What's new

[VIDEO] Notre-Dame cathedral on fire in Paris

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,988
A fire has broken out at the famous Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris, firefighters say.

The cause is not yet clear, but officials say it could be linked to renovation work.

Images on social media show plumes of smoke billowing into the air above the the 850-year-old Gothic building.

Last year, the Catholic Church in France launched an urgent appeal for funds to save the cathedral, which was starting to crumble.

A major operation is under way to tackle the blaze, which broke out on Monday afternoon, and an area surrounding the building in central Paris has been cleared, officials said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47941794
 
I see that Shahbaz Sharif's methods have reached France
 
Absolutely Horrific...

Can’t believe what i’m seeing on the news.
 
A fire has broken out at the famous Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris and has spread rapidly across the building.

The cause is not yet clear, but officials say that it could be linked to renovation work.

A major operation to tackle the blaze is under way at the 850-year-old Gothic building, but the cathedral's spire has collapsed.

Last year, the Catholic Church in France appealed for funds to save the building, which was crumbling.

A spokesman for the cathedral said the whole structure was "burning".

"There will be nothing left", he said.

The blaze broke out on Monday afternoon and an area surrounding the building has been cleared.

French President Emmanuel Macron is on his way to the scene and cancelled his planned speech to the nation following the fire, an Élysée Palace official said.

The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, who is already at the scene described it as a "terrible fire" and urged people to respect the boundaries set up by fire crews in order to ensure that they remain safe.

The Notre-Dame cathedral, which is visited by millions of people every year, is undergoing renovations after cracks began to appear in the stone, sparking fears the structure could become unstable.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-euro...r&ns_linkname=news_central&ns_mchannel=social
 
Looks really, really bad. I visited it along with Sainte Chapelle just a little while ago.
 
Notre-Dame cathedral: Macron pledges reconstruction after fire

French President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to rebuild the medieval cathedral of Notre-Dame after a major fire partially destroyed the Paris landmark.

Firefighters managed to save the 850-year-old Gothic building's main stone structure, including its two towers, but the spire and roof collapsed.

The fire was declared under control almost nine hours after it started.

The cause is not yet clear but officials say it could be linked to extensive renovation works under way.

Paris prosecutor's office said it was currently being investigated as an accident. A firefighter was seriously injured while tackling the blaze.

Macron: 'Terrible tragedy'
Visiting the site on Monday night, Mr Macron said the "worst had been avoided" with the preservation of the cathedral's main structure as he pledged to launch an international fundraising scheme for the reconstruction.

"We'll rebuild this cathedral all together and it's undoubtedly part of the French destiny and the project we'll have for the coming years," said Mr Macron.

"That's what the French expect [and] because it's what our history deserves," he added, visibly emotional, calling it a "terrible tragedy".

Billionaire François-Henri Pinault, chairman and CEO of the Kering group that owns the Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent fashion brands, has already pledged €100m (£86m; $113m) towards rebuilding Notre-Dame, AFP news agency reports.

The French charity Fondation du Patrimoine is launching an international appeal for funds for the cathedral, a Unesco World Heritage site.

The fire started at around 18:30 (16:30 GMT) on Monday and quickly reached the roof of the cathedral, destroying its stained-glass windows and the wooden interior before toppling the spire.

Firefighters then spent hours working to prevent one of the iconic bell towers from collapsing. Search teams are now assessing the extent of the damage.

Sections of the building were under scaffolding as part of the renovations and 16 copper statues had been removed last week. Work began after cracks appeared in the stone, sparking fears the structure could become unstable.

Mr Macron said the cathedral was "for all French people", including those who had never been there, and praised the "extreme courage" of the 500 firefighters involved in the operation.

Mayor: 'Artwork in safe place'
Emergency teams managed to rescue valuable artwork and religious items, including what is said to be the crown of thorns worn by Jesus before his crucifixion, which were stored inside the cathedral built in the 12th and 13th centuries.

A tunic, which King Louis IX is said to have worn when he brought the crown of thorns to Paris, was also saved.

"We had a chain of solidarity, especially in saving the works of art... [They] were able to be saved and put in a safe place," said Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo. "This is a tragedy for the whole world... Notre-Dame is the entire history of Paris."

Historian Camille Pascal told French broadcaster BFMTV that "invaluable heritage" had been destroyed. "Happy and unfortunate events for centuries have been marked by the bells of Notre-Dame. We can be only horrified by what we see."

A symbol of a country
Analysis by Henri Astier, BBC World Online

No other site represents France quite like Notre-Dame. Its main rival as a national symbol, the Eiffel Tower, is little more than a century old. Notre-Dame has stood tall above Paris since the 1200s.

It has given its name to one of the country's literary masterpieces. Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre-Dame is known to the French simply as Notre-Dame de Paris.

The last time the cathedral suffered major damage was during the French Revolution. It survived two world wars largely unscathed.

Watching such an embodiment of the permanence of a nation burn and its spire collapse is profoundly shocking to any French person.

Reaction: 'France is crying'
Thousands of people gathered in the streets around the cathedral, observing the flames in silence. Some could be seen openly weeping, while others sang hymns or said prayers.

Several churches around Paris rang their bells in response to the blaze, which happened as Catholics celebrate Holy Week.

"Notre-Dame is burning, France is crying and the whole world, too. It is extremely emotional," Archbishop of Paris Michel Aupetit said.

The Vatican expressed "shock and sadness" while UK Prime Minister Theresa May described the fire as "terrible".

Unesco said it stood "at France's side to save and restore this priceless heritage" visited by almost 13 million visitors each year, more than the Eiffel Tower.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel called the Notre-Dame a "symbol of French and European culture".

US President Donald Trump said it was "horrible to watch" the fire and suggested that "flying water tankers" could be used to extinguish the blaze.

In an apparent response, the French Civil Security service said that was not an option as it might result in the collapse of the entire building.

Because of the fire, Mr Macron cancelled a speech on TV in which he was due to address the street protests that have rocked France for months.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47943705
 
So very sad. Lovely cathedral built on an island in the Seine.
 
A terrible tragedy. Treasures of history lost in flames. There is something special about this cathedral, especially the gargoyles. Poignant.
 
Great news for all those ardent French Secularists, who hate saying huge displays of religion in public, like Hijab or the Paghree or even a large monstrosity like the Notre Dame.
 
