Young "scoops"

No wonder it is said that if you want to see what your wife will be, when it becomes older, look at the mother -in -law.

If you want to see Russia of the future, look at the older generation.

On the Echo website, I wrote a small comment about charity, or rather about the problems that arise around charity. With this comment, I responded to the news that one of the oldest icons in Russia - the Toropetsk Mother of God - would be temporarily transported from the Russian museum to the temple of the elite cottage village in the Moscow Region. This decision was made by the Ministry of Culture, but the museum workers are against, because they believe that such value cannot be transported. There is no point in retelling the whole comment, I will better give it a fragment from it:

“There is a philanthropist - Sergey Shmakov - an ardently believing Orthodox businessman, the father of six children, the founder of the Ivanovo Delo charitable foundation.
In 2006, he allocated funds to the district hospital and the sports club, and also donated 300 thousand rubles. to gild the domes of Korsun-Bogoroditsky Cathedral. So the Kommersant writes about him.
So here he, or any similar to him, does not require anything material in return, but asks for a certain moral, I emphasize, moral compensation from society.
For example, so that in the room that he built, something temporarily emphasizes, temporarily hung, stood or lie down.
The question is - what can he count on?
The answer is no.
What he built is separate, what they can give him is also separately.
It is at this moment, when he asks, all the copyright holders in the world say: it is impossible, because it will crumble, break, disappear.
Movement is impossible, you can’t touch ... well, and so on.
But then I ask a question - so what moral compensation from society can he count on?
I understand that he should ask for something else. Something is simpler, cheaper, much more, ascending.
And he does not want to be simpler.
He invested a lot of money into this - his own, non -state. And he will not take with him to the grave - it will forever remain society.
So what will we reward him?
I believe that as a business is not ready for wide philanthropy due to the lack of an institute of taxation of taxes, so society is not ready to respectfully perceive philanthropy and is looking for a double bottom in each act of the philanthropist.
It would seem that the final answer should be behind the Ministry of Culture, but even there each has its own opinion - one believes that it is possible to transport, the other is impossible.
But no one will pay attention to this, but they will cover Mr. Shmakov with shame, because he dared to “get into the folk good”.
This feature is to be ungrateful, it can only be eliminated by a clear law: for what gilding what reward to hang.
And the reward is not from the people who always believe that he was robbed.
And from the state that is capable of evaluating philanthropy. ”

So I wrote that it was my task, for the journalist should begin the discussion. As far as I understand, this topic was picked up by the famous blogger Drugoi, who not only did not speak aggressively regarding my position, but also reacted quite loyally, as it seemed to me.

The reaction of full forces armed with knowledge, sports figures by internet and cable television of young people was completely different.

I was shocked. Their position is simple:

1. Shmakov - thief.

2. If it is not yet known that he is a thief, then it is simply unproven.

3. If he gave money for charity, then thieves' money.

4. He did not give money there, not for that charity.

6. He gave little.

5. If he gave money for charity, he has no right to ask for anything in return, even temporarily.

6. Or maybe he will still ask for a hatch of the Monomakh hat?!

7. Such icons can only be stored in museums, because it is a popular treasure.
8. Let Shmakov shut up and continue to give money for charity. This, perhaps, he will silence in front of God, whom he loves so much, all his sins.

9. The philanthropist does not need moral compensation if he gives money from the heart.

And Dahl in that spirit.

Guys, this is what I tell you: you can have the Internet at any speed, any cars and study at any universities, including in your beloved MGIMO. You can know twenty languages ​​and fly surfing every weekend to the sea.

But you are still scoops!

This sad sentence is final for you and will be unchanged, no matter how much you squeak something in your own in your many blogs.

Despite your young age, you are no different from mild pensioners who are ready to support any hypothetical killer of Chubais, for the fact that he "gave birth to folk good."

You see, you, who did not give a penny to charity, cannot understand the request of the benefactor who built the church and asked temporarily , I will repeat again for the stupid ones - temporarily , for a period agreed with the State Ministry of Culture , to permit an important believer, an icon to be in his church.

He does not steal the icon, he wrote official paper with a request and is waiting for permission or refusal. Inside the ministry, there is, of course, a struggle. Someone there thinks that you can give, someone is not. The museum has a position - of course not to give. But then they will decide together and tell him - yes or no.

But you write and are not evil about that. It infuriates you that some businessman dares something “folk” to ask, even temporarily.

Your soviet position is simple: you built it, invested your money? Great! And now he went out and do not appear. Maybe we even once go to your church, we will even pray-after all, our parents hung crosses. But when we go - so that your spirit is not there!

And no matter what other words you describe this position of your position - it is precisely in this.

Did you make for us? And now I went out!

It is interesting that when you wash around the abroad, you are quite calm about huge boards with the names of sponsors and philanthropists that adorn buildings, museums, parks. I recently even saw a bench in the park, where a copper sign with the name of the person who gave money to this bench hung on the back.

In the Cathedral of Christ the Speaker, there are huge plates with the names of philanthropists who gave money to this temple.

But if you were asked if you can write their names in the temple, would you allow? Never! The name of Kobzon in the temple?! Let him go on the stage and sings his songs.

But it turns out that it will not be said with you that even the government dealt with the importance of moral encouragement.

Here is a quote:

“The government has prepared a draft resolution" On the intangible encouragement of charitable activities. " According to the text of the document, the philanthropists will be awarded with diplomas, badges, and memorial boards will be installed in their honor ... Among them are insignia and commemorative signs (for example, medals with an engraved philanthropist), diplomas and oral ads of gratitude.
The document involves more significant awards. For example, in honor of the philanthropists, “memorial boards or tables” may be installed, indicating that the object of the social sphere (university or clinic) was built with the financial participation of the businessman. In addition, organizations themselves will be able to get the name of the philanthropist, that is, businessmen will be able to apply for nominal funds and institutions during life ... The first deputy prime minister Dmitry Medvedev has already announced the importance of moral encouraging the philanthropists. In a recent discussion of targeted charitable foundations, he remarked: "Business would like his name to be present in the social facilities, for example, at the university to which he helps. And it is necessary to establish personal charitable foundations, target capital named after a particular businessman."

Why is Medvedev Deputy Prime Minister? Because it is hello from 2006.

Whether this bill has approved in the government is real. Or just proclaimed? I have not found a mention that a similar project was approved, and it is not a matter of it.

The government at that time understood or pretended that the philanthropists should not be sent, but morally encouraged.

You, young and sports, do not understand this even now.

Because you confuse a philanthropist with a monk.

The philanthropist is not hiding. This is a successful person who for some reason decides to spend money not on the next house in London, but on something necessary for everyone. But he boldly talks about it and wants us to answer him not with a kick and oblivion, but by gratitude.

In contrast, young scoops who have not spent a penny on public needs, a real philanthropist has a lot of the right to much. And only public public gratitude, real moral compensation, honor and respect give birth to new Tretyakovs.

But you are only scoops.

Therefore, go to your MGIMO and learn a new foreign language.

After all, terry soviet and Internet 4G get along well in you.

This is the phenomenon of the young Russian scoop.