Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris

gozunda

kowloon wrote: »

Yeah, I'm stealing that.

Yeah because wishing to support the rebuilding of a church as part of our collective human history is the same as voting for the 'nazis'

I'm not sure which is more stupid using that quote or thinking its somehow hilarious

:rolleyes:

It's actually a peep show quote..

Effects

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah because wishing to support the rebuilding of a church as part of our collective human history is the same as voting for the 'nazis'
:rolleyes:

It's a pop culture reference that went over your head.
Even if you don't get where it's referenced from, it should still have made sense.

Rebuilding the church isn't the Christian thing to do. Either was spending 30 million to rebuild St. Mels.
It's worshipping false gods, a golden calf.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's actually a peep show quote..

Yes I know and it makes as much sense and is about as relevant as pile of doggy doo

Thats it folks. We fooked...

wexandproud

Effects wrote: »

People like Cold Play and voted for the Nazis.

seeing as how you mentioned the nazies . when the germans were retreating from paris in ww2 hitler gave orders to raze all the iconic buildings to the ground luckily even the officers on the ground refused to do it , even they saw the value of them
as for the poster above you bringing fire extinguishers into it . maybe the nuns would have been served the famine stricken people better in the long run by getting some one to educate them about contraception . In some of the countrie's ravaged by famine the population only drops very little and in some cases even rises

wexandproud

Effects wrote: »

It's a pop culture reference that went over your head.
Even if you don't get where it's referenced from, it should still have made sense.

Rebuilding the church isn't the Christian thing to do. Either was spending 30 million to rebuild St. Mels.
It's worshipping false gods, a golden calf.

ya , ''the christian''thing to do in countries that cant feed the population is the let the have more and more kids to starve to death and have them depend on charity

gozunda

Effects wrote: »

It's a pop culture reference that went over your head. Even if you don't get where it's referenced from, it should still have made sense.Rebuilding the church isn't the Christian thing to do. Either was spending 30 million to rebuild St. Mels. It's worshipping false gods, a golden calf.

Did I mention 'christianity' btw?

History?
Culture?
Heritage?
Fire?

Well obviously some ain't got time for that ...

Here's more 'pop culture' (sic). Except this one might be a bit more relevant. Lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xBQj6--wBA

seamus

Fairly ridiculous the billionaires lining up to throw money at this so they can get their name attached to it.

Yes, it's very sad that such an old piece of heritage was badly damaged. But rebuilding it, makes it new. And also erases history. You don't see anyone rushing to rebuild the Colosseum. Because that would be stupid; you'd be building a replica. Likewise repairing Notre Dame is just putting a replica in the place where the artifact once stood.

There are definitely more important things that €1bn can be spent on.

Anteayer

Interestingly, Notre Dame Cathedral is actually owned by the French State. Under laws from 1905, the Catholic Church was granted perpetual rights to use the building for religious purposes and is responsible for security, heating, cleaning and ensuring it's always freely open to the public.

Roughly 70 churches built before 1905 are owned like that, basically because they were built under the Ancien Régime, effectively using state and public funds as the Church had been an arm of the state. So the logic was that the state didn't simply allow a private entity to walk off with public buildings, so a compromise arrangement was struck. I guess part of it was a philosophical position but also a practical one, as there's always a risk that a cash strapped religious institution might sell a building off to private developers. We've seen plenty of it in Ireland. I know some C of I buildings were bought or granted to local authorities, but some fine church buildings of various origins have also ended up as private developments or have just fallen into total disrepair.

The issue is that there's always been a dispute over how much the state pays, which as far as I'm aware is about €2m per year and how much the church contributes. There would be significant money made from donations and so on by the large number of tourists who visit.

The other side of it is the Church would argue that Notre Dame is a major tourist draw and as such brings in money, but I guess that's a complex argument to make in the sense that while Notre Dame is a big and famous landmark, Paris is a collection of these.

However, the state is always at pains to ensure that it is not funding the archdiocese of Paris as to do so would be unconstitutional.

It's a complex arrangement and that's why you'll probably end up with a trust fund for the restoration that has to be kept very much dedicated to just the building work and not just sloshing into general church funds.

one armed dwarf

I do not understand this thinking. Notre Dame has received renovations before, not to the lengths that this one will take but it's not like it was completed 825 years ago and stayed the same until this Monday.

The repair efforts that happen now will become part of its history in the future. The history of Notre Dame is ongoing. Also it's still used as a place of worship while the Colosseum was used to torture slaves.

