It’s Crunch Time for Israel on Iran~John Bolton

Legions of senior American officials have descended on Jerusalem recently, but the most important of them has been Defense Secretary Robert Gates. His central objective was to dissuade Israel from carrying out military strikes against Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. Under the guise of counseling “patience,” Mr. Gates again conveyed President Barack Obama’s emphatic thumbs down on military force.

The public outcome of Mr. Gates’s visit appeared polite but inconclusive. Yet Iran’s progress with nuclear weapons and air defenses means Israel’s military option is declining over time. It will have to make a decision soon, and it will be no surprise if Israel strikes by year’s end. Israel’s choice could determine whether Iran obtains nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future.


Mr. Obama’s approach to Tehran has been his “open hand,” yet his gesture has not only been ignored by Iran but deemed irrelevant as the country looks inward to resolve the aftermath of its fraudulent election. The hardliner “winner” of that election, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was recently forced to fire a deputy who once said something vaguely soothing about Israel. Clearly, negotiations with the White House are not exactly topping the Iranian agenda.

Beyond that, Mr. Obama’s negotiation strategy faces insuperable time pressure. French President Nicolas Sarkozy proclaimed that Iran must re-start negotiations with the West by September’s G-20 summit. But this means little when, with each passing day, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile laboratories, production facilities and military bases are all churning. Israel is focused on these facts, not the illusion of “tough” diplomac.

Israel rejects another feature of Mr. Obama’s diplomatic stance. The Israelis do not believe that progress with the Palestinians will facilitate a deal on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Though Mr. Gates and others have pressed this fanciful analysis, Israel will not be moved.

Worse, Mr. Obama has no new strategic thinking on Iran. He vaguely promises to offer the country the carrot of diplomacy—followed by an empty threat of sanctions down the road if Iran does not comply with the U.S.’s requests. This is precisely the European Union’s approach, which has failed for over six years.

There’s no reason Iran would suddenly now bow to Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts, especially after its embarrassing election in June. So with diplomacy out the door, how will Iran be tamed?

Mr. Gates’ mission had extraordinary significance. Israel sees the political and military landscape in a very inauspicious light. It also worries that, once ensnared in negotiations, the Obama administration will find it very hard to extricate itself. The Israelis are probably right. To prove the success of his “open hand,” Mr. Obama will declare victory for “diplomacy” even if it means little to no gains on Iran’s nuclear program.

Under the worst-case scenario, Iran will continue improving its nuclear facilities and Mr. Obama will become the first U.S. president to tie the issue of Israel’s nuclear capabilities into negotiations about Iran’s.
Israel understands that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent commitment to extend the U.S. “defense umbrella” to Israel is not a guarantee of nuclear retaliation, and that it is wholly insufficient to deter Iran from obliterating Israel if it so decides. In fact, Mrs. Clinton’s comment tacitly concedes that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, exactly the wrong message. Since Israel, like the U.S., is well aware its missile defense system is imperfect, whatever Mr. Gates said about the “defense umbrella” will be politely ignored.

Relations between the U.S. and Israel are more strained now than at any time since the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. Mr. Gates’s message for Israel not to act on Iran, and the U.S. pressure he brought to bear, highlight the weight of Israel’s lonely burden.

Striking Iran’s nuclear program will not be precipitous or poorly thought out. Israel’s attack, if it happens, will have followed enormously difficult deliberation over terrible imponderables, and years of patiently waiting on innumerable failed diplomatic efforts. Absent Israeli action, prepare for a nuclear Iran.

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations” (Simon & Schuster, 2007). force

Can Third Temple be built without destroying Dome of the Rock?

Can Third Temple be built without destroying Dome of the Rock?

Matthew Wagner , THE JERUSALEM POST

A new Jewish interfaith initiative launched last week argues building the Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem would not necessitate the destruction of the Dome of the Rock.

"God's Holy Mountain Vision" project hopes to defuse religious strife by showing that Jews' end-of-days vision could harmoniously accommodate Islam's present architectural hegemony on the Temple Mount.

"This vision of religious shrines in peaceful proximity can transform the Temple Mount from a place of contention to its original sacred role as a place of worship shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians," said Yoav Frankel, director of the initiative.

The Interfaith Encounter Association at the Mishkenot Sha'ananim's Konrad Adenauer Conference Center in Jerusalem is sponsoring the program, which includes interfaith study and other educational projects.

