Notre-Dame, Paris.

edited April 15 in General
This is so fucking sad. My girlfriends brother is in in Paris right now reporting on this. Wow. Horrific.
the28thfishmajjam0770
«1

Comments

  • MurderbearMurderbear Cold Spring, Ky
    Yeah, it's a tragedy.
    the28thfishmajjam0770
  • I was in tears while watching the news report on this. 
    majjam0770
  • This is absolutely heartbreaking.     :'(
    majjam0770
  • Kela15Kela15 Malta, Europe
    It's unbelievable. To lose such a magnificent cathedral in this day and age is heartbreaking. 
    majjam0770CALVlLlAIN
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    This is just so sad.  
  • Yes, terrible! 

    I just read that at least part of it will be saved. The "two towers" are the part that might be saved. I don't know it in detail but that seems like a little bit of good news. 
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    I'm glad they were able to save the building, 800 year old buildings it took a people 100 years to build should not go out like that. I was emotional watching it burn and I'm not even christian.

    It is a moral certainty that she'll be rebuilt and restored, though, and I also read most of the relics were evacuated before the restoration work. Almost no injuries nor loss of life, seems Paris dodged a giant bullet. Time for the Pope to get the papal checkbook out.
    JoshuaHeterMichellemjmulladyCALVlLlAIN
  • JoshuaHeterJoshuaHeter Omaha, NE
    It might take 5, 10, or 20 years, but (as a non-Catholic), the official re-opening / re-consecration mass is something I’m planning on tuning in for.
    blacksunrise7Kela15
  • I've been to Notre Dame three times, the last time with my mom before Dementia got her.  She was so awed, it was amazing to share it with her.

    When I was 16, I remember touching one of the pillars and having a shiver run through my entire being, thinking, 'someone carved this before my country was founded.'  It was existential and for years whenever I thought of it it made me feel small in the best possible way.

    Some mason, somewhere between the 1100s and 1400s carved that stone, and it was still there, and when I stood in that cathedral I felt like I was a part of something bigger than myself.  I was a part of the history that someone began, knowing they would be long dead before the final stone was set.

    My heart is breaking.  I don't want to be a part of the history where Notre Dame ended.
    JoshuaHeterMichellecdriveCeciliaMTxSandManKela15Kate23djcaudle01
  • I think it's more than a Christian symbol, although it is that. It's a symbol of France and of centuries of art and craftsmanship. If you are raised Catholic (like I was) but are not a practicing Catholic (as I am not) there is still something deeply meaningful about Catholic historic sites like this. I can only imagine that's doubled if you are from a Catholic country like France. Even if I do not share their faith, even when you can see some complexities and dark side to the faith, it means a lot to be in a structure that people designed and built out of faith, especially when they did it hundreds of years ago when they didn't have modern power tools. I haven't been to Notre Dame, but any time I am in a cathedral I feel some deep sense of personal history and meaning there.

    It will be interesting to see how they celebrate Easter there this weekend, and I have already seen articles where they are talking about rebuilding and a rich guy promised 100M Euros etc. Apparently they were able to recover quite a bit of the art that was housed there. So I don't think this is the end. But it will certainly be much, much different!
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    My Dad made it there 8 years ago and got me this pencil drawing from a street artist outside the cathedral.  I love those flying buttresses. 


    JoshuaHeterA_Ron_HubbardMichelleChinaskiCeciliaMKela15
  • MichelleMichelle California
    I've always been in love with Paris and the old architecture, so I was sad to see this amazing church be destroyed.  I'm also sad for the city of Paris and its citizens to lose something they treasure so much.  It's such a relief to know it will be rebuilt.  :heart:
  • Kela15Kela15 Malta, Europe
    We need to organise a BM Europe meeting in Paris once it's rebuilt.
  • Looks like the damage was not nearly as severe as it could have been. Almost all the stonework is still intact, as well as the large stained glass windows. 
    CeciliaM
  • amyja89amyja89 Oxford, England
    I absolutely understand the cultural and historical significance of Notre Dame, I've been there myself, but I've gotta say that 700 million being handed over like that by the rich whilst a homeless person dies every 20 hours on the streets of Paris does leave a sour taste in my mouth.
    telephoneofmadnessCALVlLlAINbizmarkiefaderBenDee
  • The spire was not even an original part of the building.
  • bizmarkiefaderbizmarkiefader San Francisco