Anteayer

All working ancient buildings go through constant maintenance, repair and renovation.

I don't see any risk whatsoever of Notre Dame de Paris being left in a heap. It's a fundamental part of the architectural and cultural heritage of Paris.

It'll probably be around in another 856 years.

gozunda

seamus wrote: »

Fairly ridiculous the billionaires lining up to throw money at this so they can get their name attached to it.Yes, it's very sad that such an old piece of heritage was badly damaged. But rebuilding it, makes it new. And also erases history. You don't see anyone rushing to rebuild the Colosseum. Because that would be stupid; you'd be building a replica. Likewise repairing Notre Dame is just putting a replica in the place where the artifact once stood.There are definitely more important things that €1bn can be spent on.

I suppose it boils down to the fact that people can choose do with their money whatever they think is most appropriate - whether it's some millionaire or little ol' granny with her savings.

Proper restoration doesn't 'erase' anything btw - as in this case where most of the structure is still there - it simply adds another chapter to what is an Important building in it's own right - Both as a national treasure and a symbol of France itself. Also it is well known that the cathedral was in itself built over many centuries.

Lol You must not be up on what's been happening with the Colosseum, if you think the Italians are about to bulldoze it for a bunch of Starbucks and fake food restaurants or whatever your having yourself ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/01/stage-set-colosseum-hosting-events-restoration-italy-rome

seamus

I've no specific issue with the repair itself. It's the frenzied rush to throw money at it, as if it is a critical piece of humanity.

It's a big old church in France. Sad that it went on fire, but let's not lose the run of ourselves. Historical buildings rise and fall and will forever rise and fall.

The money raised will just get it repaired quicker than it would otherwise have been repaired anyway.

There are many causes in greater need of €700m

Grayson

wexandproud wrote: »

seeing as how you mentioned the nazies . when the germans were retreating from paris in ww2 hitler gave orders to raze all the iconic buildings to the ground luckily even the officers on the ground refused to do it , even they saw the value of them

So what you're saying is that the nazi's couldn't make up their mind?

gozunda

seamus wrote: »

I've no specific issue with the repair itself. It's the frenzied rush to throw money at it, as if it is a critical piece of humanity.It's a big old church in France. Sad that it went on fire, but let's not lose the run of ourselves. Historical buildings rise and fall and will forever rise and fall. The money raised will just get it repaired quicker than it would otherwise have been repaired anyway.

There are many causes in greater need of €700m

So you are selling up and donating everything to these causes - whatever they are? Fair play ...

seamus

gozunda wrote: »

So you are selling up and donating everything to these causes - whatever they are? Fair play ...

No, because I'm not a billionaire with money to throw at whatever vanity project will get my name in the media.

gozunda

seamus wrote: »

No, because I'm not a billionaire with money to throw at whatever vanity project will get my name in the media.

And what if granny donates her savings to the restoration fund? - is that wrong too?
Tbh the only difference with millionaires and the rest of us - is they've got a bit more money.
Millionaires and others spend the money on a lot of things - some I agree with and some which imo are complete bull****e. But hey it's their money at the end of the day. Very few people would like anyone telling them what should or shouldn't donate to tbh.

Effects

wexandproud wrote: »

ya , ''the christian''thing to do in countries that cant feed the population is the let the have more and more kids to starve to death and have them depend on charity

I don't think Jesus ever said anything about contraception.

Effects

gozunda wrote: »

Yes I know and it makes as much sense and is about as relevant as pile of doggy doo

I think you just don't understand it. That's all.

B0jangles

seamus wrote: »

I've no specific issue with the repair itself. It's the frenzied rush to throw money at it, as if it is a critical piece of humanity.

It's a big old church in France. Sad that it went on fire, but let's not lose the run of ourselves. Historical buildings rise and fall and will forever rise and fall.

The money raised will just get it repaired quicker than it would otherwise have been repaired anyway.

There are many causes in greater need of €700m

The sad fact is that donating a big sum to this cause gets your name on a plaque and into the historical records of Notre Dame.


Donating a big sum to help poor people gets you very little media attention and you can't really stick a plaque on 10,000 children who'd be dead if they hadn't been helped by your doantion.

Effects

gozunda wrote: »

Did I mention 'christianity' btw?

You were talking about the rebuilding of a Christian church, so indirectly, yeah.

Anteayer

I think you can do both. There's no reason why restoring Notre Dame should be competing with other spending.

It would be nice however, if more of the billionaires and their companies actually paid fair tax, as I think we are entering a world where they want to fund things only by philanthropy.

gozunda

Effects wrote: »

You were talking about the rebuilding of a Christian church, so indirectly, yeah.

