'You've got to go and see Jerry Springer: the Opera", said my friend. "It's a matter of principle, to support free speech."

She's got a point. After all, I'm on record as not wishing to be pigeonholed alongside the evangelical Christian lobby, many of whom are campaigning vociferously against the stage production. I certainly don't share their view (often, I suspect, expressed without having seen the show) that it should be taken off forthwith.

On the other hand, I don't really want to go and see it, simply because it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I'd enjoy.

But whether I think I'd enjoy it is beside the point. I have no objection to its being staged, even though its content might offend some people. After all, the television schedules are full of things (like the real Jerry Springer show) that I find crude and offensive and don't want to watch. But people are rightly free to produce these shows and to watch them. As far as I can gather, the stage production is "offensive" precisely because it's satirising the original show.

Sometimes, it's necessary to offend to underline a deeply serious point.

Which is where we get round to those cartoons that have caused such a storm. From what I can gather, it's all a bit more complicated than a simple case of free speech versus religious fanaticism. For one thing, they appeared in a paper with right-wing anti-immigration views in a country where the Muslim minority feel marginalised. I also understand the cartoons were pretty crude and not at all witty or clever. All of which doesn't mean they had no right to publish them, but it does suggest a level of insensitivity all round. Having a right to do something doesn't mean you absolutely have to do it.

As for the Muslim protestors, though the offence may be real enough, it looks to me as if a lot of it is simply being used an excuse to stir up trouble. Fundamentalists everywhere are jumping on the bandwagon and whipping the horses into a frenzy, for their own deeper motives.

There's another point too, which religious people of all persuasions need to take on board. Doesn't their own behaviour often denigrate their religion more than any cartoon or play? I'm not just thinking of Muslim suicide bombers here. What about paedophile clergy? Church bodies that put profit before people? Anglicans who use virulently un-Christian language about women priests or homosexuals? Isn't all that a kind of blasphemy too?

So, maybe we need two things: a greater concern for the feelings of those of different faiths who share this world with us - a world in which the Internet can let us know instantly what is being said and done thousands of miles away. And, just as important, a greater awareness among those of us who call ourselves religious that how we behave affects the way others look on our beliefs.

Of course, all this doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up for the principles we hold dear. But we should also be ready to think about what we're doing before we explode in anger; and to learn to distinguish between making a stand and being gratuitously offensive.

So will I go to see Jerry Springer when it comes to Newcastle? I don't know. I'm still considering the matter. But if I do I'll let you know if it's made me change my mind.

Published: 09/02/2006