Their 9-11 literature, by the way, was the most culturally sensitive “post-disaster” Christian literature I’ve ever seen. In New York City, people generally throw away anything you hand out. New Yorkers with no spiritual interest to speak of were coming up to those handing them out asking for more.

As for the Zucker film, it was the first Airplane movie. (I believe Airport was a real disaster film, perhaps even one of the inspirations for Airplane.)

‘That argument did not sway Ms. Marshall. Even if the ad was not overtly religious, “it was made by a religious organization. And we don’t accept advertising from any religious group.”’

Fact: over 20% of Canadians think that the ideas behind the DaVinci Code are true. That’s more Canadians than go to church on Sundays.

I might not like that, but the truth is that people these days seem to be losing their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

That being the case, I think the real double standard is for the movie theatre to accept a movie that spreads disinformation about the history of Christianity, and then not to accept a little ad like the CCforC ad. ‘We’ll make money out of slamming Christianity, but won’t allow advertising that gives access to an alternative view’.

Please understand - I think that the Four Spiritual Laws of CCforC are a gross misrepresentation of the Gospel, and I have very little time for CCforC. I just think the movie chain is being hypocritical here.

As a matter offact I CCforC wasn’t at the movie theatre I was at, I rejected the DaVinci code poster. To be honest I would have accepted the CCforC literature and rejected the DaVinci code poster. However, I don’t mind having the poster people or the CCforC handing out literature. Nobody has to accept it andif people do accept it and read it fine.

I do feel while in and of itself Cineplex isn’t discrediting CCforC, I do think calling their actions “stalking” is clearly not the case and is very harsh to such a reputible organization.

I also to believe the implication that CCforC is being deceptive.

Just because you question the effectiveness doesn’t mean the pamphlets don’t work. If by reading the pamphlet one person accepts Christ then in my opinion it was affective.

DH:  The directive you requested is on the sidebar under About.  BD

415 locations with 5,612 screens, located in the US, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Hong Kong, France, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom.

“Our circuit of high-performing theatres is primarily located in large, urban markets where we have a strong market position.

Our theatres are the choice of more than 250 million moviegoers each year and our guests Experience the DifferenceSM at our locations. The company’s reputation for innovation can be seen in everything from the smallest details to groundbreaking ideas that have transformed the movie exhibition industry — such as the megaplex, which premiered in Dallas, Texas in 1995.

We have a preeminent brand that is recognized in the marketplace…”

That AMC?
An entertainment company, out to make loyal customers in a competitive marketplace. They aren’t being deceptive since I assume you paid to see the movie and got a poster as part of your price of admission. Thats nice.
I’m assuming from this conversation you paid to watch a movie, took and looked at the poster they gave you, but didn’t read the Campus Crusade literature.

Your premise: question the importance of the AMC giving out movie posters which is the same thing as Campus Crusade for Christ giving out tracts.

AMC poster important?
No.
Promotion to discredit Campus Crusade for Christ?
No.
I believe these pamphletters are sincere.
Question methodology and effectiveness of believing information consumerism makes disciples.
Yes.

Double standard?
I know you believe that.

Campus Crusade for Christ’s reputation?
Financials - 3 stars.
Supporters/critics summarized well.
http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/F_SumRpt.asp?EIN=956006173

I’m not going to take a tract shoved in my face if I’m out for entertainment. Don’t care who you are.
I wouldn’t take a poster from AMC shoved in my face either, okay?

I don’t know if Cineplex Canada hands out Da Vinci posters DH, don’t care if they do or not.

 I’m not going to spend time, energy or money on a  product line I’m not interested in.

You still haven’t rebutted this adequately: “Maybe you need to question the importance of AMC giving out DaVinci code movie posters which is the same thing as CCforC giving out tracts.”

That is the point. I still have major problems with Cineplex calling the actionsof CCforC as “stalking” when in fact they are just handing out literature just like the movie attendent did with me regarding the “DaVinci Code” movie poster. The fact is they are the equivilent but biased people think otherwise for some reason I have no idea except their own form of promotion. Maybe Bene you are doing a promotion to discredit CCforC? Just wondering in light of the double standard on your site.

“North America’s largest evangelical group, Campus Crusade, has mobilized a small army of volunteers from Toronto to Vancouver willing to stalk movie-goers in the line outside cinemas. They plan to hand out biblical tracts debunking the movie’s claim…”

10 people handing out tracts in this area would be perceived as a small army. In TO, they’d just get trampled. It was a poor choice of words, that got a lot of free publicity for a couple of organization/companies; however - the reporter may genuinely feel threatened or perceive this behavior as stalking. No editor chose to change the language, and we don’t know why.