Great news for all those ardent French Secularists, who hate saying huge displays of religion in public, like Hijab or the Paghree or even a large monstrosity like the Notre Dame.


That cathedral is beautiful. Great architecture housing much great art and inspiring so much more for centuries. Men dreamed of Heaven when it was built. It stood through plagues, revolutions, wars and rang the bells when France was freed from Nazi tyranny.

Already business has promised hundreds of millions of Euros for its repair. The French will rebuild their mighty landmark.
 
Strange how Europe is skint but has money to rebuild the Cathedral. Meanwhile the UK is pot-less too, has £2 Billion for the DUP, but no money to rebuild Grenfell tower.

This is not a tragedy, what we all should be asking is if this cathedral was the Jewel in France's history, then why didn't the French invest in maintaining the building?

Oh in case none of you know, yesterday, Masjid Al-Aqsa was on fire too, but guess what, the media didn't think it was news.
 
Strange how Europe is skint but has money to rebuild the Cathedral. Meanwhile the UK is pot-less too, has £2 Billion for the DUP, but no money to rebuild Grenfell tower.

This is not a tragedy, what we all should be asking is if this cathedral was the Jewel in France's history, then why didn't the French invest in maintaining the building?

Oh in case none of you know, yesterday, Masjid Al-Aqsa was on fire too, but guess what, the media didn't think it was news.

pls check your pm from me
 
Hundreds of millions of euros have been pledged to help rebuild Notre-Dame after a devastating fire partially destroyed the French cathedral.

The fire, declared fully extinguished some 15 hours after it began, ravaged the 850-year-old building's roof and caused its spire to collapse.

But firefighters who worked through the night managed to save the Paris landmark's main stone structure, including its two towers.

The cause of the fire is not yet clear.

Paris public prosecutor Rémy Heitz said his office was "favouring the theory of an accident", but had assigned 50 people to work on what he believed would be a "long" and "complex" investigation.

Other officials have suggested it could be linked to extensive renovation works taking place at the cathedral.

For centuries the building has been considered the heart of Catholic life in France, a site of pilgrimage for people around the world and home to many priceless religious relics.

Meanwhile, thoughts are turning to how Notre-Dame will be rebuilt.

French President Emmanuel Macron vowed to reconstruct the historic building even as the fire still burned, while two French business magnates had pledged about €300m ($339m; £259m) between them by early Tuesday.

Offers of help with the reconstruction have also poured in from around the globe, with European Council President Donald Tusk calling on EU member states to rally round.

What happened?
Mr Heitz told reporters that the first alert was sounded just after 18:20 local time (16:20 GMT), but on inspection no fire was found.

It was only after a second alert at 18:43 that the blaze was discovered, and firefighters were called.

The flames quickly reached the roof of the cathedral, destroying the wooden interior before toppling the spire.

Fears grew that the cathedral's famous towers would also be destroyed.

But while a number of fires did begin in the towers, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said they were successfully stopped before they could spread.

By the early hours of Tuesday, the fire was declared under control, with the Paris fire service saying it was fully extinguished by 10:00 local time (08:00 GMT).

A firefighter was slightly injured while tackling the blaze, Commander Jean-Claude Gallet told BFM TV.

What is the damage?
Search teams had already begun assessing the extent of the damage when dawn broke over the French capital. The cathedral's blackened stone and charred scaffolding were revealed to onlookers for the first time.

According to fire brigade spokesman Lt-Col Gabriel Plus "the whole of the roof has been devastated... a part of the vault has collapsed, the spire is no more".

However, it could have been much worse. Mr Nuñez said that, had fire crews not entered the building, "without doubt it would have collapsed", French newspaper Le Monde reported.

Photos appear to show that at least one of the cathedral's famed rose windows has survived, although there are concerns for some of the other stained-glass windows.

Franck Riester, France's culture minister, warned that while the principal structure had been saved, the building was still unstable.

Experts have not yet been allowed on site to assess the damage, due to the dangers.

There were already fears about Notre-Dame's stability, after cracks appeared in the stone.

Sections of the building were under scaffolding as part of the renovations and 16 copper statues were removed last week.

What happens next?
Individuals and groups are mobilising to help rebuild Notre-Dame. Hundreds of millions of euros have already been pledged.

Billionaire François-Henri Pinault, chairman and CEO of the Kering group that owns the Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent fashion brands, pledged €100m (£86m; $113m) towards rebuilding Notre-Dame, AFP news agency reports.

Another €200m was pledged by Bernard Arnault's family and their company LVMH - a business empire which includes Louis Vuitton and Sephora - on Tuesday morning, according to Reuters news agency.

The French charity Fondation du Patrimoine is launching an international appeal for funds for the cathedral, a Unesco World Heritage site.

Visiting the scene on Monday night, Mr Macron - who said the "worst had been avoided" with the preservation of the cathedral's main structure - pledged to launch an international fundraising scheme for the reconstruction.

"We'll rebuild this cathedral all together and it's undoubtedly part of the French destiny and the project we'll have for the coming years," said Mr Macron.

"That's what the French expect [and] because it's what our history deserves," he added, visibly emotional, calling it a "terrible tragedy".

Offers of help have also been pouring in from around the globe, with Russian President Vladimir Putin saying he is happy to send experts to help restore the cathedral.

The British government is also looking into what it can do to help with its reconstruction, according Ed Llewellyn, the UK ambassador to France.

Spanish Culture Minister Jose Guirao said his country is also seeking ways to help - although, he added, "right now, above all, it's about moral support, solidarity and from there, whatever they need".

What about the cathedral's treasures?
Emergency teams managed to rescue valuable artwork and religious items, including what is said to be the crown of thorns worn by Jesus before his crucifixion, which were stored inside the cathedral built in the 12th and 13th centuries.

A tunic, which King Louis IX is said to have worn when he brought the crown of thorns to Paris, was also saved.

"We had a chain of solidarity, especially in saving the works of art... [They] were able to be saved and put in a safe place," said Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo. "This is a tragedy for the whole world... Notre-Dame is the entire history of Paris."

Historian Camille Pascal told French broadcaster BFMTV that "invaluable heritage" had been destroyed. "Happy and unfortunate events for centuries have been marked by the bells of Notre-Dame. We can be only horrified by what we see."

How has the world reacted?
Thousands of people gathered in the streets around the cathedral, observing the flames in silence. Some could be seen openly weeping, while others sang hymns or said prayers.