According to Islamic tradition, the Dome of the Rock, built in 691, marks the spot where Muhammed ascended to Heaven.

But according to Jewish tradition, Mount Moriah, now under the Dome of the Rock, is where the Temple's Holy of Holies was situated.

Until now Jewish tradition has assumed that destruction of the Dome of the Rock was a precondition for the building of the third and last Temple.

However, in an article that appeared in 2007 in Tehumin, an influential journal of Jewish law, Frankel, a young scholar, presented a different option.

His main argument is that Jewish doctrine regarding the rebuilding of the Temple emphasizes the role of a prophet.

This prophet would have extraordinary authority, including the discretion to specify the Temple's precise location, regardless of any diverging Jewish traditions.

Frankel considers the scenario of a holy revelation given to an authentic prophet that the Temple be rebuilt on the current or an extended Temple Mount in peaceful proximity to the dome and other houses of prayer such as the Aksa Mosque and nearby Christian shrines.

However, both Muslims and Jews have expressed opposition to the initiative.

Sheikh Abdulla Nimar Darwish, founder of the Islamic Movement in Israel, said it was pointless to talk about what would happen when the mahdi, the Muslim equivalent of the messiah, would reveal himself.

"Why are we taking upon ourselves the responsibility to decide such things?" Darwish said in a telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post. "Even Jews believe that it is prohibited to rebuild the Temple until the messiah comes. So what is there to talk about.

"The mahdi will decide whether or not to rebuild the Temple. If he decides that it should be rebuilt, I will go out to the Temple Mount and help carry the rocks."

Darwish warned against any attempt to rebuild the Temple before the coming of the mahdi.

"As long as there is a Muslim alive, no Jewish Temple will be built on Al-Haram Al-Sharif [the Temple Mount]. The status quo must be maintained, otherwise there will be bloodshed."

In contrast, Baruch Ben-Yosef, chairman of the Movement to Restore the Temple, made it clear that the Temple had to be built where the Dome of the Rock presently stands.

"Anybody who says anything else simply does not know what he is talking about," he said. "A prophet does not have the power to change the law which explicitly states the location of the Temple."

Ben-Yosef also rejected the idea that rebuilding of the Temple had to be done by a prophet.

"All you need is a Sanhedrin," he said.

Mainstream Orthodox rabbis have opposed attempts to rebuild the Temple since the Mount came under Israeli control in 1967.

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel even issued a decree prohibiting Jews from entering the area due to ritual purity issues.

However, several grassroots organizations such as the Movement to Restore the Temple, and maverick rabbis, including Rabbi Israel Ariel, head of the capital's Temple Institute and a leading member of the revived Sanhedrin led by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, have called to take steps to renew the sacrifices on the Temple Mount and rebuild the Temple.

Updated Briefing: Has that much Changed? Or is this very accurate?

Updated Briefing! Strategic Trends 2004 (Part 1) by Chuck Missler

---

PURSUE THIS TOPIC:

ARTICLES The Mideast Threat Fearing Fear Itself Good-Bye to Western Civilization

Since our ministry's inception, we have monitored ten global, social, political, and economic trends that we feel are significant not only to our nation, but also to the Body of Christ. In Matthew Chapter 16, Jesus spoke to the Jewish religious leaders saying:

When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

As Christians, it is important for us to be able to recognize the signs of the times, or as we like to call them, the "Times of the Signs," because I believe we are living in a very exciting age, about which the Bible has a lot to say if you really take the time to study it diligently. It has been almost two years since our last briefing pack on these trends, so an update is in order. We'll tackle the first two trends this month, and then update the rest in upcoming issues of Personal UPDATE.

Trend # 1 – Weapons Proliferation

The first major "strategic trend" is Weapons Proliferation. The acquisition of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons by both terrorists and rogue nations is perhaps one of the greatest threats to our national security. Modern technology has made it possible for countries and terrorists all over the world to possess frightening military capabilities.

Weapons of mass destruction, from backpack nuclear bombs to biological and chemical weapons, are now available to any nation in the world. It no longer matters whether a nation is rich or poor, large or small, highly industrialized or third world. Almost anyone can make or purchase weapons that 50 years ago could not even be imagined. These new weapons include not only military-style weaponry like nuclear missiles, tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, and the like; but also, inexpensive and readily available biological and chemical weapons. In addition, high-tech equipment like night vision goggles, tracking devices, surveillance cameras, communication innovations, and computerized databases are relatively easy to obtain. The days of the Cold War seem tame by comparison.

