Opinion

How do you get a bunch of non-Christians to listen to 50 minutes of talk about God and the Christian way? I know, tell them you’ll talk about genocide for an hour and then talk about it for 10 minutes. They’ll spend the other 50 minutes listening to your preaching, wondering when you’re going to get on topic. I mean, no, they’ll sit in awed reverance, utterly convinced and converted by your magical gospel. Why stop there? Why don’t we have debates featuring each religion that is practiced in Canada? We’ll have Sikh day and Jewish day, Buddhist day and Orthodox day, and when all our talks are finished, people won’t know what to believe anymore! After all, all you need to do to convert people is to have a talk explaining why your religion is right. Last Friday, June 22, Campus for Christ (C4C), formerly Campus Crusade for Christ, hosted a talk which was advertised variously as “Is Genocide Wrong?” and “Is Genocide Wrong: Moral absolutes and where do they come from?” When I first saw these banners, I chuckled to myself, thinking, “Who on Earth is gonna argue that it’s okay?” Later, while chatting with friends, someone suggested that perhaps the morality of genocide is quite debatable in countries where it’s already taken place — that maybe the victims learn to blame themselves and believe they deserved what they went through. Not convinced, but without any genocide victims to back me up, I thought that the debate at least promised

opinion@imprint.uwaterloo.ca

Imprint, Friday, June 29, 2007

Religion: genocide of free thinkers
COMMUNITY EDITORIAL
some good intellectual discussion — and perhaps an in-depth look at cultures where genocide has happened. However, at the last minute, I couldn’t help but express some skepticism that C4C would hold true to their supposed topic. A Christian friend of mine lightly chided me for my pre-emptive judgement, insisting that I shouldn’t assume they would veer off topic. C4C might as well have advertised their talk was about chocolate bars. The talk itself was about an hour long. Ten minutes of that was about genocide, and only in the loosest, most superficial sense; genocide as an example of a moral dilemma, as far as moral dilemmas relate to God. All the chalk drawings across campus that screamed for my attention to this “debate” about “genocide” purposely misled me. Or was it on purpose? That was what I asked C4C. In an email response, a very polite representative of this Feds club explained to me the basis of their organization and how they run. I’m thankful for the politeness, but I still don’t agree with the content. According to Brad Stewart, a C4C leader, the main purpose of the club is to spread the word of Jesus to every university student. They purport this is necessary because some people haven’t heard of ol’ JC before. Apparently a lot of people missed out on the WWJD fashion trend. As far as advertising goes, obnoxious and in-your-face is no problem, as long as students are aware of C4C and their latest events. I regret not asking specifically about misrepresentation of the debate in question, since that’s what I wanted to know. I guess politeness reigns on both fronts. I was afraid to sound rude by asking, “Why did you say your talk was all about genocide?” Stewart cites Canada’s “deep Christian heritage” as a main reason for spreading the word of Jesus. How deep, you say? Well I guess you could say after we took Canada over from the Aboriginals, and well, just before we opened our doors to immigrants from countries all over the world, there must have been at least a 50 year period of deep Christianity in there somewhere. I sound facetious, I know. I’m not trying to be. It’s just really hard to keep a cool head when talking about religion and especially evangelism. I take it personally, yes. Why not? As with any evangelical faith, C4C throws my views, experience and beliefs out the window. They have so little respect for my beliefs that they think it’s okay to get me to listen to theirs by any means necessary. I have some critical questions here: Who are these talks meant for? Do these events actually aim to encourage debate?
See DEBATE , page 8
Friday, June 29, 2007 — Vol. 30, No. 5 Student Life Centre, Room 1116 University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 P: 519.888.4048 F: 519.884.7800 imprint.uwaterloo.ca Editor-in-chief, Adam McGuire editor@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Advertising & Production Manager, Laurie Tigert-Dumas ads@imprint.uwaterloo.ca General Manager, Catherine Bolger cbolger@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Sales Assistant, Andrea Hession Co-op Student, Amanda Henhoeffer Board of Directors board@imprint.uwaterloo.ca President, Adam Gardiner president@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Vice-president, Jacqueline McKoy vp@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Treasurer, Lu Jiang treasurer@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Secretary, Alaa Yassim secretary@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Staff liaison, Rob Blom liaison@imprint.uwaterloo.ca Editorial Staff Assistant Editor, Ashley Csanady Lead Proofreader, Kinga Jakab Cover Editor, vacant News Editor, Emma Tarswell News Assistant, Adrienne Raw Opinion Editor, Mohammad Jangda Features Editor, Scott Houston Arts Editor, Andrew Abela Science Editor, Brendan Pinto Sports Editor, vacant Photo Editor, Michael L. Davenport Graphics Co-editor, Peter Trinh Graphics Co-editor, Christine Ogley Web Editor, Gunjan Chopra Systems Administrator, Dan Agar Sys. Admin. Assistant, vacant Production Staff Steven R. McEvoy, Ashley Csanady, Paul Collier, Joy Anderson, Brita Hallberg, Angelo Florendo, Anya Lomako, Rob Blom, Adam Gardiner