Sooo- Moving on -

Cineplex Canada, taking it’s media cue, on cue, emails Campus Crusade for Christ in Vancouver:

“With the knowledge that this organization plans to ’stalk’ our moviegoers outside of our theatres handing out unapproved material concerning a film we are presenting, we cannot lend support to this activity by running this campaign,” wrote Cineplex ad saleswoman Diane Rajh.”

Okay.
The media piles on and gets a re-act from Campus Crusade’s Canadian media guy -

“Ten students in Montreal said they might go out to a few theatres and hand out the material,” he added. “A handful of students in Calgary said they might as well. This is not some massive army we have assembled.”

And the obligatory corrective re-act from Cineplex head office -

The e-mail that Cineplex sent to the organization was a “mistake.” Ms. Rajh, she added, “is misinformed.”
Cineplex’s decision to drop the brief spot was made because the company “does not show any religious advertising at all,” Ms. Marshall explained, even if it promotes a film the company is showing in its theatres. The contract with Campus Crusade was made in error. “It slipped though the cracks.”

Getting the picture?
Campus Crusade for Christ Canada gets more publicity than they can ever pay for in a 10 second spot because a reporter used words like stalked and small army.

My question is this: Was Cineplex Canada even aware (given their policy) that a religious ad had been shipped to them?

Seems to me the screwups go beyond a reporters poor choice of a few words - through to a cross-border marketing campaign, shipping or marketing errors, and media overdrive. Seems to me the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing at Cineplex Canada or at Campus Crusade for Christ Canada.
At least they finally communicated, eh?

It is a win-win for Campus Crusade for Christ Canada.

a) they get their money back (don’t know if that 63 thousand comes from the US or Cdn office)
b) get to have their ‘10 students in Montreal’ (which is curious because Montreal is east of Ontario and The Toronto Star said Ontario to Vancouver:^)
c) get more publicity than 63 thousand could ever buy.

We aren’t told:
a) how many people across Canada are actually out on the sidewalk
b) how Cineplex Canada made the mistake with the ad
c) where the literature came from (Cda/US)
d) who paid for it
e) where it was actually shipped to in Canada
f) how much of it there is distributed across Canada
g) who alerted the Toronto Star - Cineplex, CCC, or unknown?

If, and it’s a big if, Cdn movie goers in say Anigonish, Sept-Iles, Watson Lake, The Pas or Red Deer remembered the URL, what are the odds they’ll actually think click on it?
Slim to none I think.
And how many of those the Cdn theatres are actually in an area where Campus Crusade for Christ Canada might actually have students out on the sidewalk?
Slim.
National media coverage?
priceless.

Maybe you need to question the importance of AMC giving out DaVinci code movie posters which is the same thing as CCforC giving out tracts.

To harsh toward CCforC for handing out tracts “shoving it in peoples face” seems strange to me in light of Sony doing it with regard to them “shoving” “DaVinci code” movie posters in my face. It seems like a double standard. You seem to have a very strong, biased, double standard with anything Evangelical. Hollywood can “shove literature” (which I don’t consider shoving) but Evangelicals can’t do the same. No one is making anyone accept the literature. If you don’t like the literature pleasantly reject it and go on. Rather than be harsh toward people handing out the literature.

The reason it didn’t bother me that I was asked if I wanted the movie poster is because I would want the same respect if I was handing out a tract.
I don’t see what the big deal is about a tract or what is so wrong with it. I think if you dig deep into the meanings that Evangelism is indirectly a form of marketing.

DH: I expect Sony and the companies it is in symbosis with to be in my face, it’s their job, they sell entertainment. I apologize for not stating the obvious.

Let’s not complicate the apparent.
I’m a consumer - and will make the decision about entertainment according to my tastes.

No, I don’t think there is a hidden agenda, it’s a book based on a gnostic gospel that got made into a movie. The Exorcist, Elmer Gantry, yada, yada.
I’m not willfully a hostage to consumerism, I attempt to be willfully aware of marketing, and I am not in a culture war. I’m not frantic about the universal church, God’s love or the work of the Holy Spirit, and have no more use for an evangelical knee jerk reaction than I do to Cineplex’s decision to call pamphlettering stalking.

If tracts have been useful to you, great.

Information is not the primary path to spiritual transformation, it is part of the path, I’m questioning the misplaced importance of various means of distribution.