TA的每日心情 | 慵懒 2020-7-26 05:11 |
---|
签到天数: 1017 天 [LV.10]大乘
|
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2013-3-12 02:17 编辑 , m& {8 T. Y2 ?
老兵帅客 发表于 2013-3-11 23:48 9 O, \+ o. u8 Y% r$ Z+ R: A8 j
看看约瑟夫史密斯,再想想洪秀全,这哥俩的轨迹实在是太相似了。后者的天平天国-》天父天兄天平天国,对照 ... + S; F) B( x9 `# v$ R4 ?0 ?
) q. l' Q$ W8 n0 ]) ]+ i8 `$ {! V4 M L' b
我读摩门教历史时,感想之一就是史密斯和洪秀全非常相似。洪秀全建立的政权持续了10几年,太平军的势力遍及大半个中国,从这一点说史密斯比不上。但是摩门教在他死后一直蓬勃发展到现在,可以说已经成为世界诸大宗教之一,影响遍及世界,从这一点讲,史密斯要比洪秀全强。
" }6 x! }. G! }; y+ H
! t9 I" ~0 S* f+ g: S5 H3 G+ m我尽管不信宗教,但是读过几本摩门教历史的书后,对史密斯很有好感,而且对他的性格,喜怒都有了解,对这个人觉得很亲近。我在国内读过太平天国的书,但对洪秀全这个人本身,他的性格总觉得很遥远,隐隐的总觉得这个人有些邪恶的影子。当然这也可能是由于国内近代史研究有局限,不够深入所致。
) b4 ]" T! G( \
% q; X( {! `) B5 j" x% P摩门教的福利互助制度,现在仍然持续下来,是摩门教的显著特色之一。30年代大萧条,摩门教徒不从联邦政府那儿领救济,依靠相互帮助度过难关,也推动了美国主流社会对摩门教印象的改观。
1 i6 q* s# L* }* E# P
' k' J& `3 H+ v! X接下来引的是Economist 10年以前对摩门教福利制度介绍的一篇文章,这也是我对摩门教最早的一点了解。. B8 A- X3 j! |+ T
& E! C5 e; g3 i+ W; UMormon welfare schemes( h* z* m9 m& Y
Bishop's move
3 y5 E( G8 _/ w! b. L, O s
+ X P7 i" R" w0 t8 @A great way to organise charity, but very hard to copy
+ z2 K0 b7 R* ]* b ~Feb 14th 2002 | salt lake city |From the print edition
9 F0 o4 h8 Y- b& o* @) k _% p6 l& s$ N
IF YOU want to know why George Bush thinks religious charities are good at welfare services, go to Salt Lake City. But you will also discover a big problem with the president's “armies of compassion” plan: successful churches don't need help.* ]8 g) y; k" e
$ @- n+ A* ^# c$ Q% hThe welfare system in question is run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as the Mormons. It is one of the most intensive such programmes in the world, and it comes in two parts.. n& l# e! z: p# ?5 F
, D$ X4 @# V% x" c7 ?0 ?7 H9 s
First, the “fast-offering”. Mormons are supposed to forgo two meals a month and donate the cost of the food to a local fund for the needy. This may not sound much but it gives each (relatively small) congregation over $50,000 to spend a year, which buys a lot of soup kitchens. With 3,600 congregations in Utah alone, the system produces nearly $200m annually: about a fifth of what Utah's state government spends on welfare, and almost as much as it spends on health.( N" Z; u0 p) i0 |- C
( H# k, N( z. q1 g/ [6 Y
The really striking feature of the system, though, is the way it is run. All the money stays with the congregation and the volunteer layman who heads it (confusingly called a bishop, the lowest rung in the Mormon's lay clergy). “When I was a bishop,” says Bob Bennett, now a senator, “I could write out a cheque for $500 and just hand it over to someone I thought needed it.”
9 R# { ^& w6 u( C: t G2 q
# T9 `+ p7 H2 R; q( H% ^Obviously, this could not work in a government department using taxpayers' money. It works among Mormons only because congregations are small (everyone knows one another) and, as Mr Bennett says “everyone trusts the bishop.” But there are, he claims, two big advantages. There is no bureaucracy, so help can be custom-made. One bishop was asked for help by a parishioner who had found a job but could not get to it: he bought her a second-hand car. And there is no sense of entitlement, so no welfare-dependency.
" n+ a$ R: Q# E! w/ v5 s' y
2 P% f; Y8 D# c) ^3 KSecond, Mormons have a formal welfare system for providing food and jobs. The church runs a number of farms, canneries and other commercial companies. It can simply allocate jobs (temporary ones) for those out of work. One of these firms is a chain of supermarkets. The hungry and penniless have merely to go to the bishop; he will approve a shopping list, and the grocery will provide the goods free.
1 L8 N% |4 I4 u6 S0 u6 z7 x
4 C& \9 ]) O8 W& mThe Mormon welfare system shows how comprehensive church-run social services can be. Unfortunately, it does not support Mr Bush's belief that federal tax breaks will unleash a wave of such projects. When the president announced his programme, the church authorities were polite, wished him well—and said they wanted nothing to do with it. The system runs because Mormons give up time and money. Tax breaks will make no difference to that—but they may, the church fears, enmesh the welfare system in a tangle of government restrictions.# f+ M: G4 _7 }7 T1 K0 u% S6 v9 o
) Q& J" {* Q" O( v4 S% G0 y2 K |
|