Not convinced, but without any genocide victims to back me up, I thought that the debate at least promised some good intellectual discussion...

Cum as you are
Faking orgasms has always intrigued me because it’s something I’ve never done. It’s not that it’s never been needed, it’s just that I prefer an awkward, “Um… no, that’s good” rather than an elaborate performance. Still, most women will or have faked orgasms, and I’ve always wondered why. Last week I solicited “faking it” tales and got some pretty interesting responses. Besides a pretty unbelievable tale posted as a comment on the website, my responses were all female and all for pretty much the same reason: I just wanted the encounter to end. From one girl who faked for an entire relationship to another who wanted an awkward encounter with a good friend to end, the general sentiment was, “It wasn’t going to happen, and I didn’t know how to let him know.” Why is it so ingrained that sex isn’t over until both parties have reached climax — even when it doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen? I found an interesting article on this very subject from a sociology journal, Body & Society, entitled “Faking like a Woman? Towards an interpretive theorization of sexual pleasure,” by Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott. The article suggests that while many feminists argue that the female proclivity to “fake it” is a result of a misogynistic misunderstanding of female sexuality, in reality “the current masculine meanings associated with the ‘sexual sentence’ and orgasm itself are not given by male sexual anatomy and physiology, but are the product of culturally ordered meanings embedded in particular social practices. The meanings of orgasm derive from social, not biological contexts.” The article explains that we are taught almost from birth that “a man’s virility is represented as control of both his own and his partner’s sexual response: ‘She’s transported to another world; he’s the pilot of the ship

Why is it so ingrained that sex isn’t over until both parties have reached climax — even when it doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen?
that takes her there.’” The female is therefore taught that her role is to reinforce his capabilities and perform accordingly. The moans, cries, facial expressions and bodily reactions we typically associate with female orgasm are, in fact, not organic bodily reactions, but a series of cues and performative techniques ingrained in our psyche as we develop an image of what sex “should” be. We are socially taught — from before we even know what sex is — that the “natural” progression of sex is foreplay, followed by intercourse, culminating in orgasm. If a woman fails to orgasm, both she — and more importantly — her partner, have failed. Here’s the thing, sex doesn’t begin and end in orgasm. By faking it you’re not only teaching your partner that he’s doing something right when he isn’t, you’re reinforcing the age-old fallacy that sex is only about attaining orgasm. As Jackson and Scott write, “Human sexual embodiment can neither be thought of as an abstract potentiality outside the social spaces where it is lived, nor as a mere assemblage of organs, orifices and orgasms.” Maybe the sexual sentence needs to catch up with our postmodern age and be deconstructed. The realms of sexuality have potential to go above and beyond our current understanding, but, by faking it, women are perpetuating the current system. So stop ladies; don’t fake it and tell your partner the truth. At best, it could change your entire concept of sex; at worst, he’ll get offended — but at least you won’t have to fake it ever again.
acsanady@imprint.uwaterloo.ca