Several churches around Paris rang their bells in response to the blaze, which happened as Catholics celebrate Holy Week.

"Notre-Dame is burning, France is crying and the whole world, too. It is extremely emotional," Archbishop of Paris Michel Aupetit said.

WATCH: Moment spire fell
The Vatican expressed "shock and sadness" while UK Prime Minister Theresa May described the fire as "terrible".

Unesco said it stood "at France's side to save and restore this priceless heritage" visited by almost 13 million visitors each year, more than the Eiffel Tower.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel called the Notre-Dame a "symbol of French and European culture".

US President Donald Trump said it was "horrible to watch" the fire and suggested that "flying water tankers" could be used to extinguish the blaze.

In an apparent response, the French Civil Security service said that was not an option as it might result in the collapse of the entire building.

Because of the fire, Mr Macron cancelled a speech on TV in which he was due to address the street protests that have rocked France for months.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47943705
 
Last edited:
Great news for all those ardent French Secularists, who hate saying huge displays of religion in public, like Hijab or the Paghree or even a large monstrosity like the Notre Dame.

Harsh but I get where you are coming from. Secularists shouldn't in theory have a problem with magnificent cathedrals, religion can have it's place after all. It's the militant atheists who are vocal against public displays of religion, I guess the Notre Damne would be renamed if they had their choice. Or perhaps demolished and replaced with a shopping plaza.
 
Harsh but I get where you are coming from. Secularists shouldn't in theory have a problem with magnificent cathedrals, religion can have it's place after all. It's the militant atheists who are vocal against public displays of religion, I guess the Notre Damne would be renamed if they had their choice. Or perhaps demolished and replaced with a shopping plaza.

Social media is having a field day. Muslim migrants/terrorists are already suspects.
 
Strange how Europe is skint but has money to rebuild the Cathedral. Meanwhile the UK is pot-less too, has £2 Billion for the DUP, but no money to rebuild Grenfell tower.

The tower was a crime scene up until very recently, it possibly still is (I don't know if they've finished with it yet). I also highly doubt another tower will be built on the site when they're done with it/once it's demolished.

This is not a tragedy, what we all should be asking is if this cathedral was the Jewel in France's history, then why didn't the French invest in maintaining the building?

They were, hence all the scaffolding around the building and maintenance work being carried out on it.
 
They were, hence all the scaffolding around the building and maintenance work being carried out on it.

The work was more to do with preserving/cleaning the building; not to install sophisticated fire detection systems or to strengthen the structure.
 
This tweet is doing rounds on social media.

Make of it what you will.

https://twitter.com/Alrob67/status/1118054526366433280?s=08

Interesting vid has emerged. Two hours after fire started in Notre Dame and place is evacuated, a close up shot shows someone in cathedral wearing something religious shall we say.. Why, in a catholic cathedral and after evacuation. Make your own mind up...

Looks like a yellow vest in a distorted colour bleeding video.
 
The work was more to do with preserving/cleaning the building; not to install sophisticated fire detection systems or to strengthen the structure.

The fire started in the attic of the Cathedral at around 18:50 local time in Paris and within minutes images and videos of the blaze were being shared around the world.

A spokesman for the Cathedral reported that a fire alarm went off almost immediately and they instantly recognised it because they had practised a fire drill just days before.
There's not exactly a massive amount you can do to strengthen against a fire like that without completely changing the building.
 
Last edited:
That cathedral is beautiful. Great architecture housing much great art and inspiring so much more for centuries. Men dreamed of Heaven when it was built. It stood through plagues, revolutions, wars and rang the bells when France was freed from Nazi tyranny.

Already business has promised hundreds of millions of Euros for its repair. The French will rebuild their mighty landmark.

All true, but it goes against the French Secularist mindset, they shoiuld rename it the Palace of Notre Dame, and remove all Christian/Catholic items from it, only then can it truly be representative of modern France.

Unless of course this huge secularist drive over the last 20 years was an attack on the Muslim minority?
 
There was a fire in Al Aqsa mosque compound at the same time when Notre-dame was burning.
 
The Cathedral was more a cultural icon than a religious symbol. This is a sad day for the French and it’s best we do not politicize this event.
 
Strange how Europe is skint but has money to rebuild the Cathedral. Meanwhile the UK is pot-less too, has £2 Billion for the DUP, but no money to rebuild Grenfell tower.

This is not a tragedy, what we all should be asking is if this cathedral was the Jewel in France's history, then why didn't the French invest in maintaining the building?

Oh in case none of you know, yesterday, Masjid Al-Aqsa was on fire too, but guess what, the media didn't think it was news.



Masjid Al-Aqsa “was not on fire”. A guard room in its compound was, which was swiftly extinguished. It was in no shape or form comparable to what happened in Paris.

While it is understandable that we cannot help our victim mentality, it is still important to do our research before jumping to premature conclusions.
 
I see that the usual suspects are passing official verdicts on why this isn’t a tragedy.

We truly are one of a kind. Incredible nation.
 
Masjid Al-Aqsa “was not on fire”. A guard room in its compound was, which was swiftly extinguished. It was in no shape or form comparable to what happened in Paris.

It was on fire, check the videos. What you are saying is like the NOtre Dame was not on fire but the roof was.

While it is understandable that we cannot help our victim mentality, it is still important to do our research before jumping to premature conclusions.

Victim mentality?

Well then here's some more reality for you, the fire at Notre Dame was NOT a tragedy. Nobody died, the structure remains intact, and almost all treasures were swiftly relocated barring the windows. So stop jumping to conclusion and parroting the BBC, and do your own research. Better yet, go start a Gofundme page.

Only in your world is losing a steeple a tragedy.
 
The Cathedral was more a cultural icon than a religious symbol. This is a sad day for the French and it’s best we do not politicize this event.

Even if it was religious, one must show solidarity to the french. Hatred begets hatred.
 
It was on fire, check the videos. What you are saying is like the NOtre Dame was not on fire but the roof was.



Victim mentality?

Well then here's some more reality for you, the fire at Notre Dame was NOT a tragedy. Nobody died, the structure remains intact, and almost all treasures were swiftly relocated barring the windows. So stop jumping to conclusion and parroting the BBC, and do your own research. Better yet, go start a Gofundme page.

Only in your world is losing a steeple a tragedy.

Check the link.

