I agree 99.9%, but I do think that New Age spirituality can easily be co-opted to support immorality. Religion becomes an issue when it is harmful to others, which of course is an occurrence inherent to the practice of evangelism (ideological imposition = psychological harm). When religion begins to harm, that is when it should be necessary to have a debate: "Hey, slow down; personal truth is plural. You're entitled to your opinion, but, in the interest of the human race, please don't use it for malice."

The imaginary scenario that worries me is the idea of an evangelical New Age -- anti-conservative, anti-Judaic, and egged on by the media. One thing about the Judaic religions is that they very blatantly elaborate the necessity of morality and recognize that unfettered human nature can lead to a lot of harm. I think the Eastern religions also expound similar beliefs (Confucianism certainly does), but I also think that their texts point out powerful mystical ideas more overtly than the Judaic texts. To find the mystical underpinnings of Judaism that are pretty much indistinct from Hinduism, Occultism, and Daoism, you have to look toward the Qabbalah.

But, anyways, powerful mystical ideas can be distorted pretty easily into justification for immorality, IMO (I.E., "good and evil, light and dark, positive and negative are undifferentiated for eternity so do WTF you want").

Of course, any religious idea can be distorted into justification for selfishness. But which religion is more likely to cultivate a distinct idea of morality? One that teaches "harm others and you go to hell," or one which teaches "all is one forever and everything is okay"? There are a few more steps involved in deriving the importance of empathy and morality from the latter (although it's there ... that being we're all the same, so of course we should be empathetic and moral to each other).