,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Thread. The fire in Notre Dame has reignited debates on the constitutional separation of church and state in France and heritage protection; including some exchanges involving French ambassador @GerardAraud, which refer to this @bopinion article 1/
The much-cited 1905 law states that the government "does not recognize, pay, or subsidize any religious sect" and so "there will be removed from state budgets, departments and municipalities all expenses related to the exercise of religion." legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do… 3/
BUT The state is responsible for maintenance, pays a stipend and has funded some repair work in ND, mostly it seems to more visible parts of the cathedral. And yet maintenance must not become a subsidy for religion and that's where things get tricky. 4/
Where to draw the line? Whether b/c of that constitutional line, or not wanting to add to a maximally stretched budget, ND received too little for too long for repairs that were urgent. The fervent efforts to fund raise outside France testify to this. 5/
It is surely not the only such heritage site in that condition. This 2017 piece in French detailed some of the wrangling that went on over Notre Dame. valeursactuelles.com/societe/notre-… 6/
A much older article that has been resurfaced from The Art Newspaper is worth a read: theartnewspaper.com/analysis/churc… 7/
Not the first time the consequences of laïcité has prompted emotive debate. See this @bopinion piece by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry that argues that secularism stifles public debate on integrating Muslims. bloomberg.com/opinion/articl… 8/
The purpose here is to glean lessons, to understand if there were systemic failings and determine how to protect other heritage sites. But it fits into a broader debate about redefining the role of the state that Macron has taken on. 9/