Nope. Wrong. Is comprension difficult? This was my reply

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah because wishing to support the rebuilding of a church as part of our collective human history is the same as voting for the 'nazis'

I'm not sure which is more stupid using that quote or thinking its somehow hilarious
:rolleyes:

Effects wrote: »

I think you just don't understand it. That's all.

Oh I do - the full explanation is giving the additional piece of 'pop culture' which I included above in reply to yours. Try watching it all the way through - it might help.

o1s1n

seamus wrote: »

There are many causes in greater need of €700m

If that's the way we operated, we'd never get anything done.

'We really need that new motoroway'

'Tough, there are babies dying in Africa, they need our money more'

If people want to donate money to this, it's theirs to donate. It's better they do that than leave it sitting in bank accounts accruing them interest.

Calina

seamus wrote: »

I've no specific issue with the repair itself. It's the frenzied rush to throw money at it, as if it is a critical piece of humanity.

It's a big old church in France. Sad that it went on fire, but let's not lose the run of ourselves. Historical buildings rise and fall and will forever rise and fall.

The money raised will just get it repaired quicker than it would otherwise have been repaired anyway.

There are many causes in greater need of €700m

You don't get to dictate how other people spend their money. You don't get to impose your values on them.

TBF I think envy is at the root of a lot of this moralising about the donations.

iamwhoiam

Calina wrote: »

You don't get to dictate how other people spend their money. You don't get to impose your values on them.

TBF I think envy is at the root of a lot of this moralising about the donations.

You get to have an opinion on a discussion forum though

seamus

o1s1n wrote: »

If that's the way we operated, we'd never get anything done.

'We really need that new motoroway'

'Tough, there are babies dying in Africa, they need our money more'

If people want to donate money to this, it's theirs to donate. It's better they do that than leave it sitting in bank accounts accruing them interest.

"There are millions of children who could use a basic education"

"Tough, there's a really old cathedral that needs to be rebuilt so people can go look at it".

See, it works both ways.

You're basically agreeing with me; that resources should be allocated across a much wider spectrum of needs than all focussed in one spot at a time.

gozunda

B0jangles wrote: »

The sad fact is that donating a big sum to this cause gets your name on a plaque and into the historical records of Notre Dame. Donating a big sum to help poor people gets you very little media attention and you can't really stick a plaque on 10,000 children who'd be dead if they hadn't been helped by your doantion.

So tell me where the rich people back in 1163 have their names inscribed in the historical record? Or the people who paid for the Basilica built before that or maybe even Gallo-Roman temple which was first built on the site? The point is that your name on a plaque makes feck all difference in the big scheme of things.

And certainly screaming about 'de poor' gets plenty of people attention - not least some of our own national musical treasures and many more besides. And tbh theres a bunch of multi millionaires who are very well known for their involvement in various poverty and health initiatives in developing nations.

The other thing is that there seems to be few links between donating and children not dying or otherwise. More often than not (if what is happening in many countries is anything to go by) donated monies appears to get mysteriously diverted and ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians and NGO's.

suicide_circus

the new cathedral will attract tourists who will spend money and generate tax wealth which can be used to give the poor chislers an education.

B0jangles

gozunda wrote: »

So tell me where the rich people back in 1163 have their names inscribed in the historical record? Or the people who paid for the Basilica built before that or maybe even Gallo-Roman temple which was first built on the site? The point is that your name on a plaque makes feck all difference in the big scheme of things.

And certainly screaming about 'de poor' gets plenty of people attention - not least some of our own national musical treasures and many more besides. And tbh theres a bunch of multi millionaires who are very well known for their involvement in various poverty and health initiatives in developing nations.

The other thing is that there seems to be few links between donating and children not dying or otherwise. More often than not (if what is happening in many countries is anything to go by) donated monies appears to get mysteriously diverted and ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians and NGO's.

They usually manage to get it carved somewhere: This is the Bishop who oversaw the building of the original cathedral - look at what he's standing on and what is written under his feet.




He didn't want anyone to forget his name.

gozunda

seamus wrote: »

"There are millions of children who could use a basic education"
"Tough, there's a really old cathedral that needs to be rebuilt so people can go look at it".
See, it works both ways.
You're basically agreeing with me; that resources should be allocated across a much wider spectrum of needs than all focussed in one spot at a time.

