Seizures are transitions, bans are freedom
Yevstratiy Zoria. Photo: YouTube channel ISLND TV
Something truly remarkable happened in the U.S., even by today’s cynical standards. Yevstratiy Zoria, the spokesperson for the OCU, stated at the International Religious Freedom Summit that religion should be banned. More precisely, he justified why the Ukrainian Orthodox Church must be destroyed.
First, he spent a long time discussing the “Nazism” of the ROC, and then, suddenly, he switched to the topic of banning the UOC, projecting all of Moscow’s “sins” onto it as well.
This is a simple yet deceitful manipulation: if the ROC is “Nazi,” then so is the UOC. And so, let’s ban it. He also assured the audience that 80% of Ukrainians supposedly support banning the UOC.
"Therefore, together with everyone who strives to protect freedom, we will work to ensure that freedom of religion is protected" (read: destroyed – Ed.), this great champion of freedom proclaimed.
Zoria is practically the Orwell of our time. In his novel 1984, Orwell wrote that “War is peace, and freedom is slavery.”
The OCU spokesperson took it even further. In his rhetoric, “freedom of religion” actually means prohibition of religion.
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.