I have noticed several articles and posts floating around following the theme of "it's just a building", or "there are starving children", or "the rich should give more often".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverw.../#67e668007f60

I understand the sentiments, but I have a difficult time understanding why people are so quick to dispose of history. Notre Dame is just one example, but there are other monuments and buildings that are meaningful, and often symbolic of a people or nations. I am not the type of person to ignore dark parts of history or whitewash bad behavior, but I still appreciate things for what they are. Yes, hundreds of millions of dollars can be used to feed people and yes it is frustrating that entities that have more money than many nations can be found to be quicker to fund reconstruction of a building than alleviating poverty. One user's post on my FB feed stated that Jesus did not care about buildings, but about people. However, could you ask a people to give away a symbol of their nation that has stood for nearly 1000 years in active service?

This isn't a ruin of a forgotten civilization; this building has been looked after and taken care of for longer than anyone could possibly remember. It is possible that it will be there and cared when the current world evolves into the next. Even if the civilization went extinct instead of evolving, such as the case of Sumer or Akkad, the things they built are a look into another world, another form of thinking, even if they are just rocks with flecks of ancient paint and lumps of baked clay with an undecipherable script. Frankly, it is unlikely that we will ever see such things again, barring a profound change on Earth.

In short: Is it immoral to spend money rebuilding Notre Dame, when the money could be spent on other humanitarian projects?

I say no, but that more should be done in terms of the latter.