MFA – UN: You should only see Russia's crimes against religion. Not ours
UN. Photo: Glavcom
It reads the following: “The Foreign Ministry's commentary on the false accusations of the UN about Ukraine's alleged restriction of religious freedoms.”
The main theses with our comments are:
1. The Foreign Ministry “rejects the UN conclusions” regarding the law on banning the UOC.
2. The law does not ban anything, but only “does not allow subordination” of religious organisations of Ukraine to centres in the Russian Federation”.
Sounds beautiful, but here's the problem – there are dozens of statements by MPs who directly say that this is exactly the law to ban the UOC. It turns out that for the internal consumer we talk about the fight against “Moscow priests”, but for the external consumer we say that there is no such fight. The Foreign Ministry also forgot to say that if such “subordination” is discovered, the organisation will be banned. And the scheme is as follows:
- First, DESS conducts an “expert examination” of the documents of the aggressor country (the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church), after which it concludes that the UOC is subordinate to the Russian Church. At the same time, the provisions of the UOC’s Statute about its non-subordination to Moscow are ignored.
- The next stage – eparchies and communities of the UOC will be forced to break this non-existent connection.
- If you do not break this non-existent ties, you will be banned by court.
3. The Foreign Ministry reminded the UN that the Russian Federation uses religion in war.
No one argues, but what does the UOC and the law on its ban have to do with it?
4. Ukraine must protect citizens “from the destructive influence of the aggressor state, including with the use of religious organisations, which in Russia are fused with the state”.
The same question: what does the UOC have to do with it? Where is the evidence that there was such influence through it? There is not and cannot be any.
5. Russia commits religious crimes.
The same question: what does the UOC have to do with it?
6. The Foreign Ministry expects that the UN will “record Russian crimes against Ukrainian believers, religious communities and leaders, and church property”.
The final phrase is obviously missing here – and the UN will not record “Ukrainian” crimes against Ukrainian believers.
Our Foreign Ministry is counting VERY much on this.
Read also
A hint at a new demographic reality?
It appears that we are facing a mass influx of migrants from the poorest countries of Africa and other regions. And the absolute majority of them will profess Islam.
On the seizure of a UGCC сhurch in Tokmak
Statements by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church about “blasphemy” are not the cry of a persecuted Church. They are a textbook example of double standards.
On Budanov's statement regarding UOC
For Yelensky and his the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), Budanov's statement was very untimely.
Why does OCU still celebrate Easter “with Moskals”?
On social media, “patriots” are again asking in exasperation: why are we still celebrating Easter with Moscow? How much longer?
Did Patriarch Bartholomew really mourn Filaret’s death?
Constantinople has never recognized Filaret as a patriarch – not “His Holiness,” not “honorary,” not under any title whatsoever. That alone makes the line in the Ukrainian presidential press service’s report sound astonishingly implausible.
Why did Dumenko sit in Metropolitan Onufriy’s chair?
The head of the OCU has his own residence – and Filaret’s residence as well. But what he needs is the Lavra, Metropolitan Onufriy’s office and chair.