the more common labels for this process are "Conflict Resolution" and "sensitivity training."  While it often helps to resolve genuine conflicts (that's the crisis needed to bring people into the process), it's main purpose is to change the way people think and relate to each other.

The vision for this social transformation was articulated back in 1948 in a statement titled, "Mental Health and World Citizenship”, prepared for the International Congress on Mental Health, which met in London. Notice their strategy for change:

“Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early … Thus prejudice, hostility or excessive nationalism may become deeply embedded in the developing personality… often at great human cost.... Change will be strongly resisted unless an attitude of acceptance has first been engendered.” [14]

Now, Finding Common Ground, the acclaimed report edited by Charles Haynes, tells us that,

“Establishing a climate where people listen to one another requires that we go beyond labels and rebuild trust….  Putting aside labels and stereotypes and taking seriously the position of the ‘other side’ are the starting points for genuine dialogue.”

Sounds good, doesn't it?  People long for a climate of trust and friendliness.  The question is: can you trust this process? Designed to manipulate groups toward a pre-planned change in values, Mr. Haynes' principles will indeed "create an attitude of acceptance" for the new way of thinking. But this attitude tends to immunize children against Biblical faith. Rather than promoting neutrality, it promotes pluralism and a universalist distortion of Christianity.

Mr. Haynes assures his followers that his guidelines teach respect for all beliefs. That's partly true. The new consensus won't end religious diversity.  "Conflict and debate are vital to

Yet Mr. Haynes assures his followers that all beliefs must be respected. That's partly true. The new consensus won't end religious diversity.  "Conflict and debate are vital to democracy," he writes in Teaching the Role of Religion in American History. 

But his assurances only make his program more deceptive. Keep in mind, conflict and debate are vital to the consensus process as well. The trained teacher/ facilitator cannot lead the dialogue effectively without some form of tension created by diversity. You can't train people to compromise (or synthesize) without opposing views -- a "thesis and antithesis." That helps explain why the consensus process must include all these elements:

·                     a diverse group

·                     dialoguing to consensus

·                     over a social issue

·                     led by a trained facilitator

·                     toward a pre-planned outcome [15]

The true dialectic group never reaches a final consensus. It just practices compromise with each facilitated dialogue. Day by day, the members become more comfortable both with the group and with the process. Eventually, they learn to discard all their old mental anchors -- the facts and faith that maintained their convictions. They become like boats adrift, always ready to shift with any wind or current that comes their way.     

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum (ASCD, the curriculum arm of the NEA) has supported Mr. Haynes programs  for many years. In 1970, it published To Nurture Humaneness, which offers a glimpse of the envisioned goal: 

"...absolute behavior control is imminent.... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will... never self-consciously know that it has happened."[16]

This statement by Professor  Raymond Houghton points to the effectiveness of today's sophisticated version of the old Hegelian dialectic process -- the heart of the Soviet brainwashing system.  It was infused into the U.S. education even before 1985, when President Reagan and Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev signed a formal U.S. - USSR Education Exchange Agreement. Charles Haynes' Finding Common Ground fits right in. Consider its "civic groundrules" for the process of change: 

1. "Agree on the Ground Rules"

2. "Include All of the Stakeholders"    

3. "Listen to All Sides"

4. "Work for Comprehensive Policies"  

1. "Agree on the Ground Rules" [Leaders agree, others follow]:

Finding Common Ground states: 

"These principles are the ‘ground rules’ within which we negotiate our differences…  At the heart of these principles, are the ‘three Rs’ of religious liberty: Rights… Responsibilities… Respect….

“If these… civic ground rules are in place, then all sides come to the  table prepared to take responsibility to protect the rights of others and to debate differences with civility and respect…”

Hidden in the new definitions of respect and responsibility is the understanding that absolute facts and uncompromising faith in God's Word are not appropriate in the consensus process. Words that imply that your beliefs might be more true than other beliefs could offend the group. Therefore, participants may freely share their thoughts and feelings, but not their uncompromising positions. 

In this context, it makes perfect sense that Charles Haynes and Warren Nord would emphasize the law that backs this rule:

“…the courts have made it clear that public schools cannot teach students that the Bible is true….”  [17]

In his online article, Educators, theologians agree on Bible-teaching guidelines for public schools, Mr. Haynes rephrases this essential understanding: 

“Supernatural occurrences and divine action described in the Bible may not be taught as historical fact.

This policy is as important to the new international education program (see Mind Control) as it is to Mr. Haynes and the Freedom Forum. Back in 1989, Dr. Shirley McCune summarized this policy in her keynote speech at the Governors’ Conference on Education:

“The revolution… in curriculum is that we no longer are teaching facts to children…. We no longer see the teaching of facts and information as the primary outcome of education.” [18] 

"What will take the place of logic, fact and analysis in the coming age?" This rhetorical question was raised by Dr. Donald A. Cowan, president emeritus of the University of Dallas. His revealing answer exposes an important step toward the new consensus: 

"The central way of thought for this new era will be imagination.... Imagination will be the active, creative agent of culture, transforming brute materials to a higher, more knowable state." [19]

Why is the imagination so important to the new way of thinking? Because, unlike fact and faith, the imagination can be manipulated through all kinds of stories, myths, and images. By putting "teaching about the Bible" into a context teeming with timeless myths and inter-faith idealism, God's Word becomes little more than just another myth, a collection of stories -- one that may seem far less noble than other, less honest, "sacred" books.    

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Endnotes |Home