    Flint doesn't have clean water and the White House is still shitting on American citizens in Puerto Rico who still need  help buuuuuut

    White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement that the U.S. will offer "assistance in the rehabilitation of this irreplaceable symbol of Western civilization."


    telephoneofmadness
  • Donations must be past $1 billion by now.
  • So the Notre Dame should stay in a half-burnt state until homelessness is solved? Or what? I keep seeing these types of statements but I don't think people are thinking them all the way through.
  • CeciliaM said:
    So the Notre Dame should stay in a half-burnt state until homelessness is solved? Or what? I keep seeing these types of statements but I don't think people are thinking them all the way through.
    No, there's several issues here. First, no one should have that much accumulated wealth. It almost certainly requires immoral action, and frankly is immoral on its face.

    Second, there's already rich assholes angling to get free PR out of this - some guy asked that they be able to deduct these donations at 90% (rather than the normal 60%), which would be incredibly cheap PR. Not great.

    Third, it's troubling these people apparently had all this money to throw around, but were sitting on it instead of using it to, you know, help actual people, or pay their workers more, whatever. In a just world, there'd be fair taxation and the government would have the money on hand to deal with a catastrophe like this. 
    Dee
  • asmallcat said:
    CeciliaM said:
    So the Notre Dame should stay in a half-burnt state until homelessness is solved? Or what? I keep seeing these types of statements but I don't think people are thinking them all the way through.
    No, there's several issues here. First, no one should have that much accumulated wealth. It almost certainly requires immoral action, and frankly is immoral on its face.

    Second, there's already rich assholes angling to get free PR out of this - some guy asked that they be able to deduct these donations at 90% (rather than the normal 60%), which would be incredibly cheap PR. Not great.

    Third, it's troubling these people apparently had all this money to throw around, but were sitting on it instead of using it to, you know, help actual people, or pay their workers more, whatever. In a just world, there'd be fair taxation and the government would have the money on hand to deal with a catastrophe like this. 
    I get where you are coming from, and I wish we could wave a wand and fix homelessness, the environment and equality too.  I'm not being sarcastic, I really sincerely mean that.  I donate a part of my money every year to a domestic violence organization that helps fund resources for victims escaping with their pets.  I still go to movies, and pay for luxuries like podcast subscriptions, but I take the small amount I have for such things and try to make it do something good.

    This finger pointing at rich people when they do grand gestures like this, I don't understand that.  The way the system is set up we have generational wealth and people who ascend to financial liquidity that some small countries would envy.  However, at that point, it is their money and they should spend it any way they wish.  

    When I was 23 my dog ate tainted food and was going to die because her kidneys were shutting down.  I spent over $3000 dollars (which was more than 3 months income for me at that point) on dialysis and - by what I have to assume was a miracle - somehow kick started her kidneys and she had another several healthy-ish years (she lived to 16). 

    I had friends who judged me 'wasting' that money on a dog (which is easily replaced, if you look hard enough you can even find them for free), instead of donating it, or using it for something better.  One person who gave me so much static over it, spent about the same amount upgrading the stereo and sound system in his car.  He said that was better than saving my best friend's life, because it made his car cooler.  I drove my beater car for a few extra years, and got to keep the only person who cared about me while I was in an abusive situation at my side for a few more years.

    Unless every penny you have that isn't earmarked for poverty-level housing and subsistence-level bread isn't given to the homeless, anyone could find equal fault with you.  My philosophy is, if it's not my money, I don't have any right to a say.

    Also, the money that they are throwing at Notre Dame wasn't going to go to the homeless, or the Flint water quality problem if it wasn't being wasted on a part of human heritage.  It would probably sit in an account accruing even more money, or be used to buy a private island.  The truth of it is, this restoration would probably still be done, but it would take French tax dollars.  In which case, it would literally be competing for resources with other tax funded issues.  Like homelessness and water quality.