Imprint is the official student newspaper of the University of Waterloo. It is an editorially independent newspaper published by Imprint Publications, Waterloo, a corporation without share capital. Imprint is a member of the Ontario Community Newspaper Association (OCNA). Editorial submissions may be considered for publication in any edition of Imprint. Imprint may also reproduce the material commercially in any format or medium as part of the newspaper database, Web site or any other product derived from the newspaper. Those submitting editorial content, including articles, letters, photos and graphics, will grant Imprint first publication rights of their submitted material, and as such, agree not to submit the same work to any other publication or group until such time as the material has been distributed in an issue of Imprint, or Imprint declares their intent not to publish the material. The full text of this agreement is available upon request. Imprint does not guarantee to publish articles, photographs, letters or advertising. Material may not be published, at the discretion of Imprint, if that material is deemed to be libelous or in contravention with Imprint’s policies with reference to our code of ethics and journalistic standards. Imprint is published every Friday during fall and winter terms, and every second Friday during the spring term. Imprint reserves the right to screen, edit and refuse advertising. One copy per customer. Imprint ISSN 07067380. Imprint CDN Pub Mail Product Sales Agreement no. 40065122. Next staff meeting: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 12:30 p.m. Next board meeting: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:30 a.m. 

Opinion
continued from page 7

Imprint, Friday, June 29, 2007

Debate: disguised evangelism
According to the C4C website, their mandate is “Helping to change the world through turning lost students to Christ-centred labourers.” They use debates, special events, websites and one-on-one evangelism to do this. So I make the connection that it’s no accident that their events are mislabeled. In order to change “lost students” you have to attract said students, even and especially if they don’t give a damn what you have to say. Friday’s speaker claimed that C4C aims to spark discussion about “spiritual issues.” But not to Christians. Bear with me, and I’ll elaborate. The talk went through the very basic tenets of fundamental Christianity — tenets that any Christian would know by heart and be able to elaborate on in a lot more depth. Issues such as: where do morals come from (God), why it is relevant (because the Bible says so, and good Christians should care), does evil exist (yes, it comes from the Devil), etc. I’ve been to church before. These kinds of points are so basic, it’s just assumed that you know and agree. One would argue these points with an atheist, or an agnostic. Let me be clear. I don’t have a problem with religion, or with Christianity in particular. What I have a problem with is evangelism, and also the interference of religion in our political system and civic rights. We’re concerned about the Taliban? This is the thin end of the wedge. Evangelism takes what should be personal and makes it everyone’s business. It’s like a religious Facebook! Okay, scratch that. I’ll put it this way: I highly doubt there’s a God, and even if there is, I don’t think organized religion is a good way to live one’s life. And that’s me, and I’m entitled to my opinion. Thank the Charter of Rights every Canadian is entitled to theirs. Furthermore, although I have my own beliefs, I respect the beliefs of others. You will never hear me lecture my Christian, Muslim or other religious friends about how they should become atheists. Never. How would we all be friends if I brought this up daily? Don’t I think that they’ve thought their religion through? Or that if they haven’t, they’re entitled to a blind sense of faith? Yes and yes. It’s been put forth that you can’t compare the fusion of church and state, for example in Iran, to a country like Canada. I don’t mean to exaggerate the influence of Campus for Christ, but think of this: if fundamentalist lobby groups were to grow in strength, would abortion become illegal again? What about gay marriage? What about anal sex, for that matter? What other civic rights could be debated from a religious stance? Both abortion and gay marriage were discussed in the lecture. From Campus for Christ’s viewpoint, both are immoral. The speaker argued that the repercussions of those acts outlast our short, human vision, as do any acts that go against traditional (Christian) biblical teachings. You know, that myth that gay men are responsible for the spread of AIDS, and that free-loving hippies accomplished nothing but the spread of STIs. Remember that Stephen Harper didn’t attend Canada’s International AIDS conference, held in Toronto? Here’s a guess as to why: AIDS came from gays, and Harper wanted nothing to do with it. Nevermind that it’s just a myth. I could go on forever, but I’ll try to sum this up. Campus for Christ has it in their mission statement that all non-Christians need to be converted. In my opinion, they’ve shown that any method of getting non-Christians to listen to their method is okay. Trick them into attending a “debate.” Hey, the problem is to get them there. After that, God does his work and atheists become deists. Besides, who cares what people already believe, if it isn’t Campus for Christ’s version of “traditional” Christianity? I’m not impressed. Can’t we all just agree to disagree? Failing that, at least be honest about your lectures.
— Christine Ogley