A small fire broke out at a guard's booth in the courtyard at the flashpoint Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem but was extinguished and the site remains open.

The fire was "quickly extinguished", police said, adding the cause was being investigated

https://m.khaleejtimes.com/region/m...t-al-aqsa-mosque-same-time-as-notre-dame-fire

You can see the video as well. The mosque is unscathed and it’s a small fire as mentioned in the report.

It is absolutely nothing like the one in Notre Dame, which took 9 hours to extinguish. Moreover, it wasn’t a small fire in the courtyard. The cathedral itself was in flames.

Just because the structure is still intact and no lives have been lost does not mean that it is not a tragedy.

It is historic site and a jewel of Paris. There are also artwork and artifacts within the cathedral that have been damage, and money cannot replace or buy history.

Don’t talk about my world because you are alone in your world where this doesn’t qualify as a tragedy. The majority of the people around the world recognizes this as one, because this is not about religion, white supremacy or islamophobia.

People who have respect and regard for history, culture and art view this as a tragedy. Thankfully, the majority fall in that category.

And yes, it was your victim mentality that prompted you to compare the fire in the Al-Aqsa compound to this, even though there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
 
People who have respect and regard for history, culture and art view this as a tragedy. Thankfully, the majority fall in that category.

And yes, it was your victim mentality that prompted you to compare the fire in the Al-Aqsa compound to this, even though there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever.

Nothing was lost, not even treasure, other than windows. Stop your melodramatic posturing, the Cathedral will be restored and the Steeple rebuilt.

And no, there was no victim mentality, had you read my post properly instead of jumping the gun, you would realize I made a point about media reporting.

You cry about losing art, let me know when you break bread on what is happening around the world with art and culture, no wait, you only speak when the media instructs you to.

Go back to supporting corruption because the real tragedy here are the sheeple, not the steeple - see what I did here?
 
Nothing was lost, not even treasure, other than windows. Stop your melodramatic posturing, the Cathedral will be restored and the Steeple rebuilt.

And no, there was no victim mentality, had you read my post properly instead of jumping the gun, you would realize I made a point about media reporting.

You cry about losing art, let me know when you break bread on what is happening around the world with art and culture, no wait, you only speak when the media instructs you to.

Go back to supporting corruption because the real tragedy here are the sheeple, not the steeple - see what I did here?

Yes I see what you did there. You got yourself in a pickle by prematurely comparing the two events, and you have made it worse for yourself by not accepting the fact that you jumped the gun because of your bias.

As far as media reporting is concerned, no sensible media would give equal coverage to a small fire in a mosque courtyard and a cathedral on fire for 9 hours.

Not all the paintings and the artifacts have been recovered yet. According to latest reports, it is inevitable that quite a few have been damaged. Besides, yes the steeple will be rebuild, but you cannot bring back 800 years of history.

The fact that you think an 800 year steeple can simply be rebuild says everything that needs to be said. Your complete disregard for the important of art shows your ignorance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I see what you did there. You got yourself in a pickle by prematurely comparing the two events, and you have made it worse for yourself by not accepting the fact that you jumped the gun because of your bias.

As far as media reporting is concerned, no sensible media would give equal coverage to a small fire in a mosque courtyard and a cathedral on fire for 9 hours.

Not all the paintings and the artifacts have been recovered yet. According to latest reports, it is inevitable that quite a few have been damaged. Besides, yes the steeple will be rebuild, but you cannot bring back 800 years of history.

The fact that you think an 800 year steeple can simply be rebuild says everything that needs to be said. Your complete disregard for the important of art shows your ignorance.

So you jumped the gun and claimed treasures were lost now change your tune. Do you ever practice what you preach or is your internet connection slow?

The fact you believe losing a steeple, building standing, everyone surviving, is a tragedy, sums you up nicely. Then again what am I saying? You also believe IK as PM is a tragedy for Pakistan compared to corruption, and of course, never thought the NZ Mosque shooting was a tragedy either! But no, some wooden steeple is up in smoke and your world drops into darkness.

You need help. It is you who suffers from the victim mentality. You display text book psychological signs craving for attention, be it via obtrusive, provocative, or down right melodramatic posts, says everything about you. I hope what ever you problem, you will one day stop blaming others and start looking into the mirror only to realise the problem is with you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Victim mentality is a very useful term, but we don't need to be racist and apply it only to Muslims and Pakistanis, it can be universally applied without prejudice. I used it myself just the other day in the thread where many people were whining about the alleged massacre of Indians by the British at Jalianwala Bagh.
 
F65ECBCC-637D-41E5-908B-84343AA6BEEF.jpg

There is still hope for our country. Well said Hamid Amir. It is a shame there are people out there who think that 800 years of history can simply be reconstructed.
 
So you jumped the gun and claimed treasures were lost now change your tune. Do you ever practice what you preach or is your internet connection slow?

The fact you believe losing a steeple, building standing, everyone surviving, is a tragedy, sums you up nicely. Then again what am I saying? You also believe IK as PM is a tragedy for Pakistan compared to corruption, and of course, never thought the NZ Mosque shooting was a tragedy either! But no, some wooden steeple is up in smoke and your world drops into darkness.

You need help. It is you who suffers from the victim mentality. You display text book psychological signs craving for attention, be it via obtrusive, provocative, or down right melodramatic posts, says everything about you. I hope what ever you problem, you will one day stop blaming others and start looking into the mirror only to realise the problem is with you.

Save your breath. The fact that you think that an 800 year old steeple can simply be rebuild says everything that I need to know. I can only feel sorry for you.
 
I wonder if the self proclaimed victim of Pakistan would be this devastated if it had been Islamic historic structured that was burned down or they would have in their comment taken a turn to, "muslims only build and care about bigger structures, what have they done for science, etc".
 
The West Rose Window (1225), North Rose and South Rose Windows (1250) have been lost.

So heartbreaking. No amount of money can replace the loss of such history.
 
I wonder if the self proclaimed victim of Pakistan would be this devastated if it had been Islamic historic structured that was burned down or they would have in their comment taken a turn to, "muslims only build and care about bigger structures, what have they done for science, etc".

I won’t care for the modern buildings, but yes if some historic Muslim sight is lost in flames, I will definitely feel the pain. Art is art for me, it doesn’t matter if it is Muslim or French. I have utmost respect for history.
 
It can.

