In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance.
  • William R. Stayton
Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance. By Janet R. Jakobsen and Ann Pellegrini. New York: New York University Press, 2003. Pp. 175. $23.00 (cloth); $17.00 (paper).

It is seldom that I can incorporate in class lectures what I'm reading in a book before I have even finished it. Such a book is Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance . By the time I finished it I realized how much I had learned about the history of our judicial system and the interplay of religion and sexuality. One of the dangers in reviewing this book is not doing it justice, because every paragraph is replete with theory and historical examples. (It would be interesting to know how the authors would have responded to the recent Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, striking down the sodomy laws and affirming the right to privacy. The book was written before this historic decision.) Since finishing this book I have had numerous conversations, even on a national level, about the exciting concepts, historical precedents, and Supreme Court decisions that are the basis of Love the Sin . I hope that I can convey some of the rich kernels of the authors' thinking in this review.

Among Love the Sin's many premises, I will comment on four. The first is that sex and religion are tightly bound together in our country: one cannot discuss the one very long before the other arises. Despite the First Amendment, which separates church and state ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), some conservative Christian views of sexuality have become the basis for public policy, most notably, on homosexuality. Jakobsen and Pellegrini review several major Supreme Court decisions on the issue of homosexuality that are based on conservative Protestant views of the Bible. They also address the confusion that occurs when so-called Christian theological statements become institutionalized as "good old American values," when theological views are expressed by the Court as a matter of law and ethics. Jakobsen and Pellegrini believe strongly that the Bible should never frame public and social policy about sexuality or homosexuality, even though it might be important and appropriate in the context of a church or religious discussion.

The second premise is that Americans need to change the terms of discourse from one that emphasizes conflict between sexual practices and religious (Christian) values to one that reveals the inextricable links between sexual freedom and religious freedom. Jakobsen and Pellegrini criticize the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community for asking for far too little in their quest for tolerance and equal rights; they should be asking for freedom and equal justice. The authors challenge the religious concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it allows someone to seem compassionate while at the same time acting punitively. They propose that "tolerance can never be an effective replacement for the value [End Page 252] of freedom" and that freedom, including religious freedom, is a better foundation for creating justice.

Jakobsen and Pellegrini also question the concept of "born that way." The GLBT community often sincerely argues that they were "born that way" and that sexual preference is not a choice. The authors believe that this approach, while possibly true, "has serious, even dangerous, limitations. This position may be scientifically debated with some success; however, it does not meet the challenge of biblical literalists who argue homosexual sex is both biblically condemned and against 'nature.'" The authors cleverly and appropriately use historically based data from television and other media to support their view that attempting to support the GLBT case scientifically or with a different biblical perspective is to miss the point. The issue is that no religion should dictate public policy. The answer to the dilemma of the claim to be "born that way" and the biblical injunction to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" is to rethink sexual freedom in terms of practices, which is the very issue that the Religious Right keeps bringing up...

pdf