So let's see - New Opera House somewhere - ah no theres a corrupt government out in X where children dont have shoes- we must give them our money

Oh We could do with a new hospital! - No someone somewhere else needs one more than you do - we must give them the money!

And so on it goes ad infinitum. Theres more money in the world than will be ever used to rebuild an old cathedral which is part of the culture and history of France and Europe.

It's not a case of sure - we can't spend anything because someone else might need it for something else - even where huge amounts of aid and donations have been made over decades. Tbh makes absolutely no sense why some spend their lives beating each up over what is in effect a pie in the sky falacy.

gozunda

B0jangles wrote: »

They usually manage to get it carved somewhere: This is the Bishop who oversaw the building of the original cathedral - look at what he's standing on and what is written under his feet.



He didn't want anyone to forget his name.

He was the boss at the time funnily enough. Most likley didnt "donate' anything .... :rolleyes:

I am waiting for the plaque of wannabe millionaires who wanted their name in the historical record from 1163. Thanks.

B0jangles

gozunda wrote: »

He was the boss at the time funnily enough. :probably didnt "donate' anything .... :rolleyes:

I am waiting for the plaque of wannabe millionaires who wanted their name in the historical record from 1163. Thanks.

I do not know why you are getting so unnecessarily aggressive about this - it is a matter of historical fact that many churches like Notre Dame were built with help from public donations from prominent people, those same people usually got their names on a plaque, or in a memorial window, or as smaller figures in paintings of saints and so on.


It's not a secret and it's not shameful, but at the same time, it's not like those donors or the current ones are giving the funds anonymously - they are doing it publically so that they get credit for doing so.

GinAndBitter

B0jangles wrote: »

I do not know why you are getting so unnecessarily aggressive about this - it is a matter of historical fact that many churches like Notre Dame were built with help from public donations from prominent people, those same people usually got their names on a plaque, or in a memorial window, or as smaller figures in paintings of saints and so on.


It's not a secret and it's not shameful, but at the same time, it's not like those donors or the current ones are giving the funds anonymously - they are doing it publically so that they get credit for doing so.

Why shouldn't they? They deserve the credit imo, neither you nor anyone else know what they do with the rest of their money, maybe they already give a substantial amount to charities, maybe not. People whinging over it need to wise up.

gozunda

B0jangles wrote: »

I do not know why you are getting so unnecessarily aggressive about this - it is a matter of historical fact that many churches like Notre Dame were built with help from public donations from prominent people, those same people usually got their names on a plaque, or in a memorial window, or as smaller figures in paintings of saints and so on.


It's not a secret and it's not shameful, but at the same time, it's not like those donors or the current ones are giving the funds anonymously - they are doing it publically so that they get credit for doing so.

Lol. 'rolleyeyes' etc 'aggressive' lol. Do get a grip. it's a discussion forum. I think perhaps you just may be taking this way too seriously.

The important bit in what I said was this.

The point is that your name on a plaque makes feck all difference in the big scheme of things.

But remember it's just a discussion...

Thanks. I think I'll leave you there

GinAndBitter

gozunda wrote: »

When are rolleyeyes etc 'aggressive' lol. Do get a grip. it's a discussion forum. I think perhaos you just may be taking this a little too seriously. Thanks.

Generally, people that use the rolleyes emoji are ****.

gozunda

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Generally, people that use the rolleyes emoji are ****.

Ah I see you are just disagreeing with everyone for ****e and giggles?

But hey I love you too :rolleyes:. Happy?

The thing I find that people who don't like people who use emojis are generally **** too. But there you go there must be a lot of them on boards so ....

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Effects

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Wrong. Is comprension difficult? This was my reply.

Oh I do - the full explanation is giving the additional piece of 'pop culture' which I included above in reply to yours. Try watching it all the way through - it might help.

Comprension? What?

Yeah, again you talk about rebuilding a christian church but say you don't talk about christianity. Christian churches are part of christianity. I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of it as you have a chip on your shoulder.

I didn't watch your video at all, I've seen it years ago, can't remember it all really and don't think I need to watch it all the way through again.

B0jangles

Now I'm tempted to donate with the sole proviso that a portion of the money goes towards putting up a big plaque promoting veganism.

MrMusician18

seamus wrote: »

"There are millions of children who could use a basic education"

"Tough, there's a really old cathedral that needs to be rebuilt so people can go look at it".

See, it works both ways.

You're basically agreeing with me; that resources should be allocated across a much wider spectrum of needs than all focussed in one spot at a time.

It's their money to spend on whatever way they see fit.

