Agnostic.com

41 19

What's your opinion on the burning of the Notre Dame? I believe there's more important things to worry about and raise money for instead of a religious building that there is thousands of its just a pretty building....

Carla_Jones 5 Apr 22
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

41 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

13

Only a dimwit would not care about culture,great works of art or architecture .It has nothing to do with the religious aspect but about the great architecture and history involved .This is like stating you do not care if the Sistine Chapel had a fire and destroyed the last Judgment by Michelangelo because it is religious oriented. Appreciating and protecting great works of architecture is the sign of a civilized society.

People who care about humanity and the state of others on this planet are not dimwits. Only idiots would think a building is more important that saving humanity and this planet.

@Dicaron Do not put words in my mouth you idiot .Who said I do not care about humanity.

@Dicaron Why are you assuming people who want to preserve a building do not care about humanity you dimwit .

@Dicaron If an individual wants to preserve a building it has nothing to do with ones outlook on humanity

@richiegtt agree that great works of art ,architecture, etc should be preserved for future generations to enjoy and learn from .I agree that anyone that thinks otherwise is an individual lacking in intelligence and a threat to humanity.

@richiegtt Wow, just when I thought I heard the most asinine comment on here yet, I come across an even more ridiculous one. That dicaron person assumes too much, how misguided can one get? I agree with you Rich.

9

Beautiful architecture, religious or not, needs to be preserved as an account of what greatness humanity is capable of striving towards.
From strictly an economic point-of-view, Notre Dame draws millions of tourists, etc. to Paris, so it definitely makes sense financially for the city to acquire the funding necessary to rebuild.

8

The monies being raised is from private donations not public money. This is not just a religious institution, it’s a cultural and architectural gem. 13 million people visit it every year.
It’s owned by France and leased to the Catholic Church making it a historical landmark.
I would expect if a similar situation happened at the Statue of Liberty or White House, we would want it rebuilt.

8

I disagree. To the French this is far more than a building, it is part of their national identity and a point of pride. I would visit it just for the architecture; the artwork and religious aspects are a bonus from a historical perspective.

I saw it from the outside a few years ago. Beyond stunning.

5

I'm with you. You could feed a lot of hungry children with the money that will be spent on that building. Human beings just can't get their priorities straight.

5

I think it a culturally significant architectural monument in French history owned by the French government. They are free to rebuild it. It's their money and a huge tourist attraction.

4

it is a beautiful piece of engineering and has played an important role in western society. But it was built to demonstrate the power of the Catholic Church over everyone in France and that power was often used to brutally suppress any dissenters

What something was built for has absolutely nothing to do with its intrinsic value .As one example , should we not care about or admire the architecture of the great Colosseum in Rome because it was used for Brutal and sadistic purposes.

@juli15 like most things it is context. For instance the great pyramids of the Aztecs are truly beautiful but also the site of incredible slaughter and cruelty. Many people see ND as a symbol of the truth of their faith and ignore/deny the other side of its history - I do not

@juli15 The cathedral has been rebuilt several times and is not remotely the building it was originally. To keep rebuilding an old structure and ignore humanity and the horrific living conditions on this planet does not make any rations sense. It is nothing more than lust for more notoriety and a monument to greed, For those donating, it is pure selfishness and a payment to secure a place in the afterlife.
Regardless of the esthetics of the structure, it was people who built it. Many of the prominent art, is not ancient, but from the 19th and 20th centuries. SO exactly what are they restoring, since much of it is not ancient art ???
It is also built on a Pagan site over top of a temple that they church destroyed to built their own. A Pagan city lies beneath the cathedral, Gallo-Roman Temple dedicated to the God Jupiter. So why are they not restoring the OLDER STRUCTURE????

4

I find it interesting how obsessed we are with rebuilding the past and yet how easy we choose to forget/ignore the lessons of the past.

Quarm Level 6 Apr 22, 2019

I like this reply

4

I think giving money to people who need it , instead of a Church rebuild is way more important

4

It’s an amazing piece of architecture and it’s the heart of the Parisians. Money is spent all the time and everywhere for different things valued by all different types of people.
This is a historical and cultural icon.

3

Well, it’s much like when the Isis Caliphate destroyed all the ancient Sumerian Statues & Mountain Buddha as pagan & idolatry. I felt considerable loss from an antique, cultural, artistic point of view and not the religious truths they gave. I feel the same way about Notre Dame. Medieval Cathedrals are striking works or art and from that perspective, I feel a loss. Better things to spend money on? A vast array of opinions on that. An historic, cultural loss? I opine yes. With all the money the Catholic Church has looted over the aeons, they should repair it themselves.

3

I find it sad that Flint still has poisoned water and that American citizens in Puerto Rico still lack the basic necessities for everyday life. That billions are be donated to an organization that is worth billions and can pay for it's own reconstruction.

3

While II may choose not not to contribute, I can't not ever question someone else's decision to contribute to a cause even if it's a reconstruction of the church.. ND will be reconstructed with largely private monies. The Statue of Liberty was also restored with private funds, as anyone alive during that time should remember Lee Iacocca on television begging for funds.

What's important is that ND is an 800 year-old structure that is as important architecturally as religiously. There are elements of ND that may not be restored simply because the craftsman's skills are lost. Maybe they can convert photographs into 3D files and the 3D printed piece can replace all or part of a damaged piece, but it won't be the same as a replacement piece made with the same tools and skill sets as 800 years ago.

3

To spend millions of dollars to restore a building is completely lacking in humanity. Building should never take precedence over people. With millions dying from lack of food and clean water with no shelter, the church should be ashamed to even consider restoring the church.