It'll be new, it won't be just historical anymore, it will be after 800 years tho

But the original one would have 1,600 years of history by then. The 800 years that have been lost cannot be replaced.
 
I won’t care for the modern buildings, but yes if some historic Muslim sight is lost in flames, I will definitely feel the pain. Art is art for me, it doesn’t matter if it is Muslim or French. I have utmost respect for history.

Yea, but you won't feel good and complete appreciating Islamic art or history without taking unnecessary swipe at Islam as religion, Muslims as believer, and Pakistan as Pakistani. Remember the career :)
 
Westminister Abbey will toll its bells to mark 24 hours since the tragedy. Good gesture.
 
It wasn't the first time this Cathedral was destroyed and I am sure no one bet any feeling about previous destruction as long as they got to take few selfies and post it on social media.

It was re-build before and it will be re-build again.
 
You won't live forever, so please stop with these crocodile tears.

The Qur'an is older than this steeple, and is a work of art/poetry whether one believes in it or not, but like you say, no appreciation there but lets all hail tragedy on something made of wood!

It's all drama with this guy.
 
Yea, but you won't feel good and complete appreciating Islamic art or history without taking unnecessary swipe at Islam as religion, Muslims as believer, and Pakistan as Pakistani. Remember the career :)

The state of Muslims today is independent of the glorious Islamic art which I appreciate.
 
The Qur'an is older than this steeple, and is a work of art/poetry whether one believes in it or not, but like you say, no appreciation there but lets all hail tragedy on something made of wood!

It's all drama with this guy.

And I thought we were done with absurd comparisons. If an 800 year old Quran is lost, it will be a tragedy as well.

Piece of wood? Art and history can be found in the simplest things in life. It is not about the material. It never is.

A 500 year old broken wooden chair belonging to a great personality is worth more than the gold furniture the Prince of Saudi carries around with him.

Ultimately, it is all down the complete and utter lack of appreciation of art which is the result of ignorance.
 
The state of Muslims today is independent of the glorious Islamic art which I appreciate.

I thought we were discussing how you would not miss an opportunity to put down Islam as a religion, Muslim as believer and Pakistan as Pakistani while appreciating any Islamic historical site or object were to be burned down.

But, everyone agree state of Muslim today is independent of Islamic art.
 
That cathedral is beautiful. Great architecture housing much great art and inspiring so much more for centuries. Men dreamed of Heaven when it was built. It stood through plagues, revolutions, wars and rang the bells when France was freed from Nazi tyranny.

Already business has promised hundreds of millions of Euros for its repair. The French will rebuild their mighty landmark.

Prob the most important sentence in this thread.

Why did men dream of heaven?

This building was built by Louis VII who was the leader of the second crusade. This building was a sort of vicotry trophy after the Crusaders travelled continents butchering people along the way to the holy land.

It's ironic the French , the so called secular leaders of the world are in tears over a building built by a religous extremist as a symbol of invading other lands. You couldn't make it up.

I dont care for the French or their buildings.
 
And I thought we were done with absurd comparisons. If an 800 year old Quran is lost, it will be a tragedy as well.

Piece of wood? Art and history can be found in the simplest things in life. It is not about the material. It never is.

A 500 year old broken wooden chair belonging to a great personality is worth more than the gold furniture the Prince of Saudi carries around with him.

Ultimately, it is all down the complete and utter lack of appreciation of art which is the result of ignorance.

You dont show much remorse for the lives of people in Kashmir , Palestine or other areas of the world but are crying over some bricks and mortar.

AS mentioned set up a funding page and donate yourself instead of sheding tears over a building you have never been to.
 
And I thought we were done with absurd comparisons. If an 800 year old Quran is lost, it will be a tragedy as well.

Piece of wood? Art and history can be found in the simplest things in life. It is not about the material. It never is.

A 500 year old broken wooden chair belonging to a great personality is worth more than the gold furniture the Prince of Saudi carries around with him.

Ultimately, it is all down the complete and utter lack of appreciation of art which is the result of ignorance.

The point was you are crying because of a steeple, when the main part of the building is still intact. You may not have realised this but the steeple was repaired during the 800 years, so was not even in it's original piece. Get it? Do your homework!

Some dingbat pays £££ for a piece of paper with some paint on it or thinks art is worth something because he views it while coked up/intoxicated viewing at an angle.

Number one rule of Art, it is all subjective.
 
Last edited:
Victim mentality is a very useful term, but we don't need to be racist and apply it only to Muslims and Pakistanis, it can be universally applied without prejudice. I used it myself just the other day in the thread where many people were whining about the alleged massacre of Indians by the British at Jalianwala Bagh.

"Whining", "alleged", etc are not a good choice of words to use to describe it.
 
I thought we were discussing how you would not miss an opportunity to put down Islam as a religion, Muslim as believer and Pakistan as Pakistani while appreciating any Islamic historical site or object were to be burned down.

But, everyone agree state of Muslim today is independent of Islamic art.

My apologies. I was a bit distracted and misunderstood your post. I thought you were questioning my appreciation for Islamic art.
 
You dont show much remorse for the lives of people in Kashmir , Palestine or other areas of the world but are crying over some bricks and mortar.

AS mentioned set up a funding page and donate yourself instead of sheding tears over a building you have never been to.

Actually I have. I always wanted to see it in person and I was very happy when I finally had the chance.

I do show remorse for the lives of the people of Kashmir and Palestine, but I don’t want Pakistan to play a part in protecting them. We have plenty of internal problems that are more important for us to address.

Similarly, Hypothetically speaking, I wouldn’t want Pakistan to donate a dime to help restore the cathedral. It is a great tragedy, but it is not the problem of our government, is it?

It is not just bricks, wood and mortar. It is history, and we have lost 800 years of it.
 
"Whining", "alleged", etc are not a good choice of words to use to describe it.

It's a matter of interpretation. Victim mentality can seem a poor choice of words when applied to some peoples but when applied to others then the whining starts.
 
Actually I have. I always wanted to see it in person and I was very happy when I finally had the chance.

I do show remorse for the lives of the people of Kashmir and Palestine, but I don’t want Pakistan to play a part in protecting them. We have plenty of internal problems that are more important for us to address.

Similarly, Hypothetically speaking, I wouldn’t want Pakistan to donate a dime to help restore the cathedral. It is a great tragedy, but it is not the problem of our government, is it?

