Religion, State and the United Nations

Abstract

In this chapter, we examine free speech at the United Nations (UN) and seek to address the question of why no Jewish or Israeli non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supported the Defamation of Religion campaign (see chapter three)? Was it merely because it was supported by The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) or was there something else at work? We argue for the latter, and explore the concepts of blasphemy and the nature of (free) speech from a Jewish epistemological perspective. We take up the example of Noam Chomsky, and his role as an international actor at the UN, Jew, and free speech advocate in order to explore the issue more deeply. Chomsky's approach to both politics and language serves to mediate our theoretical position. Finally, we take a look on various Jewish NGOs involved in the continuous process of carving out a religious space in the territory of international politics. Philosophical context People talk about the UN as if it were a thing, a substance, though it is not clear what kind of thing it could be. It starts from here. Our friend, Erik, for example, says he worked there, in New York, at the UN-there was some initiative from a Norwegian prime minister. It didn't work out. There are news reports: BBC, NPR, NRK, they talk about it too. Chomsky spoke there, to a large audience. We read about it. We speak about it together. People tell stories. People are thinking very abstractly about global governance. The UN is something that exists, but it exists in different senses: as an agent, as a location, as an object. It is also assumed that the UN enacts values. Value politics at the UN is just politics, and all politics are value laden. All values are communicative, intersubjective, ways of presenting the self to others and oneself. The same goes for institutions, though they operate differently. There is a logic of institutions, logics of money, sex, and God (Friedland 2002). They are self-organizing systems with a drive for self-preservation. Narratives hold them together. But they miss something. The reality of speech is kaleidoscopic, jagged, like shards of shattered glass. The usual presentation of the way the UN is organized and structureddifferentiating between political, administrative, and activist spheres (see Introduction, this volume)-is a useful starting point; a view about the reality of