The last bit has to do with why people are posting "daft" means. As far as I know, I've only seen people make comparisons to similar landmarks and events across the globe that received no attention or funding.If you've seen the stuff being shared then you'll realise it is daft. If you don't think so then I have no words.
I also said the complete opposite of it being justified in the other post you quoted. I simply said I understand why it's happening. Come on, comprehension before trying to call me out.
Not sure what the last bit has to do with what I said either, other than it's another stupid comparison.
Again though, it’s because of people’s connection to the place (even if just from visiting), locality, most people knowing about the cathedral since being a kid etc.The last bit has to do with why people are posting "daft" means. As far as I know, I've only seen people make comparisons to similar landmarks and events across the globe that received no attention or funding.
Far more historical and meaningful sites just burned down to the ground receiving nothing more than a footnote in the media. It just exposes this divide that the west has created for themselves as more important citizens.
EDIT: and the people treating this like some massive world tragedy. Give me a break. This Notre Dam thing again just exposes those who live a sheltered life.
It's one thing to care about it but the overreaction towards this and complete lack of coverage towards more historical buildings is just an indication of the naive and selfish outlook western media/societies have.
Also the fact that billionaires rushed to give I dont know how much money to France but not even 1/8th of the amount would go towards a historic nation that cant afford a rebuild (Yemen or Syria) speaks volumes.
I knew this would happen. As soon as the thing caught fire I was sad but told my friend just watch how western media spins this as some sort of mass murder.
Far more historical and meaningful sites just burned down to the ground receiving nothing more than a footnote in the media. It just exposes this divide that the west has created for themselves as more important citizens.
The problem is that if 3 people can donate hundreds of millions in a few hours then it means they also have the ability to solve homelessness and hunger and other issues, they just dont care about that stuff. What is says is that these people have far too much money that they didnt earn and it needs to be taken back via taxes or nationalization and then spent democratically. Theres no reason that a more just society shouldnt support the arts and build cool buildings, but whether people live or die or historic buildings exist or not shouldnt be at the whim of billionaires.I think what I’ve enjoyed most is the people on my Facebook moaning about people’s choice of where they donate, when I don’t think they’ve ever donated to anything in their life
I’m not disagreeing with you, the people I’m talking about are the ones moaning at normal people like themselves, not the billionaires.The problem is that if 3 people can donate hundreds of millions in a few hours then it means they also have the ability to solve homelessness and hunger and other issues, they just dont care about that stuff. What is says is that these people have far too much money that they didnt earn and it needs to be taken back via taxes or nationalization and then spent democratically. Theres no reason that a more just society shouldnt support the arts and build cool buildings, but whether people live or die or historic buildings exist or not shouldnt be at the whim of billionaires.
Ah, more robin hood solutions from the man himself! This is not the thread for your usual delusions.What is says is that these people have far too much money that they didnt earn and it needs to be taken back via taxes or nationalization and then spent democratically. Theres no reason that a more just society shouldnt support the arts and build cool buildings, but whether people live or die or historic buildings exist or not shouldnt be at the whim of billionaires.
Well half the people on my newsfeed didn't have a clue about Notre Dam before this other than it being a tourist attraction in France. Also the "pray for France" stuff... what does that have to do with being close to the cathedral?Again though, it’s because of people’s connection to the place (even if just from visiting), locality, most people knowing about the cathedral since being a kid etc.
So many people love to ignore this and look at it with black and white faux-logic and some strange bitter view though.
This isn't what I was talking about though?Well half the people on my newsfeed didn't have a clue about Notre Dam before this other than it being a tourist attraction in France. Also the "pray for France" stuff... what does that have to do with being close to the cathedral?
I beleive, notre dam doesn't belong to the church, but the state of France but yes, agree with the church and with funding the reconstruction when there are more pressing matters. PrioritiesAh, more robin hood solutions from the man himself! This is not the thread for your usual delusions.
Vatican is the richest religion in the world and pretty much earns tax free income. I don't see why they can't fund these themselves. I'm sure people would contribute more to Church for these renovations/upkeep. Vatican alone earns more than $100m tax free every year!
Tax the religious donations and use them to fix the historical buildings.
You glossed over Carolina Red's response. You also completely ignored Bury Red's post.Im assuming you're refering to me, since the post you quoted was a response to one of mine. So im curious, what facts and evidence have I disregarded? I don't disregard anything by default or automatically without dissection.
Notre Dame belongs to the state but Paris diocese uses it for free in exchange of its maintenance.I beleive, notre dam doesn't belong to the church, but the state of France but yes, agree with the church and with funding the reconstruction when there are more pressing matters. Priorities
The more I think about it the more I agree. Billionaires rich from the work of others choosing to spend their money on such a symbol for the PR or back slaps. Reminiscent of the likes of Warren Buffett and Rick Gates choosing their charities.The problem is that if 3 people can donate hundreds of millions in a few hours then it means they also have the ability to solve homelessness and hunger and other issues, they just dont care about that stuff. What is says is that these people have far too much money that they didnt earn and it needs to be taken back via taxes or nationalization and then spent democratically. Theres no reason that a more just society shouldnt support the arts and build cool buildings, but whether people live or die or historic buildings exist or not shouldnt be at the whim of billionaires.