It is not just bricks, wood and mortar. It is history, and we have lost 800 years of it.

Did they inform you the building was constucted as a glory trophy to the second crusade? All buildings will eventually fall, it's part of life. You do seem to have more compassion for bricks than life from your posts, no matter what you say now. As for art, it's opinion based and imo nothing in this building is jawdropping, just the usual statutes and coloured glass.

Of course Pakistan shoulnd't donate or the UK, people in both lands are suffering hardships and it would be stupid to put a building over peoples lives. If the French want to restore its their business.
 
The point was you are crying because of a steeple, when the main part of the building is still intact. You may not have realised this but the steeple was repaired during the 800 years, so was not even in it's original piece. Get it? Do your homework!

Some dingbat pays £££ for a piece of paper with some paint on it or thinks art is worth something because he views it while coked up/intoxicated viewing at an angle.

Number one rule of Art, it is all subjective.

A structure that stands for 800 years has obviously been repaired and reworked. However, it has been completely burned down and will have to be built from scratch, which means that it’s history has gone to ashes.

Nothing from the original structure remains anymore, which is a terrible tragedy.

You are right in pointing out that art is subjective, but the opinion of someone who doesn’t understand art has no value.

There are people in the world who think Van Gogh’s paintings are useless and nothing more than bright colors and an excessive use of yellow.

Now that isn’t a subjective opinion; it is an ignorant opinion. Similarly, if someone is dismissive of the 800 year history of the steeple as it is just wood, his or her opinion is of no worth.
 
A structure that stands for 800 years has obviously been repaired and reworked. However, it has been completely burned down and will have to be built from scratch, which means that it’s history has gone to ashes.

Nothing from the original structure remains anymore, which is a terrible tragedy.

You are right in pointing out that art is subjective, but the opinion of someone who doesn’t understand art has no value.

There are people in the world who think Van Gogh’s paintings are useless and nothing more than bright colors and an excessive use of yellow.

Now that isn’t a subjective opinion; it is an ignorant opinion. Similarly, if someone is dismissive of the 800 year history of the steeple as it is just wood, his or her opinion is of no worth.

You were harping on about original form, I just pointed out it was not.

What else do you have to offer?
 
Did they inform you the building was constucted as a glory trophy to the second crusade? All buildings will eventually fall, it's part of life. You do seem to have more compassion for bricks than life from your posts, no matter what you say now. As for art, it's opinion based and imo nothing in this building is jawdropping, just the usual statutes and coloured glass.

Of course Pakistan shoulnd't donate or the UK, people in both lands are suffering hardships and it would be stupid to put a building over peoples lives. If the French want to restore its their business.

I am aware of the history and I will refrain from my expressing my views on the crusade because it is not the time or place for it, but I appreciate art irrespective of why it is there.

Most of the paintings in European and American galleries have a dark history behind them. They were stolen or confiscated illegally, but that doesn’t mean that the art cannot be appreciated independently.

It is not about how jaw-dropping the structure or the gargoyles or the colored glass. It is the history that they represent.

It has witnessed the Hundred Years’ War, the French Revolution, Napoleon and so many other important events and figures in French history.

That is why it is so significant. Calling it just a building with gargoyles and colored glasses is to show a lack of appreciation for history.
 
You were harping on about original form, I just pointed out it was not.

What else do you have to offer?

I am talking about the lost history. Reworks and repairs are normal, but it has burned down completely and will have to be built from scratch.

Pointing out that it has been repaired over its 800 year history is not a groundbreaking discovery on your part - it is completely normal.
 
I am aware of the history and I will refrain from my expressing my views on the crusade because it is not the time or place for it, but I appreciate art irrespective of why it is there.

Most of the paintings in European and American galleries have a dark history behind them. They were stolen or confiscated illegally, but that doesn’t mean that the art cannot be appreciated independently.

It is not about how jaw-dropping the structure or the gargoyles or the colored glass. It is the history that they represent.

It has witnessed the Hundred Years’ War, the French Revolution, Napoleon and so many other important events and figures in French history.

That is why it is so significant. Calling it just a building with gargoyles and colored glasses is to show a lack of appreciation for history.

It is the time and place. If you discuss a building it's important to note why and by whom it was built. I've not found a single article in the mainstream media pointing this out. You may look in awe at a building because it's old but remember the chap who built it would have happily butchered anyone with your belief or anyone who looked like you. You might be in awe of his building but him and his buddies would see you as a lower barbarian human being.

If art is related to history then you can find trees or other wonders of nature which are still standing after thousands of years. Give me nature over statues or silly paintings, no man can create art like the Creator creates life.
 
It is the time and place. If you discuss a building it's important to note why and by whom it was built. I've not found a single article in the mainstream media pointing this out. You may look in awe at a building because it's old but remember the chap who built it would have happily butchered anyone with your belief or anyone who looked like you. You might be in awe of his building but him and his buddies would see you as a lower barbarian human being.

If art is related to history then you can find trees or other wonders of nature which are still standing after thousands of years. Give me nature over statues or silly paintings, no man can create art like the Creator creates life.

Appreciating art has nothing to do with who commissioned it or who the patron was; it is simply an appreciation for the work of the artist. You do not have to appreciate why the Cathedral was built in the first place, but what matters is the history it represents. If we walk the path of this logic, we cannot appreciate Muslim art Spain or the Subcontinent, because they would not have been there if it wasn't for Muslim conquests, and they didn't conquer empires with flowers.

After all, Islam was spread with the sword and the blood of the people who attempted to defend their lands from Muslim invaders. So perhaps the next time people are in awe of Islamic architecture, they should remember that it is a result of Muslim conquering invading their lands.

You are right in pointing out that nature is the greatest artist of them all. However, if you believe in the Almighty, you know that creating nature's masterpieces are easier for Him than blinking an eye is for you.

So how can you compare it to the skill, craft, creativity and the dedication of a man who has build a masterpiece? What was harder? Creating life for the Almighty or Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
 
Appreciating art has nothing to do with who commissioned it or who the patron was; it is simply an appreciation for the work of the artist. You do not have to appreciate why the Cathedral was built in the first place, but what matters is the history it represents. If we walk the path of this logic, we cannot appreciate Muslim art Spain or the Subcontinent, because they would not have been there if it wasn't for Muslim conquests, and they didn't conquer empires with flowers.