In Matthew 24:22 Jesus speaks of the end times saying, "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." In the days of the Roman Empire, or even during the Civil War, it would have been difficult to imagine the complete annihilation of Earth's population using swords, bayonets, or even pistols. But today, weapons technology exists that could very conceivably wipe out the entire planet. The Bible very clearly predicts the use of weapons of mass destruction, seen in this passage, as well as in Ezekiel 38 and 39 and elsewhere.

Today U.S. intelligence officials have focused their attention on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, and North Korea in their attempts to stifle weapons proliferation. They have also kept a close watch on Russia and China, which are key suppliers of technology, components, and weaponry. Although these countries remain the focus of U.S. intelligence investigations, some Western European countries have also been important sources for the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Iran

Iran has continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical, and biological — and their delivery systems, as well as advanced conventional weapons. To this end, Iran has sought foreign materials, training, equipment, and know-how. Its main suppliers are entities in Russia, China, North Korea, and Europe.

The United States intelligence community remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, in violation of its obligations as a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. To bolster its efforts to establish domestic nuclear fuel-cycle capabilities, Iran sought technology that can support fissile material production for a nuclear weapons program. Iran tried to use its civilian nuclear energy program to justify its efforts to acquire assorted nuclear fuel-cycle capabilities.

In August 2002 an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was secretly building a heavy water production plant and a "nuclear fuel" plant. Press reports later in the year confirmed the existence of these two facilities using commercial imagery and clarified that the "fuel" plant was most likely a large uranium centrifuge enrichment facility. Ballistic missile-related cooperation from entities in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China over the years has helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles.

Such assistance during the first half of 2003 continued to include equipment, technology, and expertise. Iran's ballistic missile inventory is among the largest in the Middle East and includes some 1,300-km medium-range ballistic missiles and a few hundred short-range ballistic missiles as well as a variety of large, unguided rockets. Iran has openly admitted its possession and production of various types of scud missiles and is pursuing longer-range ballistic missiles.

North Korea

In December 2002 North Korea announced its intention to resume operation of its nuclear facilities, which had been frozen under the terms of the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework. IAEA weapons inspection seals and monitoring equipment were removed and disabled, and IAEA inspectors were expelled from the country. The next month North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and by late February 2003 North Korea resumed use of a reactor capable of producing spent fuel rods containing plutonium.

In April 2003 North Korea told U.S. officials that it possessed nuclear weapons, and signaled its intent to reprocess the 1994 canned spent fuel for more nuclear weapons. On June 9, North Korea openly threatened to build a nuclear deterrent force. North Korea also has continued procurement of raw materials and components for its extensive ballistic missile programs from various foreign sources. North Korea is nearly self-sufficient in developing and producing ballistic missiles and has demonstrated a willingness to sell complete systems and components that have enabled other states to acquire longer-range capabilities earlier than would otherwise have been possible and to acquire the basis for domestic development efforts.

Their chemical warfare capabilities include the ability to produce bulk quantities of nerve, blister, choking and blood agents, using its sizeable, although aging, chemical industry. They possess a stockpile of unknown size of these agents and weapons, which they could employ in a variety of delivery means.

By mid-2003, North Korea was believed to have possessed a munitions production infrastructure that would allow it to weaponize biological weapons agents, and may have had such weapons available for use. North Korea also operates as a major supplier, exporting significant ballistic missile-related equipment, components, materials, and technical expertise to the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa. Exports of ballistic missiles and related technology were one of the North's major sources of hard currency, which supported ongoing missile development and production. Furthermore, in late April 2003 during the Beijing talks, North Korea privately threatened to export nuclear weapons, attempting to try to leverage its nuclear programs into international legitimacy and bargaining power.

Libya

Libya's weapons program made headline news when American and British intelligence identified a shipment of advanced centrifuge parts manufactured at a Malaysian facility bound for Libya. Intelligence officers followed the shipment and watched as they were transferred to the BBC China, a German-owned ship. After the ship passed through the Suez Canal, it was stopped by German and Italian authorities. They found several containers, each forty feet in length, listed on the ship's manifest as full of "used machine parts" when, in fact, these containers were filled with parts for sophisticated centrifuges.

