In the Washington Post’s ‘On Faith’ section, columnist Elizabeth Tenety has covered public statements made by Lady Gaga and Christine O’Donnell on the issue of chastity. In separate columns, Tenety has opined that one of these two public figures has made chastity “cool” while the other should probably keep her mouth shut. Can you guess which one Tenety thinks is “cool” for speaking out about chastity?
On April 13, Tenety wrote: Can Lady GaGa Make Chastity Cool?
Abstinence is often associated with Catholic clergy members and religiously-inspired sex-education programming like True Love Waits. Although in the Daily Mail interview Lady Gaga did not make an explicit connection between her spirituality and her sexuality, she reportedly had a “strict Catholic upbringing” and prays before every performance. Could a celebrity endorsement make waiting for sex cool?[...]
[...] What does Lady Gaga’s endorsement mean for abstinence advocacy? Can it be cool to be chaste?
On September 16, Tenety wrote: What does Christine O’Donnell believe about God?
O’Donnell knows her theology. This particular point, that sex is for mutual self-giving in marriage, is familiar to Christian and Catholic teenagers indoctrinated by hours of religion classes examining the fine print on human sexuality. That O’Donnell espoused such beliefs is not unusual; what is unique is her drive to evangelize in such a public forum.
So, in Tenety’s world, Lady Gaga speaking out about chastity is a positive thing, making it “cool” for teenagers to easily relate to and practice in their own lives. O’Donnell, on the other hand, is “uniquely” speaking out in a “public forum” with something that can only be understood after “hours of religion classes” and “indoctrination”. Call me “kooky” but I’m seeing a double standard here that seems to indicate a desire by some in the leftist media, even of the Religious Left, to destroy Christine O’Donnell’s bid for U.S. Senate in Delaware. One might even call it a smear campaign. What do you think?