Indeed there's more than a whiff of hypocrisy from the critical here. I mean, relatively speaking all Irish people live in relative luxury to the poorest in the world. Couldn't you be equally critical of someone who buys a new car, has a smartphone, eats out in restaurants, drinks alcohol, travels abroad, wears new clothes, has more space than they need etcetera. Couldn't they spend their money better by giving it to the poor? Or really is it none of your business how they spend their wealth?

gozunda

Effects wrote: »

Comprension? What? Yeah, again you talk about rebuilding a christian church but say you don't talk about christianity. Christian churches are part of christianity. I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of it as you have a chip on your shoulder.

I didn't watch your video at all, I've seen it years ago, can't remember it all really and don't think I need to watch it all the way through again.

Comprehension. I see you didnt get that alright.

Christian? Nah it's a state owned religous building that was preceded by a pagan temple and later used as a secular Temple of Reason. A bunch of Christian's are using it atm. Btw I do like chips tbh

Even you said it wasn't Christian and a building like that was worshipping false gods etc ...

If you didnt watch the video - I'll fill you in

Basically the lady woke up to find that there was a fire in her building and she had to run out with no shoes nor nothing. She says-
Ain't nobody got time for that!

Or as in this case - no time for anything else like culture or history or heritage or knowledge and learning. But there you go....

Effects

gozunda wrote: »

Or as in you case - no time for anything else like culture or history or heritage or knowledge and learning. But there you go....

Nice story man. Can you just drop it now? Cool.

gozunda

Effects wrote: »

Nice story man. Can you just drop it now? Cool.

Sure. Yeah cool relevant story Bro. Ditto.Thanks

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It's a big old church in France.

It's a little more than that.

These things are subjective but it is one of the finest gothic cathedrals in Europe. These cathedrals are some of the crowning glories of civilisation, or at least many people think of them that way.

They are an expression of our ingenuity, our sense of wonder and our constant urge to build better and surpass ourselves. They are the 13th century equivalent of putting a man on the moon. Without them we are a little less human.

Anyway, anyone who thinks for a moment that it isn't going to be rebuilt doesn't understand anything about either France or the French people. They were crazy enough to build them in the first place and they'll do it again.

gozunda

Btw for those purporting the just a big old church theory

The fact is Notre Dame is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and listed historic monument

A World Heritage Site is a landmark or area which is selected by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as having cultural, historical, scientific or other form of significance, and is legally protected by international treaties. The sites are judged important to the collective interests of humanity.

To be selected, a World Heritage Site must be an already classified landmark, unique in some respect as a geographically and historically identifiable place having special cultural or physical significance (such as an ancient ruin or historical structure, building, city, complex, desert, forest, island, lake, monument, mountain, or wilderness area). It may signify a remarkable accomplishment of humanity, and serve as evidence of our intellectual history on the planet

.

gctest50

gozunda wrote: »

Btw for those purporting the just a big old church theory

The fact is Notre Dame is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and listed historic monument

.

UNESCO based in Paris n all ?


https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/18/jonhenley1

gctest50

UNESCO that used to be run by the communist
Irina Bokova ?

gozunda

gctest50 wrote: »

UNESCO based in Paris n all https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/18/jonhenley1

gctest50 wrote: »

UNESCO that used to be run by the communist
Irina Bokova ?

It's all a CONSPIRACY arrrghhhhh .... :pac:

No this one ...

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) based in Paris. Its declared purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through educational, scientific, and cultural reforms in order to increase universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter. It is the successor of the League of Nations' International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.

Ireland has two listed sites
Brú na Bóinne
Skellig Michael 

Better get them delisted quick as it's evidently a conspiracy run by Parisan Communists!

Filmer Paradise

gozunda wrote: »

Some photos showing extent of damage

A before and after shot



Quite incredible that the candles near the alter and on the pillars survived the heat of the fire (zoom in to see detail)



:

Amazing that the interior survived so intact considering the inferno raging above so recently.

It's a testament to the craftsmanship & dedication of those artisans from hundreds of years ago.

Macron says it will take 5 years to restore the building.

The timescale there is way, way off.

Get a few skips in. Clear out the rubble.

Few sheets of Galvanise for the roof. Heavy gauge, none of that cheap stuff. We wouldn't skimp on a building of this stature.

Up & running in 6 months tops!

Job's a good 'un.;)

Danzy

seamus wrote: »

"There are millions of children who could use a basic education"

"Tough, there's a really old cathedral that needs to be rebuilt so people can go look at it".

Good point. 100 euro sent to Notre Dame fund.