As much as I am meh about ND I have to agree about SC: however, it still beats anything I’ve seen by Gehry. I mention this because people who live near horrid architecture are not irrational haters of art, but rational because they have to see it every day, and I would absolutely hate to have to walk past a Gehry every day.
People can donate to whatever they want. When someone puts their fortune into ending a nasty disease, or into providing clean drinking water or a sound free education or other necessities to folks who don’t have them, I admire the person and their use of their fortune.
I have no admiration for someone who’s donating their money to rebuilding a lovely church. It’s fine for them to do that, but it’s not worth praise.
Why should the RC restore it? It does not belong to them but to the French government, which allows them to use it.So maybe kick in some dough so the rain will be kept off.
The people donating the money think it is worth it. That is all that matters.
$1 billion is a bit much, you say? The French heritage foundation’s CEO cited experts saying the total cost to fix Notre-Dame could reach €10 billion (USD $11.2 billion). And that’s not entirely unreasonable – the restoration of the British House of Parliament is going to cost about £3.5 billion (USD $4.6 billion), and it’s a roughly comparable building in terms of renovation challenges except for the fact that it didn’t get fire-damaged and water-damaged – it’s just getting old.
I don’t see any need to donate my money to one of the wealthiest organizations on the planet, and while I might think it’s a stupid thing for other people to do too, I wouldn’t try and stop anyone.
I have no problem with rich people donating the amount necessary to restore the church in its entirety.
What I don’t know is whether $1 billion is too much for that goal. If not, then great. If so, then I would want the remaining money to be given to charity. Since the church is apparently owned by the state, the people would get to decide what type of charity this is, including but not limited to feeding the homeless in the area or creating a historical building restoration fund.
None of this should be used politically.
What is evil is selfishness, and this act isn’t inherently selfish.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but for the sake of clarification : the Vatican doesn’t own ND. French Revolutionaries took in from them 200 years ago and never gave it back. We still let the Catholics LARP in there on a weekly basis, but it’s a nationally owned building.
The English-language Wikipedia says that Napoleon Bonaparte restored the cathedral to the Catholic Church with the handover formally happening on 18 April 1802. Is that incorrect, or was it taken back by the state?
Yes, the state confiscated all church property in 1905.
I believe that’s not correct - the Concordat of 1801 didn’t *restore *the Church’s possessions, rather it guaranteed that the State would let them use the grounds & buildings as they wished and turned the priests into some sort of weird civil servants paid by the State (which, incidentally, reignited an old theological quarrel about who gets to appoint bishops in France as well - the Kings of old were pretty adamant it should be them and not Rome, and so did Napoleon. It got… complicated).
That was abolished* in 1905.
*except in Alsace & Lorraine, for “part of the German Reich at the time” reasons, and it’s been a grandfathered in compromise there since France took 'em back.
May I just say, I like how aesthetic the poll is right now. 37 votes for the top option, followed by 11, 11, and 11 votes. I would like to ask seven more Dopers to vote for the top so it can be 44, 11, 11, 11.
#mathtidiness
If you’re talking about the Roman Catholic Church under the assumption that they own Notre Dame you are incorrect - the building is owned by the French government, which allows the Catholics to continue to use it for worship. The RCC actually has zero control or say over what happens to the building.
You know, a billion dollars is just not really that much money anymore.
I’m happy that people will be employed for years and I hope the build goes well. I’m not at all religious, but I can still appreciate a beautiful church.
I think first of all that they got about 800 years out of the old building means they got their money worth.
Second, such a rebuilding project will be expensive but it will be money well worth it. Think of all the workers to be hired and trained. That church will put food on alot of peoples table for years and will be a major source of pride someday to say your grandparents helped build that.
As for tourism the construction itself will be a tourist draw. Think Crazy Horse monument in South Dakota which is a monument in the making.
Ok, so a bunch of people with charity in their hearts, have donated some of their own money to restore a monument that they feel to be worth it, whether from national pride, or religious fervor, or artistic sentiment, or even just sentimental nostalgia.
their
own
money
And now some asswipe want to criticize them for it?
Shame on YOU!
The cost to rebuild the Notre Dame is currently estimated at $3.3 Billion, and 15 years time.
The cathedral was already undergoing restoration with a cost of more than 500 million euros.
Is $1 billion a lot of money? Well over a billion dollars was spent producing the Pirates of the Caribbean film series. Salaries for NFL players total more than $4 billion annually (and that doesn’t include other NFL salaries and expenses). The U.S. Treasury spends well over a billion dollars on interest payments each day. It loses another billion dollars each day due to the Trump-Ryan tax cuts on the rich.
A billion dollars is enough to buy three F-22 Raptors, or perhaps four VH-71 Kestrel helicopters. The WalMart family has made about $3 billion in paper profits so far this month.
I clicked “well worth it.”
In that case, I stand by what I said, and am fine with it–as long as it doesn’t come with political bullshit, like defunding preservation programs or something.
That said, I don’t agree with the idea that I can’t criticize people’s choices of how to spend their own money. Yes, they have a right to spend it how they want, but having a right doesn’t make something the right thing to do. Velocity’s analogy to freedom of speech is apt: the right to say something doesn’t mean I have to agree with what you said.
It’s just that, in this case, I don’t see anything to criticize. Yes, there are other, better causes. But this one isn’t wrong. I’ll reserve my ire for those who use their money to support actively harmful acts or ideas.
And when it comes down to it, most of that money will go to salaries of everyday common workers who might not have a job anyways.