The right to offend is a vital component of free speech

Free speech is a weapon for reform, enabling us to criticise wrong-doing, expose hypocrisy and shine a light on abuse of power. What is more, it has a long history, with its origins in the Bible and the words of the prophets, whose mission was primarily to protest against contemporary evil and political shortcomings.

Isaiah attacks the monarchy for exceeding its authority (1.23), as well as decrying the corruption of the religious hierarchy (1.11-15). Amos railed against the malpractices of the business community, lambasting the way it cheated and grew rich at the expense of others (8. 4-6). He criticised the neglect of human rights, castigating those who trampled on the weaker members of society (Amos 5. 7, 10-11).

It is not often appreciated that some of the prophets also went in for religious satire: as when Elijah tells the prophets of the idol-god Baal that the reason Baal is not answering their prayers is that maybe he has fallen asleep, or gone to the toilet, and they should shout louder to get his attention (I Kings 18.27). For his part, Isaiah lampoons those who cut down a log of wood, use half for firewood and the other half to carve a god to be worshipped (44.14).

Those who complain about the media giving religious offence, such as Christians horrified by The Life of Brian or Jerry Springer - The Opera simply do not know their sacred history and how religious satire started in the Bible.

There is also the issue of practicality. If we start censoring, how do we decide which faith it is legitimate to criticise and which not?

There are faiths today which many would consider to be bizarre (as some do of aspects of Judaism, too!) such as Scientology, with its belief in space aliens who come to earth, or the Mormons and the gold tablets they claim to have dug up in New York in the 1820s. One person’s sanctity is another person’s idiocy. Protect one faith and we have to protect all, and restricting freedom of speech so much would be a cost too high.

Of course it is painful for those who feel offended, but they can argue back if they disagree, sue if they think it libellous or ignore if they think it spurious. Or do what Mormons did when they were upset by the musical, The Book of Mormon, which poked fun at their scriptures: they saw it as an opportunity to publicise their faith, took out a full page advert in the theatre programme telling the audience ‘You’ve seen the play – now come to the real thing”, inviting them to come to a Mormon meeting themselves and make their own mind up.

What a mature response! No mass protests or veiled threats, but instead combatting criticism with good humour and openness.

Angry people of faith also need to consider their own self-respect. What does it say about a faith if feels it cannot stand-up to satire or criticism. Is its God of the universe so fragile that he needs protection, or that the entire faith system built around that God can be brought crashing down by a film or play?

The only limit should be if freedom of speech provokes violence and encourages listeners to attack others. There should be freedom to offend, but no freedom to incite.

Those upset by The Lady of Heaven should have avoided the film or peacefully handed out leaflets correcting any factual errors they felt had been made, but not threatened the cinema or prevented others from seeing it.

That old child’s ditty –“Sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but names can never harm me” - applies to religion too. People have the right to express their opinion, and others have the right to call it blasphemy, but they do not have the right to stop it being said.

Dr Jonathan Romain is rabbi of Maidenhead Synagogue