After all, Islam was spread with the sword and the blood of the people who attempted to defend their lands from Muslim invaders. So perhaps the next time people are in awe of Islamic architecture, they should remember that it is a result of Muslim conquering invading their lands.

You are right in pointing out that nature is the greatest artist of them all. However, if you believe in the Almighty, you know that creating nature's masterpieces are easier for Him than blinking an eye is for you.

So how can you compare it to the skill, craft, creativity and the dedication of a man who has build a masterpiece? What was harder? Creating life for the Almighty or Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

Firstly Islam was not spread via the sword. No sword, gun or rocket can force a person to believe. This statement alone shows you know nothing of history.

I dont see anything fascinating in statues, painted glass or paintings. Egpytians built the pyramids thousands of years ago, that is skill and even then those structures shouldn't be revered as they were built by slaves.

What's ironic is the secular French who ban items of religous significance in public places are now in mourning over a building built as a trophy to religous exteremism.
 
I will definitely visit it again in the future to see how it compares to the original in terms of its appearance. However, even if it is better from an artistic point of view (unless they make a complete replica), it will not replace the original because it will not have witnessed some of the greatest events in French history.

The Cathedral as we knew it is gone. It can be restored but the history has been lost. The painted glass can also be replaced quickly thanks to latest technologies, but it will not be from the 13th century and it will not be man made, and that is why anyone who has the slightest appreciation of art and history is mourning.

Okay, just remember though, when you do revisit it, the spire which was destroyed was actually added around 1850. So much for losing 800 years of history. Honestly.
 
Firstly Islam was not spread via the sword. No sword, gun or rocket can force a person to believe. This statement alone shows you know nothing of history.

I dont see anything fascinating in statues, painted glass or paintings. Egpytians built the pyramids thousands of years ago, that is skill and even then those structures shouldn't be revered as they were built by slaves.

What's ironic is the secular French who ban items of religous significance in public places are now in mourning over a building built as a trophy to religous exteremism.

I am not interested in your biased version of history, where Muslims offered people to accept Islam on a gold platter and politely went back when they refused. Rulers were invited to accept Islam, and those who refused were engaged in battle, which is never peaceful.

The masses embraced Islam under duress. When you conquer an empire, kill their fathers, sons and brothers and give people a choice between embracing Islam or paying jizya, you are not really giving them a free choice. The only peaceful conquest was that of Makkah, but in every other conquest, blood was spilled.

You don't have a fascination with art because you don't appreciate it, and you don't appreciate because you don't understand it. As far as the pyramids are concerned, they are marvels of architecture, and deserve as much appreciation as any other form of art. Nevertheless, the notion that pyramids were built by slaves has been debunked by Egyptologists.

Great Pyramid tombs unearth 'proof' workers were not slaves

Egypt's leading archaeologist says 4,000-year-old burial plots with skeletons expose myth that builders were slaves. The ancient Greek historian Herodotus once described the pyramid builders as slaves, creating what Egyptologists say is a myth propagated by Hollywood films.

Graves of the builders were first found nearby in 1990 by a tourist. Egypt's chief archaeologist, Zahi Hawass, said the finds show the workers were paid labourers, rather than slaves.

Hawass told reporters at the site that the find, first announced on Sunday, said the find sheds more light on the lifestyle and origins of the pyramidbuilders. Most importantly, he said the workers were not recruited from slaves commonly found across Egypt during those times. One popular myth that Egyptologists say was perpetrated in part by Hollywood held that Israelite slaves built the pyramids.

Amihai Mazar, professor at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says that myth stemmed from an erroneous claim by the former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, on a visit to Egypt in 1977, that Jews built the pyramids.

Dieter Wildung, a former director of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, said it is "common knowledge in serious Egyptology" that the pyramid builders were not slaves. "The myth of the slaves building pyramids is only the stuff of tabloids and Hollywood," Wildung said. "The world simply could not believe the pyramids were build without oppression and forced labour, but out of loyalty to the pharaohs."

Hawass said the builders came from poor families from the north and the south, and were respected for their work – so much so that those who died during construction were bestowed the honour of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs.

Their proximity to the pyramids and the manner of burial in preparation for the afterlife backs this theory, Hawass said. "No way would they have been buried so honourably if they were slaves."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt
 
I am not interested in your biased version of history, where Muslims offered people to accept Islam on a gold platter and politely went back when they refused. Rulers were invited to accept Islam, and those who refused were engaged in battle, which is never peaceful.

The masses embraced Islam under duress. When you conquer an empire, kill their fathers, sons and brothers and give people a choice between embracing Islam or paying jizya, you are not really giving them a free choice. The only peaceful conquest was that of Makkah, but in every other conquest, blood was spilled.

You don't have a fascination with art because you don't appreciate it, and you don't appreciate because you don't understand it. As far as the pyramids are concerned, they are marvels of architecture, and deserve as much appreciation as any other form of art. Nevertheless, the notion that pyramids were built by slaves has been debunked by Egyptologists.

Great Pyramid tombs unearth 'proof' workers were not slaves



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt

As a Muslim(if you are ) you should know you cannot force a belief on someone. Muslims may have done bad thing but only when a person believes truly within him/her is a Muslim and Islam is their faith. To say Islam was forced on people and people accepted by force is foolish. Some may have become Muslims in appearance but many many more willingly accepted.

I dont understand it lol. Just because you like to paint silly faces doesn't mean you have some how superiour because you are an artist. It's all opinion based, one mans art is another mans trash. Who are you to say what is art and what is not?

But lets ask, is this art?

stone-1024x640.jpg

Btw those tombs are not of all those who worked, many were forced labourers or peasants. The tombs are of the skilled workers and those in charge.
 
As a Muslim(if you are ) you should know you cannot force a belief on someone. Muslims may have done bad thing but only when a person believes truly within him/her is a Muslim and Islam is their faith. To say Islam was forced on people and people accepted by force is foolish. Some may have become Muslims in appearance but many many more willingly accepted.

I dont understand it lol. Just because you like to paint silly faces doesn't mean you have some how superiour because you are an artist. It's all opinion based, one mans art is another mans trash. Who are you to say what is art and what is not?

But lets ask, is this art?

View attachment 90575

Btw those tombs are not of all those who worked, many were forced labourers or peasants. The tombs are of the skilled workers and those in charge.