    Some people who have more money than probably should be allowed- but that is allowed- are using it to salvage a building that has witnessed 800 years of history.  It's not my money, I don't have any right to a say, but I'm going to say it anyways.

    I'm grateful.
    CeciliaMNaugustinerhcoop
  • gjulleen said:
    I've been to Notre Dame three times, the last time with my mom before Dementia got her.  She was so awed, it was amazing to share it with her.

    When I was 16, I remember touching one of the pillars and having a shiver run through my entire being, thinking, 'someone carved this before my country was founded.'  It was existential and for years whenever I thought of it it made me feel small in the best possible way.

    Some mason, somewhere between the 1100s and 1400s carved that stone, and it was still there, and when I stood in that cathedral I felt like I was a part of something bigger than myself.  I was a part of the history that someone began, knowing they would be long dead before the final stone was set.

    My heart is breaking.  I don't want to be a part of the history where Notre Dame ended.
    This is awesome, I swear to God I visited ND in Paris with my mom when I was 16 !!!!!!  Our French & Spanish class took a trip to Madrid, Toledo, Biarritz and Paris during my junior year is HS...the whole trip was absolutely beautiful...as a horny 16 yr old I couldn’t have cared less about all those damn cathedrals but I specifically remember eating lunch at Quasimodo’s Cafe after visiting Notre Dame in silence as my breath had been taken away by the pure majesty and beauty of that experience...

    If I remember correctly there were 4 Roseline (Rosylen) / Bloodline markets that led out from ND in the 4 cardinal directions all across the old Frank Empire lending to the saying “All Roads Lead To Paris”, makes me wonder if those markers were damaged...

    Please keep in mind I was 16 so some of this info may be misremembered lol
    gjulleenCeciliaM
  • asmallcat said:
    CeciliaM said:
    So the Notre Dame should stay in a half-burnt state until homelessness is solved? Or what? I keep seeing these types of statements but I don't think people are thinking them all the way through.
    No, there's several issues here. First, no one should have that much accumulated wealth. It almost certainly requires immoral action, and frankly is immoral on its face.

    Second, there's already rich assholes angling to get free PR out of this - some guy asked that they be able to deduct these donations at 90% (rather than the normal 60%), which would be incredibly cheap PR. Not great.

    Third, it's troubling these people apparently had all this money to throw around, but were sitting on it instead of using it to, you know, help actual people, or pay their workers more, whatever. In a just world, there'd be fair taxation and the government would have the money on hand to deal with a catastrophe like this. 
    I keep seeing weird illogical arguments like this floating around but there are no clear throughlines or examples of who or what people are talking about, no data and no proof that these people were just sitting on piles of money that they are now letting loose for Notre dame but never gave to anything else.

    Of course poor people are important, but art, architecture, spirituality and cultural history are also so, so important. I don't think it's fair to place them in opposition to one another.
    gjulleenrhcoop
  • amyja89amyja89 Oxford, England
    CeciliaM said:
    So the Notre Dame should stay in a half-burnt state until homelessness is solved? Or what? I keep seeing these types of statements but I don't think people are thinking them all the way through.
    The Catholic Church has a worldwide net worth in the tens of billions, Notre Dame was never, ever, going to be left in a half burnt state. In contrast, Grenfell Tower remains utterly charred and gutted two years after the fact with nothing but a canvas cover job to hide it from public view. I bus past it all the time, they could have done with much more than was provided.

    I'm fully aware that donating to one cause doesn't mean directly taking away from another, but that doesn't mean I can't express bewilderment at what seem to be the philanthropic priorities of the 1%.
    Deetelephoneofmadnessmajjam0770
  • CeciliaM said:
    asmallcat said:
    CeciliaM said:
    So the Notre Dame should stay in a half-burnt state until homelessness is solved? Or what? I keep seeing these types of statements but I don't think people are thinking them all the way through.
    No, there's several issues here. First, no one should have that much accumulated wealth. It almost certainly requires immoral action, and frankly is immoral on its face.

    Second, there's already rich assholes angling to get free PR out of this - some guy asked that they be able to deduct these donations at 90% (rather than the normal 60%), which would be incredibly cheap PR. Not great.

