However, the movie was about a devout woman who stood up to her church at a time when the church had been co-opted by the state. This is especially relevant today when the line between church and state has been blurred. The point of the movie is that people of faith are not absolved of responsibility because their church leaders choose the path of self-preservation.

however, those questions are relevant; faith and religion play a differing role, and the organizations which underlie them can, at time, work at cross purposes to the 'greater good' out of self-interest and self-preservation.  When an individual finds him or herself intrinsically tied to such organizations and groups, or pushed to define their roles in those terms (or in spite of them), the questions posed work well to help shore up one's individual responsibility.

I think, ultimately, the questions act to help guide others to the ultimate definition and question as exposed by your post: that regardless of State or Religion, an individual's responsibility to stand up in the face of adversity does not ultimately change.

I was moved and provoked by your review.

The first thing, I went to my trusty library-on-line page to see if I could find it in their DVD collection. They don't have it. I want to request that they purchase it, but I need a sales price for the request form and so I googled the DVD, Couldn't find it thrrough the PBS site, but I did see references to her story on Google. I came on a link that reviews a German-language essay collection, edited by M. Gailus  commemorating her life (and perhaps that of others). The onlin  review was informative so I am passing it on, http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/akz/akz2811.htm.

So, please could you give me jacket information so I can encourage my library to purchase the DVD. Exact info on producer, and price. Whatever the might need to order it. They have a special bequest to purchase materials on the holocaust and Jewish history.

I was especially moved by your review because it touched on the question of standing up for one's views despite the threat of persecution.

• What responsibility does my religious order bear, in the face of state-sponsored terror, to publicly resist the state?
• What responsibility must I, as a religious person, shoulder to force my religious order to publicly resist totalitarianism and state-sponsored terror?
• What acts must I, as a person of faith, privately commit in order to resist? Must I resist the leaders of my religious order as well?

The only meaningful question to be asked is "What responsibility do I bear as a human being to publicly resist the state?

Such things go beyond mere religion.  Be you atheist, agnostic, wiccan, whatever, the responsibility you bear is the same.

Good questions:

• What responsibility does my religious order bear, in the face of state-sponsored terror, to publicly resist the state?
• What responsibility must I, as a religious person, shoulder to force my religious order to publicly resist totalitarianism and state-sponsored terror?
• What acts must I, as a person of faith, privately commit in order to resist? Must I resist the leaders of my religious order as well?

Those are pretty good, and well worth reflecting upon -- even if you already have spent time contemplating the answers. The questions will be raised in more than instance, at more than one time, in more than one way and by more than one group. It's always good to know where one stands.

There is a final point made in the piece that is, in my opinion, crucial to all thinking and rational beings of conscience:

Because we can, we must.

Possibility is an obligation to all persons of conscience.

Because we can, we must. Possibility is an obligation to all persons of conscience. Indeed.