UOC procession vs. Hasidic pilgrimage: one war, two security standards

In Vinnytsia region, UOC pilgrimages are banned while Hasidic pilgrimages are allowed. Photo: UOJ

Ukraine has already demonstrated more than enough striking examples of its unprecedented “freedom of religion.” Yet the authorities keep producing new ones.

The Vinnytsia authorities canceled the religious procession from Brailiv Monastery to Pochaiv – and almost immediately held a meeting with police and border guards on how to ensure the safe passage of tens of thousands of Hasidic pilgrims through the region to Uman.

In both cases, the authorities invoke the same word: “security.”

But that security appears to be remarkably selective.

The procession to Pochaiv Lavra follows rural roads and fields in western Ukraine, where the likelihood of a Russian missile or drone strike is minimal. Hasidic pilgrims, by contrast, arrive in Uman by the tens of thousands and gather within a relatively small area. In the event of a strike, the number of casualties could be enormous – the city does not have enough shelters even for a small fraction of the pilgrims.

Yet UOC believers are told that their pilgrimage must be banned for “security” reasons.

When it comes to tens of thousands of Jewish pilgrims, however, those same security concerns somehow cease to be grounds for a ban. Instead, officials discuss routes, border procedures, transport flows, and how best to organize their arrival.

The same country. The same war. The same risks.

Different believers – different rules.

Rarely have double standards in religious policy been displayed so openly.

Read also

OCU in the Lavra: When a recording replaces the choir

Parishioners have been pushed out of the Lavra. The monks are barred from the churches. But there is room for a handful of OCU “monks.”

Sviatohirsk murder no one is allowed to talk about

Logic suggests that Zelensky was informed about the monk’s murder that very day.

Sviatohirsk Lavra tragedy: A confession of faith or not?

The killers came to the monastery and, after hearing the words “Glory to our Lord God” in response, began to kill. What matters is that the victims were given a choice: they could give the “right” answer and escape death.

Have the talking points on the Sviatohirsk murder already been rolled out?

Espreso gives viewers the unmistakable impression that nothing particularly terrible happened – and that no one should feel too sorry for the “Moscow Patriarchate monks.”

Why are a rabbi and an exarch pleading for corruption suspects?

The rabbi and the exarch are both highly intelligent men and cannot fail to understand that their actions are dealing a serious blow to their reputations. Yet they still went to court. Why?

The Lavra: Who is the master of the house?

Neither the authorities nor the OCU actually need Orthodox churches. What they need is to show who is in charge of them.