Israeli emergency personnel load the body of a Jewish Israeli man into an ambulance after he was shot dead near the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City June 21, 2013. (Reuters)

A security guard shot and killed an Israeli man on Friday at a public restroom at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, one of Judaism’s holiest sites. He opened fire after hearing the man shout "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is greatest" in Arabic. The guard said he fired his handgun because he thought the man was a Palestinian militant, Reuters quoted police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld as saying: "The fact he shouted Allahu Akbar, that seems to be why the security guard drew his weapon and fired a number of shots at him."

The victim, who was Jewish and in his mid-40s, was treated for his injuries by paramedics but died from his wounds, the Jerusalem Post reported. The victim of the shooting was a frequent visitor to the holy site, according to Israeli media. Those who knew him said he was a ‘strange person,’ slightly disconnected from reality, who came to the Western Wall to rant about government policies. Lately, he claimed that he had converted to Islam, witnesses said. The Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar" – known as Takbir – is commonly used by Muslims in a variety of contexts, from formal prayer to casual expression of strong emotions like fear, surprise, triumph or defiance. The informal use may be compared to the Western phrase “Oh my God.” The shooting incident happened at the Western Wall, a place of regular mass worship for Jewish believers. The plaza adjoining the wall is located is next to the Temple Mount, which is revered by Jews as the place where two biblical temples once stood. It is also the site of Islam's third holiest mosque, Al-Aqsa.

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish youth (2nd L) stands near a police cordon at the site of a shooting incident near the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City June 21, 2013. (Reuters)

image from Margaret Doughty facebook page

A 65-year-old British atheist who has lived in the US for 30 years has been denied US citizenship, unless she joins a church by Friday. During her application process to become a naturalized US citizen, Texas resident Margaret Doughty did not agree to bear arms to defend the country, claiming that she was morally opposed to killing. In order to gain citizenship, naturalization applications are required to take the oath of allegiance, swearing to support the Constitution and agree to bear arms for the US Armed Forces, if necessary. As a result, US Citizenship and Immigration Services told the woman she could not gain citizenship unless she provided documentation proving she was “a member in good standing” of a church that morally opposed the bearing of arms. But since Doughty is an atheist, providing such documentation is impossible unless she takes up the Christian religion by Friday. “The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms,” the British native explained on her application. “Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms.” The USCIS officers’ request has enraged atheist groups, who believe that nonreligious morals should be just as valid as those held by church members. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the USCIS, calling their actions “illegal and unconstitutional.” “It is shocking that USCIS officers would not be aware that a nonreligious yet deeply held belief would be sufficient to attain this exemption,” Andrew L. Seidel, a staff attorney at the atheist group, wrote in the letter. “This is a longstanding part of our law and every USCIS officer should receive training on this exemption.” The Daily Kos, a political news and opinion blog, has launched a petition urging the Department of Homeland Security to grant Doughty citizenship and to reverse the policy that allows discrimination against atheists to ensue. The petition had more than 5,000 signatures as of Thursday morning. A similar case made it to the Supreme Court in 1970, after naturalization applicant Elliot Ashton Welsh II requested conscientious objector status for refusing to bear arms. Welsh said he did not know whether there was a Supreme Being, and said his moral beliefs against killing were based upon “reading in the fields of history and sociology.” In Welsh vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Welsh could be declared a conscientious objector, even though his beliefs were not based on a religion. The Court also noted that basing the exemption solely on religious beliefs is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of a national religion or the government’s preference of any one religion over another. The ruling indicates that applicants like Doughty should similarly be able to request conscientious objector status, despite a lack of religious involvement. “Either the officers in Houston are inept, or they are deliberately discriminating against nonreligious applicants for naturalization,” Seidel added.