Notre Dame cathedral is currently on fire

[Cajungal]

Whoever the person was who used the Notre Dame fire to bring attention to Louisiana, they seemed to do it in a kind and gentle way--not criticizing people for caring, but just trying to nudge people towards a cause that is similar and also caused a great amount of loss and suffering (with less backing).

 

[PatrThom]

I was under the impression that Notre Dame was owned by France.

I believe you are correct. IIRC France owns the building and leases it to the Church.

As for donations, my opinion may be unpopular, but I believe a person should be allowed to donate HIS/HER OWN MONEY to any cause they want, so long as they don’t exceed any sort of official limit AND they do it publicly. Want to donate to Norte Dame instead of Flint’s recovery? That’s fine, that’s your choice. Go nuts. Maybe you like buildings more than people. But then that’d be part of the public record and everyone will know where it came from.

—Patrick

 

[Bubble181]

My feeds are all covered with that sort of crap and frankly, it pisses me off. Rich people give money to a good cause, and the reaction is whataboutism, recriminations, insults, and a whole lot of emotional blackmail. If I was one of those rich people, the message I'd take away was "it'll never be enough so I might as well not".
Also, solving world hunger would take an estimated 30-40 billion a year, in perpetuity. That's a cathedral per week. Yeah, good luck with that. People really aren't capable of comparing and understanding bigger numbers.

 

[Denbrought]

Whoever the person was who used the Notre Dame fire to bring attention to Louisiana, they seemed to do it in a kind and gentle way--not criticizing people for caring, but just trying to nudge people towards a cause that is similar and also caused a great amount of loss and suffering (with less backing).

Agreed, the original call-to-arms about it was good. The ensuing hot takes and faffing were not.

As for donations, my opinion may be unpopular, but I believe a person should be allowed to donate HIS/HER OWN MONEY to any cause they want, so long as they don’t exceed any sort of official limit AND they do it publicly. Want to donate to a first-world country's water system instead of cheaply saving and improving lives in the developing world via effective giving? That’s fine, that’s your choice. Go nuts. Maybe you value western QALY above human ones. But then that’d be part of the public record and everyone will know where it came from.

FTFY to make an unrelated point, but why do you think the good outweighs the bad on donations having to be on the record? I personally don't want my neighbors to know where my money goes. I can imagine a pretty chilling effect whenever someone may not match their surroundings' groupthink. For anyone that tithes this would effectively broadcast their religion, regardless of their wishes. Ditto for political donations, or ones to controversial orgs ("Oh sweet, we have a list of every Planned Parenthood donor in the neighbourhood!").

 

[PatrThom]

why do you think the good outweighs the bad on donations having to be on the record?

Because the only two “just” options I see are either “All personal donations must be sealed” or “All personal donations must be public,” and personally the second one scares me less than the first.
Trying to set up a system with qualified exemptions also means opening up the temptation for abuse.

—Patrick

 

[Denbrought]

Because the only two “just” options I see are either “All personal donations must be sealed” or “All personal donations must be public,” and personally the second one scares me less than the first.

—Patrick

Why is the status quo unjust?

 

[Ravenpoe]

I was under the impression that Notre Dame was owned by France.

It is, it is not owned by the vatican

 

[PatrThom]

Why is the status quo unjust?

I feel like the current system too easily allows influence to be granted without accountability, that it is too easy to support and supply a proxy without suffering any negative effects, and that this is an overall bigger problem than being able to anonymously support a controversial cause.

—Patrick

 

[Denbrought]

I feel like the current system too easily allows influence to be granted without accountability, that it is too easy to support and supply a proxy without suffering any negative effects, and that this is an overall bigger problem than being able to anonymously support a controversial cause.

—Patrick

I feel like going against things like lobbying would be a more worthy way to fight against Capital = Power without creating really obvious harms.

 

[PatrThom]

It occurred to me after making my last post that it may seem like my issue with donations is one of wanting to strip privacy from donations. This could not be further from the truth. Personally, I WANT all donations to be private, but the ability to donate anonymously is a double-edged sword, a tool which is supposed to be used ethically and responsibly to protect donors from repercussions just like those you describe.

I made my statement solely based on my personal belief that the shield meant to protect vulnerable donors is being abused to hide unethical activities on a scale large enough to more than negate its benefit. I would LOVE to be wrong about this particular supposition, but I know of no proof.

—Patrick

 

[Dave]

I was under the impression that Notre Dame was owned by France.

I believe you are correct now, but it's still a symbol of the institution of the catholic church as well as France. Maybe they should sell some of the golden thrones from the Vatican to help pay for it.