To actually say that restoring a beautiful work of architecture from donations is a sign of a lack of humanity is both laughable and irrational. I think I have discovered one of the most asinine comments on this site .

@Emanuele You got that right

@Emanuele Sadly, you seem to think that stone and mortar are more important that human life. That is indeed lacks any sense of humanity.
The cathedral has been rebuilt several times and is not remotely the building it was originally. To keep rebuilding an old structure and ignore humanity and the horrific living conditions on this planet does not make any rations sense. It is nothing more than lust for more notoriety and a monument to greed, For those donating, it is pure selfishness and a payment to secure a place in the afterlife.
Regardless of the esthetics of the structure, it was people who built it. Many of the prominent art, is not ancient, but from the 19th and 20th centuries. SO exactly what are they restoring, since much of it is not ancient art ???
It is also built on a Pagan site over top of a temple that they church destroyed to built their own. A Pagan city lies beneath the cathedral, Gallo-Roman Temple dedicated to the God Jupiter. So why are they not restoring the OLDER STRUCTURE????

3

Rebuild it with a sprinkler system.

Yeah, especially one that riggers every time a Priest abuses a child, etc.

3

From the perspective of a wanna be archeaologist, I am sad that a piece of physical history has been damaged. I think the monies being donated coulld be better used elsewhere. A sad reflection of who we are.

3

We would rebuild stupid things like stadiums for the tourist dollars. At least theirs has historical and cultural significance.

3

I know the world mourns this great edifice and all the art, etc. and this religious creation. For me, when I see the inner walls I feel oppression, torture that was done to heathens, stern narrow mindedness, people being used, anti-semitism and priests molesting children and being above the law. That's just my gut reaction.

I think that's the reason to rebuild it. It is the stone embodiment of religious oppression. A solid reminder of ages past, of torture and death. It is a monument to the memory of all that suffered at the hands of the church in an effort to not repeat it.

@CommonHuman It might be one thing if it was being built for that reason, but I'm afraid the motivations are more gauzy and vague than that; it was not viewed, or run, as a monument to religious depravity or oppression. And it will not be. It will be a symbol of French national pride, history, culture, and religion -- and predominantly, if not exclusively, the nice bits of all three.

3

I'm okay with rebuilding the church. It's more than just a church, it's an icon. Especially for those who live there.

Where I'm troubled is how easy it was for rich people to donate billions of dollars to rebuild a building, but the human beings suffering just underneath from lack of resources... lack which obviously doesn't exist, it's just that those who hold the resources prefer buildings over people.

Many of these buildings were built on the backs of the poor and that's troubling. Still, it doesn't have to be that way. We have the resources to rebuild the building AND to take care of the poor. But we don't seem to have the will.

@TheMiddleWay: The narrative is that within hours, over a billion dollars was raised to build a church. Meanwhile, it's the people who shoulder the burden of taxes, who are losing jobs, suffering from the collapse of the infrastructure in their cities. Defending the wealthy is fine, but do so honestly.

2

Word. If We Cared that Much about The Hungry and The Homeless as We Do about Old Buildings!!!

2

I will not be donating. If others want to donate that’s alright with me. It’s their right.

2

There's always something more important to worry about. Why worry about petty crime in a world that has murder? Yet we still do. People have the capacity to care about multiple things. The fact that one thing is less important than another doesn't mean it has no importance or value at all.

There's nothing wrong with caring about Notre Dame. Though when people care more about loss of history and architecture than they do about loss of life, you have to question their priorities.

2

Giving any amount of money to that church is like me handing Amazon a $20 bill. Sure, it's a nice thought, but......

2

Stuff the religious crap that brought it into being. It's a piece of history and beauty and a window to the past in how it was built and what it was built with. The place was hand crafted from bottom to top. For some of the craftsmen this was a lifetime job. My problem is all the private money pouring into the rebuilding fund-People trying to buy their way into good graces, a sainthood, or make themselves look good to the people, but most importantly get a massive tax deduction. The catholic church has enough money it could pay for the rebuild out of petty cash, it doesn't need the extra money. The private money could feed and house a huge number of the poor and homeless and actually do something positive for the world.

2

Notre Dame is an icon. It is not owned by the Catholic Church but by the City of Paris.
It means more than just a big church, that being said I don’t know if you can repair an 850 year old icon and have it be the same as it the same as it was or will it be a new copy of an 850 year old icon.
I don’t know what to feel about the repairing of Notre Dame, I don’t think it will ever be the same.

Sorry to inform you BUT under Canon Law ALL properties the Church REMAIN Church Property and Assets UNTIL or UNLESS they are Deconsecrated and sold off to private or public concerns.
Just as in a very small clause in Canon Law states, " All members of the Church/Congregation ARE and always shall be considered as being the PROPERTY of the Church."
Ergo, Notre Dame is NOT the property of Paris or the French Peoples, it IS the sole property of the Catholic Church and the Vatican.

@TheMiddleWay Try checking that with the Canon Law, you'll find that, like religion, it's just smoke and mirrors used to keep the Vatican happy.

@SeaGreenEyez I don't neither need nor have since Canon Law was a part of my Studies for my ThD ( Doctorate in Theology and Comparative Modern Religions.

@SeaGreenEyez Who is arguing, I'm merely expressing my opinion/s and putting my knowledge out there to share.

@Triphid Not true. In France, the state owns all the churches.

@Dicaron Whatever you reckon, I'm definitely not getting into yet another argument over the pedantics of Ownership under State Law versus Canon Law.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:335561
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.