Threesome in the top bunk
What better way to get accustomed to University life than by sharing about sixteen cubic feet with two complete strangers? When UW’s fall 2007 admission numbers were released on June 18, the school’s PR department published a flowery press release about how everyone and their brother wanted to study at Waterloo. And while nearly 6,000 new minds will certainly benefit from this campus, one question must be asked: Where the hell are all these kids going to sleep? Enter Ron Eydt Village — or REV, as inhabitants call it — a residence building on the northwest corner of campus known for its tight sense of community. It’s about to get a whole lot tighter. Some of the two-bedroom REV rooms will be turned into three-bedroom units with the addition of an upper bunk to one of the existing beds in the room, in order to accommodate the excessive influx of frosh expected this year. UW saw 5,825 people take the school’s offer of acceptance, meaning enrolment will be 114 per cent of the expected target. Suddenly — in a unit that’s virtually small enough to high-five your roommate while you both lay on your beds — a UW housing official bursts in singing the theme from “Three’s company.” Welcome to Ron Eydt Village. Please leave your personal space bubbles outside. To discourage students from feeling slighted at REV’s new stacker models, frosh that choose to take residence in a converted three-bed unit will be rewarded with $500 off their housing bill per term, 100 flex dollars on their WatCard, as well as a promised spot in UW’s upper-year residences for the duration of their UW undergrad career. Something stinks with this offer — and it’s not the unsanitary math student sleeping on the mattress three feet above you. The deal will accomplish one of two things: it will either eliminate the already scarce amount of upper-year, first-come-first-serve spaces, or it will postpone the problem for 12 months while UW admin pray for Jim Balsillie to donate an already-constructed, gajillion-square-foot, 26-floor residence building that he flies in with helicopters and plops down on a cement pad north of Columbia street. I don’t care what UW offers these kids; the residence fiasco is simply poor business. Seemingly unbeknownst to the problem solvers at UW student housing, we need these students to actually come back next year. “Sure, I had no desk and I had to use my bed posts as clothes hangers and I slept with my face eight inches from the ceiling, but I think that’s a place I’d like to go back to.” The University only gets one chance to make a good first impression on these frosh. And at this rate, it will be a literal impression — of a stucco

ceiling design on the faces of the first-years in the upper, upper, upper bunks. The same thing happened at Wilfrid Laurier a few years ago — doubles into triples, irate students, sardine-can living situations, a public relations disaster, and refunds left and right. So to fix the problem, WLU sucked it up and constructed a brand-new apartment style residence on King Street. Obviously UW isn’t going to turn more people away (it’s not good for the University’s income statements). So let’s steal a cure from our neighbours down the road — take one of the many slabs of land at UW and build another block of residences. Should capital Right now, there are a total of 10Feds recognize Greek Life on campus? construction projects on UW’s docket, with costs totalling $258 million. And as each of the 5,825 frosh get set to sign their first of many tuition 3.2% cheques, not one of those 10 buildingsGreek Life on campus? Should Feds recognize and ad(157 votes) ditions will give them a place to lay their heads. Yes 3.8% Makes you wonder: how much closet space can Should Feds recognize Greek Life you get for a quarter-billion dollars? No 3.2% 23.6% It’s time UW’s higher-ups acknowledged this on campus? as a serious problem, not something they can Not sure Yes 3.8% band-aid with discounts, promises and bunk beds. And if the university’s administration doesn’t real- 69.4% What's a Greek Life? No ize the issue and break ground soon, I propose 23.6% another solution to the problem: How many bunk beds will fit in Needles Hall, I wonder? Not sure Discussions, pollsof 157 more at: (out and votes) http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca 69.4%

Online Poll

editor@imprint.uwaterloo.ca

What's a Greek Life?

(out of 157 votes)