    Third, it's troubling these people apparently had all this money to throw around, but were sitting on it instead of using it to, you know, help actual people, or pay their workers more, whatever. In a just world, there'd be fair taxation and the government would have the money on hand to deal with a catastrophe like this. 
    I keep seeing weird illogical arguments like this floating around but there are no clear throughlines or examples of who or what people are talking about, no data and no proof that these people were just sitting on piles of money that they are now letting loose for Notre dame but never gave to anything else.

    Of course poor people are important, but art, architecture, spirituality and cultural history are also so, so important. I don't think it's fair to place them in opposition to one another.
    It's not bad that they are donating money to fix Notre Dame. That's fine. The issue is that it's a symptom of everything that's wrong with our economic systems promotion of inequality - in a better world, there'd be properly funded governments that didn't need to rely on the largess of the super rich to fix cultural icons, or even better, would have been able to pay more for the renovations in the first place and maybe not had this fire even happen. 

    Also, the fact that they had the money shows they were sitting on it, no? 
    Dee
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    amyja89 said:
    CeciliaM said:
    So the Notre Dame should stay in a half-burnt state until homelessness is solved? Or what? I keep seeing these types of statements but I don't think people are thinking them all the way through.
    The Catholic Church has a worldwide net worth in the tens of billions, Notre Dame was never, ever, going to be left in a half burnt state. In contrast, Grenfell Tower remains utterly charred and gutted two years after the fact with nothing but a canvas cover job to hide it from public view. I bus past it all the time, they could have done with much more than was provided.

    I'm fully aware that donating to one cause doesn't mean directly taking away from another, but that doesn't mean I can't express bewilderment at what seem to be the philanthropic priorities of the 1%.
    Honestly, it’s pretty fucking outrageous that people are falling over themselves keening and wailing about the fate of a building owned by one of the richest organisations in the world, while billionaires pat themselves on the back for throwing money at it. Imagine if those billionaires had thrown that money at social housing. 

    It’s a BUILDING. I don’t care how pretty it is or how culturally significant it is or how many people prayed in it. It’s offensive to me that so much attention is being paid to this and yet so many other things impacting actual people are virtually ignored. 
    amyja89telephoneofmadness
  • To put it another way, the Burj Khalifa (tallest skyscraper in the world) cost $1 billion to build. They could literally demolish Notre-Dame and build the Burj Khalifa with the money that was donated within 2 days of the fire.
  • To put it another way, the Burj Khalifa (tallest skyscraper in the world) cost $1 billion to build. They could literally demolish Notre-Dame and build the Burj Khalifa with the money that was donated within 2 days of the fire.
    This comment makes me so very sad.

    The man that laid the foundation stone of Notre Dame knew he would be dead and dust before the last stone was placed.  People carved, and built and crafted for literally hundreds of years to make something that would be awe inspiring.  Call it a testament to the faith that humans are capable of having in the future, of people knowing that they will not see the end of the journey, but still fight and work and build for the destination - to make it a reality for generations they will never know.

    This probably seems like a completely different topic, but projects like Notre Dame are what gives me faith that humanity will do the impossible.  Will we colonize Mars?  Will we leave this world in hibernation or generation ships and explore foreign worlds?  Not in my lifetime, not in the lifetime of Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin or any of the incredible men and women who started us down that path.  But I have faith we will accomplish these things because generations are willing to fight and work and build for descendants they will never see.

    Maybe you see an old building that has outlived any usefulness beyond being a tourist trap.  I guess it could be argued that a new tallest skyscraper would be a better use of the space.

    But someone laid that foundation stone believing in us.  Let's rebuild Notre Dame as a repayment for that act of faith, and an investment in the solid credit our species needs to continue doing impossible and great things.
    majjam0770rhcoopCeciliaMCretanBull
  • JoshuaHeterJoshuaHeter Omaha, NE
    edited April 18
    For what it’s worth. Notre Dame is owned by France, not the Catholic Church. When France sorted itself out in terms of the Church / State divide, the government retained ownership of a few dozen Church buildings.

    The Catholic Church does have rights to its usage however, in perpetuity.
    CeciliaM
Sign In or Register to comment.