Amskeptic wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:11 am
I am delighted that the billionaire donors were peppered with questions about how easy it was for them rustle up a billion dollars, I am delighted that one billionaire dope prattled about tax write-offs and got his head handed to him on a platter, yes of course,
There are several issues here. My first reaction was that we called for restoration when Notre Dame burned, but what about the three black churches that were firebombed last month? Do they also merit restoration?
But then there's the value of Notre Dame as a work of art and of cultural heritage, something that can't be understated or discounted. In that sense, those billionaire dopes fully deserve any tax write-offs they can garner, since the object of the expense is to restore a great work of art.
There have been calls for the Roman Catholic church to contribute to the restoration, even though the Church doesn't actually own the building. (France does.) But if Notre Dame means that much to Catholics, and if every Catholic contributes a just a dime to the restoration, that's $120,000,000 right there.
Finally, there's the issue of how that restoration money could be used to feed and clothe and house the needy, as Jesus would undoubtedly have wanted. That the restoration money will be returned to the economy in the form of labor to skilled artisans and suppliers of building material needs to be factored in as well. Sure, some of it might be used to make rich people richer, but it will eventually reach the needy in the form of taxes and stimulation of the economy, much of it undoubtedly the local restaurants and cafes and bars frequented by the workers at the cathedral. So there are upsides here.
One more note: I've read that replacing the oak beams won't be a problem, as there were oaks that were planted a couple hundred years ago at Versailles for the explicit use of them for that purpose. Later (Stewart Brand recounts a similar situation at Oxford University; that account can be found in his book
How Buildings Learn.) The question is now whether we can improve on medieval engineers and design a roof that won't burn.
(Note: I've learned from Snopes that the Versailles trees don't exist, and that the story was "without basis in fact." But if we can trust Mr. Brand, the Oxford story is true.)
And a final thought: The
New Yorker magazine's cover this week showed something that hasn't been seen in centuries: the sun illuminating the great Rose Window from behind, through the now absent roof.
