There has been considerable grousing on social media and elsewhere (here, here, here, and here, etc.) about that much money being donated to restore a burnt building while numerous other causes of choice go neglected - and also questions raised about why people donate so readily to a cause like Notre Dame but not others (i.e., did Notre Dame tug more effectively on their heartstrings, and because of publicity, than something more “mundane” but important like clean drinking water)
(Not a thread about whether people have the right to donate - people can donate to whatever they want)
I’m going OK but a bit much. Is it even possibly really to restore it or is the end result going to be more a modern version? It strikes me that some of the materials and art/construction techniques may be hard to duplicate and from the pictures I’ve seen it looks like major parts are just flat-out gone. If true restoration isn’t possible go cheaper and use the difference to further the actual missions churches like that should be fulfilling.
It may sound harsh, but at least this money will be used for something lasting and permanent. The cathedral could conceivably go on another 800 years. The needy will be every bit as dead inside of 100 years as if they were made not needy by some of this money.
Plus, the cathedral is as much a symbol as it is a historic building- if this was another church in Paris that wasn’t also a terribly historic or symbolic place, there would be some head-shaking and mumbling about how unfortunate it was, and then everyone would let the insurance companies figure it out.
Donating money to restore the cathedral does not preclude spending on other charities.
One of the billionaires pledging over $100 million for Notre Dame restoration also heads a foundation to combat violence against women, including refugees.
One could argue that he should pour that dough into his foundation instead, or spend it on whatever one thinks is a bigger priority than Notre Dame, but in that event I would consider one a dumbass.
I find it hard to separate the answer from that concept. People can donate to whatever they want and it’s just not the business of people who didn’t donate.
I also don’t see how the Church isn’t a private entity. The different entity is the French govt which can force donations via taxes.
The problem I have, in general, is public stock companies making charitable donations of shareholder money. The argument in favor of that is that in the ideal world everyone would realize that shareholders should be left to make their own donations if they want to rather than managers basking in the glow of giving away other people’s money; but in the real world too much of the public misunderstands what corporations are, so the corporation’s reputation can be lifted by the donation and that may deliver more profit to shareholders than if the donation hadn’t been made. I’d still prefer if managers made it a point to educate the public that the money isn’t theirs to give away: it’s entrusted to them to make maximum profits, ethically and within the law, period.
No problem with big donations from private companies or individuals. I object to charitable donations by companies I own stock in, I’ll make my own decisions what to give to, thanks.
I think $1 billion is a bit much to spend on a restoration, but I don’t know what these things cost. I don’t have a problem with people donating money to do it, and I’d much rather see private citizens and companies pay to restore the building than the government. That said, I think people complaining about other religious structures that were vandalized or bombed that are “more deserving” are missing the point. Notre Dame is an iconic landmark and it’s a global cultural treasure; it’s one of the most memorable buildings in a city of memorable buildings. I’ve never seen the mosque that was destroyed in China or the churches that were burned in Louisiana, so as an atheist I don’t particularly care about them (though I feel sad for the parishioners). For me, Notre Dame has just as much significance as Hagia Sofia, the Taj Mahal, the Vishvanath Temple, Al-Aqsa, Durham Cathedral, St. Patrick’s, St. Peter’s, and so on. Or a nonsectarian structure like the Eiffel Tower or Great Wall of China, for that matter.
The billion dollars is mostly in the form of €100 million pledges by a handful of extremely wealthy French businessmen. For many of them, this is about as small a fraction of their net worth as a middle-class person buying a new HDTV for a thousand dollars. So should we stand in Best Buy to tell people to donate their money rather than buy that new TV? No, of course not. People are free to spend. And this money doesn’t just go down a hole. It’s going to employ a large number of tradespeople and artisans for five or ten years, so it contributes to the economy.
Well, they are two separate things. It’s like free speech - someone can have the right to say something bad, but that thing would still be bad. So people can donate to whatever they like, however, like Jon Paulson’s $400 million donation to Harvard, sometimes that money triggers the “that could have been better donated elsewhere” irritation reflex among many observers. (Of course, many observers can be obnoxious with trying to mentally spend other people’s money)
On the other hand, if they need to source authentic something-or-another limestone to match the original structure then it’s probably a lot easier to do so with a billion dollars and a more modest amount of money might lead to cutting corners or going more “modern” out of financial necessity.
The structure itself is insanely well studied and modeled so I’m not especially worried that we won’t know how to recreate it.
Regarding the architecture of the repairs, I read an article a long time ago about some addition being made to some historic or architecturally significant building. The article made the point that the design of the addition was not intended to copy the design of the original building but instead it was designed to complement the building while making it clear that it was a later addition. And remember that the cathedral is almost certainly a mixture of styles from previous additions and repairs.
I haven’t researched, but isn’t the building owned by the Catholic church? Don’t they have about $37 billion in their coffers? Why would the government be involved in restoring the church?
The donations seem a bit excessive imho. I realize emotions are running high and everyone wants the cathedral restored.
I’m concerned at Macron’s vow to do it in five years. Construction planning & scheduling hasn’t even been looked at yet. There’s only so many tradesman that can work at any given time. Supplies & materials have to arrive in the correct order and at the correct time. Work can only be done in a logical order.
Throwing more money at the project won’t help.
It will just waste the money and cause confusion.
Omar Little: I believe the building is owned by the people of France (pursuant to their revolution a couple hundred years ago). They let Christians use it for their rituals.
I am sad to see the building damaged, but these things happen. However, $1 billion can go a long way toward relieving misery elsewhere in the world which would, ironically, answer the call of Jesus himself.
Really, though, few of us actually consider whether there’s some higher or better purpose we can put our money to. Upthread, someone mentioned a $400 million donation to Harvard University, which already has an endowment of $35 billion or so. If the goal was to educate as many people as possible, the donor would have been better off spending the money on community college scholarships. But that wasn’t the purpose.
Yeah, it’s worth it. To put it in perspective, a billion dollars is about what a sports stadium is costing nowadays. I think that one can argue that Notre-Dame is more important than wherever the Cowboys throw a pigskin.
A billion dollars is unfortunately a relatively paltry sum in our modern day economy. It’s about the budget of a medium sized university for a year. It wouldn’t surprise me if it doesn’t go nearly far enough to complete a restoration.
Nava is also correct that Notre Dame is owned by the French Government. It was confiscated from the church during the Revolution and used as a warehouse. It was given back to the church during the Napoleonic Era, but in 1905, all churches were confiscated from the Catholic Church and now belong to the state.
When I, as an individual, choose to give or spend money on something, that money essentially disappears, from my point of view, and isn’t available to give or spend on something else. So it’s tempting to think of all expenditures in those terms.
But from a global perspective, when money is spent, it doesn’t get used up: it gets spread around.
Personally, I’m less bothered by all the money being donated to restore Notre Dame, than I am by all the money being donated to help Political Candidate A beat Political Candidate B and all the money being donated to help Political Candidate B beat Political Candidate A.