Love The Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance by Jakobsen and Pellegrini (Grade: 85%)

In their book, Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance, Jakobsen and Pellegrini present five chapters which move from critiques of modern day religious thought to constructive suggestions for activism and changing the political and social landscape of the United States. In the first chapter “Getting Religion”, the authors discuss two separate Supreme Court cases which illustrate the overreaching influence of Christianity in American society. Chapter two “What’s Wrong with Tolerance” discusses the difference between tolerance, in which the majority dominates the minority and freedom, in which everyone has true freedom without one group being privileged over another. Chapter three “Not Born This Way” marries the two previous concepts to suggest that sexuality is a way in which people express their personal identities. The authors believe that religious influence has allowed for personal identity expressions in the past. The fourth chapter “The Free Exercise of Sex” proposes that public space itself should be redefined to not only allow for heterosexual expresses of sexuality but homosexual expressions as well. Lastly, chapter five “Valuing Sex” goes deeper into the very idea of morality and what it means to be moral, suggesting that homosexual sex can be moral and ethical.

            While Jakobsen and Pellegrini make some compelling arguments, there are limitations to their research. Most importantly, they seem to quickly move over not only historical discussions of homosexuality but also tenets of social psychology and sociology. While much of their research comes from rhetorical and critical analysis of artifacts in the social sphere, they seem not to go deep enough. Rather than discuss the history in depth of Scalia’s comments about Judeo-Christian values, they scratch the surface. One would think that other cases, outside of the realm of homosexuality, could provide more insight. If there were numerous cases in which this parameter was applied, then one might be able to see a pattern that could be approached from a different angle for change. Jakobsen and Pellegrini’s major argument seems to be that we must change the iron grip that Christianity, and more specifically Protestantism, has over the United States. One has to wonder that since homosexuality is not as widely accepted in the social sphere and public places, why the authors did not suggest to expose the bias in acts against free speech or religion. They do try to urge activists to see homosexuality as a First Amendment Right, a way to gather in public spaces and express identities freely, but this does nothing to expose the overall impact and dominance of Christianity. I feel that this is a root problem which is heavily influenced by social psychology and sociology.

            Most are familiar with the quote that nothing unites people faster than a common enemy. Jakobsen and Pellegrini touch on this briefly in their discussion on what it means to be white, that some immigrant groups were not considered white until recently. Deviance from the majority creates differing values and interests. This deviance also creates an us versus them mentality that the authors discuss. The problem is that they do not go far enough with this idea. Religion has been used to persecute, ostracize, and murder “deviant” groups for millennia. It is a basic part of human nature. The authors miss the mark when they neglect to discuss ideas of assimilation and acceptance. While they discuss the civil rights movement, they fail to draw parallels effectively between interracial marriage and sex to homosexuality.

            That is not to say that homosexuals should be forced to assimilate to the dominant Christian culture of the United States. It just seems that Jakobsen and Pellegrini fail to realize that assimilation has been such a large part of the acceptance of minority groups in the past and when one is accepted, another other emerges to be ridiculed and denied basic human rights. Their work is a good jumping off point but it does not go far enough to get to the root of the discrimination of minority groups in the United States.