I know that it's a problem for tourism, but am I supposed to feel sentimental about "the most visited monument in all of Europe"?
I'm French.Yes, I addressed that in the second part of my post.
People aren't feeling sentimental because it's the most visited monument in Europe; it's the most visited monument in Europe because it has tremendous historical and cultural value, and yes, you can feel sentimental about that. Maybe you're not French or European and don't grasp the importance of Notre-Dame, and that's fine, but there are very obvious reasons why people have every right to care that deeply about Notre-Dame.
Besides, Disney does donate to charity anyway.
I'm French.
Everyone I know, including myself, has been struggling extremely hard to make it to the end of the month, because of Macron's government forcing us into poverty.
I would much rather see the government use money to help us out, than use money to rebuild some dusty old building. And in fact I would rather see all these people donating money to help out suffering communities throughout the world than to help rebuild a dusty old building. I see human lives being destroyed all the time, both from personal experience and in worldwide news, I have no idea how I'm supposed to cry for a cathedral.
I'm not bothered by Disney in particular, but by the immense international sadness and worry over the cathedral, when people don't feel half as emotional when what is concerned is not a cultual symbol, but the lives of people. Whether it is the situation in France (I know 2 people who have attempted suicide over this recently), or a more grave issue like the situation of black people in America, or even isolated issues like the Christchurch terrorist attack, not even half of the efforts that are done for Notre Dame are done for these.I'm French too. The situation in France is just not easy to solve. Disney can't just throw $5 million at French people knowing that it will solve all of our problems. It's a quagmire that originated long before Macron. Disney can, however, throw money at the Notre-Dame reconstruction effort knowing that it will help reconstructing Notre-Dame. That's why they do it.
But as another poster pointed out, Disney has been helping out with the Restos du Cœur, for example. The Notre-Dame reconstruction effort is one cause amongst many that they're putting their weight behind.
Flint still doesn't have clean water. Puerto Rico still doesn't have stable electricity. And yet we see people tripping over themselves to donate money for a building. It's gross.
Same tiring shit we've heard since rich people have been putting money towards its restoration , as if for some reason giving to Notre Dame means you're not giving to other charities as well ...
Oh man that's right in the midst of all this I even forget about the poor little fellas.
Hell them ladies must have been scared shitless ...
Bees of Notre Dame seems to be fine too .
There's a substantial number of still active Roman Catholic parishes in Paris, I'm not sure if it would be necessary.Today was special since it's Saturday and that's "yellow vest" day. The whole area was closed to avoid issues with demonstrations. I suppose the "parvis" in front of the cathedral will soon be open to all again. There is even a project of building a temporary wooden cathedral there, for tourists and people who want to attend mass.
No it's just the materialization of human memories.
So since there will always be human suffering and people that could use aid, do you think no money should be given to historical or preservation purposes or something? I don't see the point in this "history isn't worth as much as human lives" statement otherwise.
The people that could use aid here are the people who refuse to pay tax in France (I'm not talking about foreign companies, but french billionnaires). If they seriously care about France, they would start doing their part.So since there will always be human suffering and people that could use aid, do you think no money should be given to historical or preservation purposes or something? I don't see the point in this "history isn't worth as much as human lives" statement otherwise.
There's a substantial number of still active Roman Catholic parishes in Paris, I'm not sure if it would be necessary.
The Archbishop of Paris, Michel Aupetit, held the first mass at Notre Dame on Saturday since a devastating fire destroyed the roof, spire and part of the cathedral's vault.
Only about thirty people were allowed to attend the mass, the Catholic Diocese of Paris said, citing "security reasons". Roughly fifteen were priests including the Archbishop of Paris and auxiliary bishop Philippe Marsset.
The Archdiocese of Paris confirmed to Euronews on Saturday that attendees would have to enter the cathedral wearing a helmet. Indeed, attendees wore hard helmets during the mass.
Aupetit said leading mass with a helmet was very bizarre but he did take it off for a moment during the consecration.
The mass took place in one of Notre Dame's small chapels that was not damaged by the fire — the Chapel of the Virgin — where the relic of the "crown of thorns" believed to be worn by Jesus during his crucifixion is kept.
This is not a return to normal for the cathedral. There is no other mass planned in the cathedral.