People are voting emotionally.

Brilliant and touching

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I am puzzled with the comments by "flowerae" - that "I think that it is wrong to spread the message that there are those that don't accept blood will still live." Who is spreading this "message"? I ask because I have not seen such a message. Is there rightly a message that avoiding blood has many benefits and as such it actually increases your chances of survival? Well, as a Jehovah's Witness, I can tell you that there are DOCTORS who have told us that. When Jehovah's Witnesses talk to people, it is not common for them to bring blood up in a conversation. Rather, it is usually other people who do. I always say that I have no right to insist that they should not have a blood transfusion, "that is between you and your Doctor." On the other hand, I also point out that it would be equally wrong then to tell people, like me, that I MUST have a blood transfusion. It is indeed a very personal matter, between you, the Doctor, your family and what you would never put last on the list, your relationship with God, the Father who gives us all life. Does that then make us fanatics? I don't think so, no more than those who went to war believing they were fighting for a just cause and willing to die, yes, they will even say for "freedom." Do they not also understand that we are also willing likewise. Not that anybody wants to die, no sane person would. But when God is a real person to you, then we should be "free" and have "freedom" as well, to obey for a higher cause. Just think of all those American bodies on Omaha Beach. To many they died for "something" - it was for what the believed in. Nobody thinks they wanted to die. The same goes for Jehovah's Witnesses, forcing them to have blood is taking away something they cherish, and it is also about "freedom." Nobody would want to live and be enslaved at the same time. But, here is the flip side, that God says we will "prosper" if we do "abstain from blood" (Acts 15), that God is not a liar and that the disciple Luke (who wrote Acts) was actually a physician? Yes, several books of the Bible was written by a DOCTOR. May be a coincidence, perhaps, but interesting nonetheless. Avoiding blood has been a blessing - and the benefits hugely outnumbers the negatives, which are actually hard to number at all. My Mother was told she would die in her 30's if she did not have a blood transfusion and an abortion. She got a better Doctor who did care and did not panic. My kid brother was not aborted, but has kids of his own. My Mother? She is now 82. I love the last moments of "Knocking" - the part where the Jew JW (that alone sounds funny) on the carousel with that wonderful expression on his face. Priceless.

I was raised as a JW. I am no longer practicing but understand why many do. I would like to comment on the woman who said she was a JW and worked in the medical field. She posted something on this site. She was discussing the problems with accepting blood transfusions. She said that after 26 years she'd seen those that refused transfusions make it through whatever medical crisis they were going through and to live. I agree that there are many problems that can arise from accepting a blood transfusion and I personally have chosen not to accept blood.However, I think that it is wrong to spread the message that there are those that don't accept blood will still live. Some JW's actually think that if their faith is strong enough, that they will make it through. This is simply not the case. It just depends on how things happen.When I was a child, there was a brother in my parent's congregation who had seven children. He wanted to have more, but his wife's doctor told him that this would be detrimental to his wife's health. They did not listen and she got pregnant one more time. The baby was born and the wife started to hemorrhage. The brother really thought that if his faith was strong enough that she wouldn't die. He felt that by refusing blood he would make Jehovah happy. I think he felt that this would guarantee her survival. He was wrong. But he should have been satisfied to know that his wife's wishes were followed and they were following Jehovah's commandments.While I agree with the idea that accepting blood is wrong, I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking that we are all going to still survive after this. It simply doesn't work that way.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I also work in an acute care medical facility. Over the years I have seen people die from hemolytic reactions to blood transfusions, have attended numerous conferences on blood born pathogens, and have seen several patients become seriously ill from pathogens induced by transfused blood. I have also heard several Jehovah's Witnesses being told that they will die if they refuse blood and after 26 years in the field I have never actually seen it happen, leaving the question, "is it really unreasonable to refuse blood transfusions or is the community at large benefiting from the battle on this issue?" The issue for Jehovah's Witnesses is a moral one. "You must abstain from blood" is not an ambiguous statement. Thank you for this movie and allowing comments on it.

This well-done document provides both information and human interest in its two stories.Told in parallel, we follow two Jehovah's Witnesses. Joseph Kempler is a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust. He lost his faith as the deaths mounted and the horrors of the concentration camp unfolded for him. Yet in his camp, a separate barracks housed the Jehovah's Witness prisoners, partly to segregate them from the non-Aryans and partly to reduce the proselytizing. These were political prisoners who by following the tenets of their religion refused to swear allegiance to the Fuehrer and the Fatherland. They could leave if their would sign a "loyalty oath". As Joseph lost his faith, he become aware of these protesters, was able to attend clandestine meetings, and eventually took on their religion. We are told his story, including his reconciliation with family members (including a daughter he had pretty much abandoned).The other story is about twenty-something Seth Thomas, who follows the faith along with the rest of his family. His "auto de fe" comes about with his need for a transplant to replace his (congenitally) diseased liver. He can't have blood products, so the medical establishment won't do the transplant. Eventually UCLA (?) agrees to do an experimental bloodless surgery. With huge risks, he agrees; and his father will provide the partial liver donation. The whole family is faced with the risk of losing two members but are steadfast in their belief that's it's the right way to live (or die).A lot of history is filled in around these two stories. We find how many of our rights are due to the fights the Jehovah Witnesses have undertaken: they do not vote, they do not protest(?), but they do litigate.If you are the type to answer that particular knock on the door with "No thanks, get lost", this movie will make you want to ask a few questions, if for no other reason than to exercise nearly-found respect.