Notre Dame

That's a completely understandable response, Gas_mantle.

Your thinking was anticipated by a few thousand years by Aristotle, who in discussing moral virtues in Book III of his Nicomachean Ethics deals with the virtue of "Liberality/generosity" in the section immediately before the one on "Magnificence"; by magnificence he had in mind such things as lavish spending on public projects such as temples.

Incidentally, one thing I've not seen mentioned anywhere in the news is the beautiful and diverse range of trees that were growing on the site and what damage these trees have sustained.

I think it is worth asking, would such a building be erected today? And if the answer is no, then why not?

And is it really a good cause? Who does it benefit? Probably not the common hoi polloi apart from the temporary jobs that might be created. Ok, if it's good for tourism, then perhaps the tourists should be charged a hefty price for viewing it.

I think it is worthwhile trying to put oneself in the place of someone who was alive when it was being built. Remember that a large proportion of the people were illiterate and uneducated, and perforce had to doff the cap, tug the forelock, and do what the priests etc, ie the literate and educated, told them. So maybe it was all for the edification of the religious fraternity with the common man being told to cough up and shut up. Which perhaps leads me onto thinking that perhaps the religious fraternity should pay for its restoration. After all, we keep hearing about how much money the religious fraternity have stashed away, so here is (maybe) a suitable project for them.

Hmmm.

Peter G. Shaw

I'd rebuild it open-plan and with a glass roof to make it light & airy. I'd also have bi-fold doors at one end to 'connect' with the outside space along with a separate area for the kids to play in.

Fund the rebuild by selling off the 'Holy Ash' from the fire.

The thing to bear in mind is the Catholic Church (who presumably are the owners?) are one of the weathliest institutions on the earth, they don't declare tax and the accusations of their organised paedophilia are hard to ignore.

If they want to have their cathedral restored that's fine but they ought to pay for it themselves. I find it disgraceful that an organisation as wealthy as the Catholic Church are possibly going to accept public donations that could be better used on the real needy.

As far as I'm concerned any donations to save the cathedral are going into the pockets of a glorified paedophile racket.

From what I can gather the French State is responsible for the repairs which is a little surprising considering France is a secular state.

Guy

I think you got it wrong Guy, the Notre Dame, is the property of the French State, but taken care of and used by the Church, including it's upkeep. It is also a UNESCO world heritage site, for those who think it's of no practical use.

Regarding donations by the Church to restore the damage, google is your friend...

Perhaps a grant from the EU will be forthcoming?

The 'Yellow Vest' protestors will be happy if the money comes from the tax payer, I'm sure.

Funny job the religion thing.......That book they follow is packed with dire warnings about the dangers of hoarding wealth, and advocates giving it all to the needy........guess the catholic church just skip those pages

You ought to read Chris Hitchens book 'The missionary position.' it highlights the corruption in the Catholic Church years before the current paedophile accusations came to light.

Mother Theresa set up the 'House of the dying' in Calcutta on the premise she was helping the sick. In reality she was accepting donations left, right and centre from all walks of life yet none (or very little) was going to the needy. The vast majority was spent on spreading Catholicism and banking the wealth whilst covering up corruption.

If the Catholic Church want their cathedral fixed it's time they put their hand in their pocket and paid themselves.

I am from Ireland, and while yes a tiny minority of the catholic church did horrific things, a huge amount of them did hard and good work in working class areas, often for very little thanks or recognition, and was one of the glues that bound society together. But as usual the majority pays for the sins/crimes of the minority. Is the bbc a paedophile organisation because of savile, harris etc ? They were getting huge salaries from the taxpayers, to produce rubbish programmes and rape youngsters.

Nearly any group who have been around for a long time has questions to answer, no more than the royal family, look back a bit at the dreadful way people who displeased them were treated during the last thousand years. The bloody tower, hanging drawing and quartering, pitch capping, the rack etc. The royals under Henry the eighth, profited hugely from the catholic church when he seized their lands and property.