I haven't yet signed up to view the material NC suggested, and i've included a response for RB. Do you have any other evidence of your own I can peruse at my own leisure? Im not discounting anything and im open to learning new things. Even when I was Catholic, my understanding has always been that the church slowed down the progress of science and natural philosophy if it challenged their authority and faith at large.You glossed over Carolina Red's response. You also completely ignored Bury Red's post.
He/she explained the huge advancements these structures brought to our knowledge in the engineering and architectural realms. This seems to have largely passed you by however. You also seem to assume that the people at the time didn't share both in the enthusiasm for the construction and in the desire to build something magnificent. It's easy to see that you're stuck on the motivation behind the projects as opposed to the effect of their existence.
Following on from that you claim that these edifices took up resources which could've gone towards other technological advances, and that it's partly because of them that 'we are so far behind in our progress as humans'. Where's your evidence for this claim? I don't have a progress-o-meter, but can you pinpoint exactly where we'd be right now if not for religion as a whole?
Great post, and thanks for the response. Im curious to know how the far eastern engineers and ancient Roman engineers influenced the present understanding of structural mechanics. Im not disagreeing with the last part of your response but I think you're being a bit kind to the Catholics. They were more than just odd episodesA very bizarre view, even the atheist in me must disagree but the Engineer in me is too busy laughing his ass off to let him out.
Buildings like Notre Dame challenged what we could do with the materials available to us and the desire to go taller and thinner that was epitomised in the construction of practically all cathedrals culminating in the gothic masterpieces led to our present understanding of structural mechanics and the need for full understanding of both the material and the form to ensure safe and economical structures are built. Without the money available from the church, deluded as the donors may have been and corrupt as the organisations behind them, we would still be sitting in single storey mud huts.
The church was a major backer and supporter of much of mankind's development through to the renaissance and other than the odd episodes like disputing evolution or questioning Galileo's hypotheses has never really stood in the way of technological advancement.
What a ridiculous post. Do you pretend to be funny? or just attract attention by saying something out of placeWhy didn't god put the fire out?
Maybe it was Fire from Heaven in anger at the depravity of his soldiers.
Good point, I work with heritage professionals and the sector is really under resourced, its treated like a footnote.There isn’t just the case that the money donated to the cathedral instead of living issues is a concern, but that the money is only donated when this occurs. Why is the heritage sector and those who work as conservators, archaeologists etc so underpaid and then we wonder why sometimes buildings fall into disarray and with the potential to succumb to disaster. If this money wasn’t donated but distributed into society then the people that will now be part of the restoration process will be valued more as well as other world issues aside from a historic building.
Not funny. Serious. It's a fecking horrible organization that robs people and hides paedophiles.What a ridiculous post. Do you pretend to be funny? or just attract attention by saying something out of place
Yes. Named after the Virgin Mary. Notre Dame = Our Lady.Is it a catholic cathedral?
So what I’d like to know is how much the Vatican will contribute towards rebuild of one of its most iconic buildings?Yes. Named after the Virgin Mary. Notre Dame = Our Lady.
Can't deny that but I thought it was still sad seeing such an amazingly beautiful building on fire. On the other hand no one really got hurt and buildings damaged much worse were rebuild, so I'm confident it will get restored to it's former beauty.Not funny. Serious. It's a fecking horrible organization that robs people and hides paedophiles.
So what I’d like to know is how much the Vatican will contribute towards rebuild of one of its most iconic buildings?
Seems to be up to the French to pay for the repairs although I’m not sure why the Insurance companies aren’t paying. Unless it wasn’t insured.Notre Dame is owned by the French government and not the Catholic Church, contrary to popular opinion.
In 1905, a French law was passed stating the cathedral was now the property of the French State.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...tholic-church-vatican-cost-rebuild-renovation
My point still stands though, it’s an iconic church. Why wouldn’t they contribute?Seems to be up to the French to pay for the repairs although I’m not sure why the Insurance companies aren’t paying. Unless it wasn’t insured.
Stuck paying legal settlements for the likes of Pell.My point still stands though, it’s an iconic church. Why wouldn’t they contribute?
They pay for the staff who work there and the upkeep of the building instead of paying rent. They have offered technical and architectural assistance and could donate towards the repairs if they so wished.My point still stands though, it’s an iconic church. Why wouldn’t they contribute?
Serious or not you're churlish and disrespectful.Not funny. Serious. It's a fecking horrible organization that robs people and hides paedophiles.
Oh I see, thanks for the noteNotre Dame belongs to the state but Paris diocese uses it for free in exchange of its maintenance.
Agreed. I'd rather 100 Notre Dames burn down to the ground than one baby dying of starvation.The problem is that if 3 people can donate hundreds of millions in a few hours then it means they also have the ability to solve homelessness and hunger and other issues, they just dont care about that stuff. What is says is that these people have far too much money that they didnt earn and it needs to be taken back via taxes or nationalization and then spent democratically. Theres no reason that a more just society shouldnt support the arts and build cool buildings, but whether people live or die or historic buildings exist or not shouldnt be at the whim of billionaires.
What if it was baby HitlerAgreed. I'd rather 100 Notre Dames burn down to the ground than one baby dying of starvation.
That over one billion is raised so quickly for a building while there are human tragedies all over the world that don't get a fraction of this, is just truly disgusting.
I'm not doubting it. I'd just like to have a read.
I don't agree with their point of view either.
Edgar...
Thanks for your contribution
“The big donors haven’t paid. Not a cent,” a senior official at the cathedral tells journalists. Far humbler sums are sent in, from far poorer individuals.
Agenda driven article.