Of course it is art, the Judensau is very historic. It may not be to your liking, but it is still art and it deserves your respect. Remember, you do not have to love art to appreciate it. For example, I personally do not have a taste for Cubism (Picasso), but it doesn't mean that it is rubbish and just weird faces on a canvas.

Secondly, you are not thinking logically and are letting your faith dictate you. When you conquer a land by defeating their army in a battlefield, and give the people a choice between accepting Islam and paying a tax specifically designed for non-believers, how much of a choice are you leaving them with?

The only people who truly embrace a faith from within are the ones who convert without any pressure, and people who have been conquered by Muslim invaders do not fall into that category, and neither do you or I. We are Muslims because we were born in Muslim families, and we have been programmed to believe that we are on the right path.

Same goes for people who follow other religions. That is why the vast majority of the people do not stray away from the religion of their parents and family. If we were born in a Christian household, the chances would have been extremely high that we would be Christians today.
 
Of course it is art, the Judensau is very historic. It may not be to your liking, but it is still art and it deserves your respect. Remember, you do not have to love art to appreciate it. For example, I personally do not have a taste for Cubism (Picasso), but it doesn't mean that it is rubbish and just weird faces on a canvas.

Secondly, you are not thinking logically and are letting your faith dictate you. When you conquer a land by defeating their army in a battlefield, and give the people a choice between accepting Islam and paying a tax specifically designed for non-believers, how much of a choice are you leaving them with?

The only people who truly embrace a faith from within are the ones who convert without any pressure, and people who have been conquered by Muslim invaders do not fall into that category, and neither do you or I. We are Muslims because we were born in Muslim families, and we have been programmed to believe that we are on the right path.

Same goes for people who follow other religions. That is why the vast majority of the people do not stray away from the religion of their parents and family. If we were born in a Christian household, the chances would have been extremely high that we would be Christians today.

The tax is lower than what Muslims pay and women dont have to pay it. I would rather pay a Non-Muslim tax living under Muslim law than what I pay now which is crazy! Anyway lets leave this topic and stick to the art of cathedrals.

You say yes it is. I say it's racist. Those are Jews depicated drinking the milk of pigs. How can you look at it and say it's great? Please explain.
 
Prob the most important sentence in this thread.

Why did men dream of heaven?

This building was built by Louis VII who was the leader of the second crusade. This building was a sort of vicotry trophy after the Crusaders travelled continents butchering people along the way to the holy land.

It's ironic the French , the so called secular leaders of the world are in tears over a building built by a religous extremist as a symbol of invading other lands. You couldn't make it up.

I dont care for the French or their buildings.

By Bishop Maurice de Sully in fact, not Louis Sept, and in any event the Second Crusade was a disastrous military and financial failure.

The architects and builders were inspired by visions of the Divine. Cathedrals are designed to overload the senses, make Christians feel that they are close to Heaven. Engineering and spirituality were the same thing back then, as for Wren and Hawksmoor and the Masonic builders of England.
 
The tax is lower than what Muslims pay and women dont have to pay it. I would rather pay a Non-Muslim tax living under Muslim law than what I pay now which is crazy! Anyway lets leave this topic and stick to the art of cathedrals.

You say yes it is. I say it's racist. Those are Jews depicated drinking the milk of pigs. How can you look at it and say it's great? Please explain.

It is not hard. The problem is that you view art with a very narrow perspective - since you do not have any appreciation for the skill of the artist, an artwork for you is only as good as its message and what it depicts.

You dislike the Notre Dame Cathedral because of its crusade history, you dislike the pyramids because of slavery and you dislike the judensau because of anti-semitism. For me, art is first and foremost a celebration of the artist and then the message that the artist has conveyed through his art, which is not always his own but often that of the patron and the person who has commissioned it.

By the way, this is quite an interested read on the origin of the Judensau:
The centerpieces of this essay are the infamous and public Judensau depictions of medieval Europe, statuary that frequently contained both scatological and COPROPHAGOUS elements. The known examples seem to have been in the German realm, even those now found in France, Switzerland, Poland, and Sweden; Poland and Sweden were under heavy German influence, if not actually populated by Germans.

The depictions continue to exist even after almost eight centuries, though their locations and particulars are not well known. Not until the late Isaiah Shachar documented a variety of them did their presence and scope in the twentieth century become rediscovered.

The Judensau had no standard form, except for an unclear connection of unknown origin between Jews and pigs. A Jew, frequently reading, might ride on the back of a pig, occasionally in a reversed position. Or else a Jew might embrace a pig, sometimes in a position that implied some form of copulatory behavior.

One or more Jews, sometimes children, may be seen underneath the pig, suckling at its teats. There may be a Jew positioned behind the pig, being sprayed with or eating excrement, or drinking the pig’s urine, or pointing at the pig’s rectum. A Jew might be seen kissing the snout of the pig or the pig kissing a Jew.

Though the term “Judensau” does not allow one to conclude either the reasons behind its creation or what its specific content might be depicting, the general subject was always the same—i.e., Jews and pigs in a derogatory portrayal.

Rev. Martin Luther gave a personal interpretation of a specific Judensau, one still on public display in Wittenburg, Germany, described and shown below. Luther entirely invented perspective associated Jews with deviltry, while the filth of the pig was given as a metaphor for the Talmud. But prior to Luther’s description, there was no general understanding of what these Judensau meant, outside of relating a Jew and a pig in some unclear way.

One interpretation that has been offered expresses the notion that the Jews belonged to the sow, the sow to the Jews—i.e., both were examples of an abominable category of filthy beings. While early Judensau representations may have been nothing more than a repulsive joke of which Jews were the targets, Luther’s interpretation has incorrectly often been applied retroactively to all Judensau carvings, statuary, and decorations.

- Journal for the Study of Anti-semitism (Vol. 2, pages 393 - 394).
 
By Bishop Maurice de Sully in fact, not Louis Sept, and in any event the Second Crusade was a disastrous military and financial failure.

The architects and builders were inspired by visions of the Divine. Cathedrals are designed to overload the senses, make Christians feel that they are close to Heaven. Engineering and spirituality were the same thing back then, as for Wren and Hawksmoor and the Masonic builders of England.

Louis was King and it's usually the king who authroises such expensive buildings. We dont know what the builders thought but we do know Louis was a religious extremist. Dont you find it strange secular france which is so against religous symbols is in tears over this religious building, built by an extremist?
 
Back
Top