No group should be free from criticism, but if you are going to sling muck, please sling it equally.

As for the cathedral, what a terrible thing to happen to such a historic and wonderful building, terrible, just as it would be if St.Pauls were to have burned during the blitz. Notre dame is owned by the republic of France, So it is their property and they are responsible for the damage repairs.

A good question about the BBC.

I believe they have some of Eric Gill's work in and around BBC property - read a little about his personal life and decide for yourself.

Of course if we were really serious about feeding the hungry etc, we wouldn't be wasting our time posting on this site, we would be out digging in the garden to give the produce to the poor.

Not all resources can be usefully applied to any particular problem, eg the people who can rebuild the cathedral probably could not directly contribute to curing cancer.

John

What a set of miserable buggers. The UK budget for foreign aid is £10bn per year, no doubt other countries western countries spend a similar proportion of their GDP. The cost of restoring Notre Dame will be insignificant in comparison, and as others have pointed out will be extra money, not diverted from aid budgets. Do these whingers want us to live in Nissen huts whilst our history falls apart around us

The point is the £10bn the UK 'gives' in foreign aid isn't altruistic, it's a common misconception that we give away money to help the starving. In reality we (and the other western nations) donate enough money to keep the people alive who produce our cheap produce.

Donating money to a starving country comes with strings attached, we don't give away money for nothing, if you think that then you are naive.

I'd love to see the cathedral restored but I find it offensive to think the Catholic Church worth billions will accept privately donated money. Either they pay or leave it as a damaged structure like Coventry cathedral

I remember the Biafra Appeal charity box being passed around at school. I found out many years later that our government was, at the same time, actively promoting & funding the war over there and that's what is happening now with Yemen.

Duncan, a little reassurance that you've not (inexplicably) included me in the category of miserable buggers/whingers would be welcome at this point. It's a fairly drastic misinterpretation of my position if you have.

Your comments may or may not be correct if you're talking about state aid. However, in 2017 alone British people as individuals (i.e. people like you and me) gave £10.3 billion in private charitable donations. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/caf-uk-giving-2018-report.pdf

Perhaps you'd be good enough to acknowledge therefore that, contrary to your rather too sweeping assertion, the UK in the form of many ordinary British people does in fact give substantial amounts of money "to help the starving" and with no "strings attached".

Edited By Bill Phinn on 17/04/2019 01:29:20

From what I saw when I lived in Africa, an awful lot of "first world" government aid money goes to large companies based in the donor country to pay them to provide services, or build infrastructure in the recipient country. The money never leaves the donor country. It's just transferred from the public purse to the private sector there. The recipient country ends up with a nice new power station or railway as a secondary benefit of the deal.

So if the UK donates money to help fix Notre Dame, it could be paid to British building firms etc to go over and do part of the job, or to a UK firm to supply materials etc (or WHS fire prevention protocols ).

Politics, religion and theology aside I agree the building is an iconic structure and, as such, a symbol of what human ingenuity can achieve.

I wonder if it's worth rebuilding fully to show what could be achieved 850 years ago, a giant museum if you like. Apply that logic and we should be re-pointing Stonehenge and bunging some scaffolding over a few pyramids if not gluing the arms back on venus de milo.

I especially wonder if it's worth recreating it with robot stone carvers as mentioned by one eminent architect, surely the things stands as a monument to human achievement, not the speed or dexterity of a machine (yes I know humans made the machines so therefore made the produce of those machines). A bit like CNC or 3D printing, kind of cheating in my eyes.

I'm sure our old mate Fred Dibnah would be saying, "aye go on then, put it back up, but do it the way them buggers did in the old days"

As a final comment maybe it should be made safe, preserved as a shell and used to demonsterate the frailties or mankind as in a careless action could destroy nearly a thousand years of work. I think Coventry cathedral stands in the same way to show how much damage we can do as well as how much good.

Time to lock this thread as it is now more about religion & politics.