The interception of the BBC China came as Libyan, British and American officials were discussing the possibility of Libya ending its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs. The United States and Britain confronted Libyan officials with this evidence of an active and illegal nuclear program. Following which, Libya's leader voluntarily agreed to end his nuclear and chemical weapons programs, not to pursue biological weapons, and to permit thorough inspections. But it remains to be seen if this promise will be kept.

Syria

Syria has, over the last year, continued its efforts to update its ballistic and scud missile capabilities. Damascus already possesses a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and has tried to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents. Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its chemical weapons program, including precursor chemicals and key production equipment. It is highly probable that Syria also continues to develop an offensive biological weapons capability.

Syria has continued to acquire limited quantities of Advanced Conventional Weapons, mainly from Russia. Damascus's Soviet-era debt to Moscow and its inability to fund large purchases continue to hamper efforts to purchase the large quantity of equipment Syria requires to replace its aging weapons inventory.

Russia

During the first half of 2003, Russia's cash-strapped defense, biotechnology, chemical, aerospace, and nuclear industries continued to be eager to raise funds via exports and transfers. Some Russian universities and scientific institutes also showed a willingness to earn much-needed funds by providing WMD or missile-related teaching and training for foreign students. Russia remains a key exporter of both materials and expertise for ballistic, chemical, biological, and advanced conventional weapons. Loose enforcement of export controls has made it difficult to reduce the outward flow of weapons technology.

China

Although China has improved somewhat on its nonproliferation stance, it is still a major exporter of weapons materials and technology, much of which was purchased from the United States during the Clinton administration. China remains a primary supplier of advanced conventional weapons to Pakistan and Iran, and they have given support to Iran's chemical weapons program and have provided assistance to Libya and North Korea.

Saudi Arabia

At El-Solayil in Saudi Arabia, 40,000 Chinese technicians have installed 120 CSS-2 missiles, which have a range of 1500 kilometers and can now reach Greece to the west and India to the east (see map below). By having funded Pakistan's nuclear program, Saudi Arabia has access to the necessary warheads to provide three nuclear warheads each and now represent a formidable nuclear threat in the region (as we reported in our Briefing Pack, Roots of War, two years ago).

There are some experts that anticipate that Israel may take these out preemptively just as they did with Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981.

Israel

Many Middle Eastern countries desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction as a response to Israel's nuclear weapons program. Israel has reportedly adapted U.S.-built cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads aboard its fleet of submarines, which could seriously hinder international efforts to shake Iran from its alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. Israel's development of its nuclear arsenal has only increased the motivation of Arab states to possess like weapons.

Terrorist Organizations

The threat of terrorists using chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials remains high. Many of the 33 designated foreign terrorist organizations and other non-state entities worldwide have expressed interest in chemical and biological weapons.

Although terrorist groups probably will continue to favor long-proven conventional tactics such as bombings and shootings, the arrest of terrorists plotting to use ricin in London in January 2003 is an indication that international terrorists are actively planning to conduct chemical and biological attacks. Increased publicity surrounding the anthrax incidents since the September 11, 2001, has highlighted the vulnerability of civilian and government targets. Documents and equipment recovered from Al-Qaida facilities in Afghanistan show that Bin Ladin had a more sophisticated unconventional weapons research program than was previously known.

Trend # 2 – The Rise of Islam

The Muslim faith is becoming an increasingly volatile catalyst in today's international scene and the Rise of Islam is the second strategic trend we are going to explore. With the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, it has become of paramount importance to understand the origin, nature, and agenda of Islam.

If you want more background information, I encourage you to check out several of the resources we have available. We have several briefing packs on the subject of Islam, The Sword of Allah, Legacy of Hate and Jihad in America , as well as a fascinating new briefing called Sleeping in America by Avi Lipkin, a Jewish lecturer and longtime friend of this ministry.

Although there are many peace-loving Muslims, study of the Islamic religion will reveal that true Islam is anything but a peaceful religion. Islam demands the utter destruction of all Jews, Christians, and anyone who refuses to convert to the Islamic faith. It is a warrior code that demands that Muslims live and die by the sword. This perspective can be confirmed by examining three areas: their sacred writings, exemplified by the Qur'an; a review of their history of conquest and cultural imperialism; and, an inspection of the Islamic countries and their propagating a legacy of hate and repression on their various subjugated populations.

The truth about Islam is exactly the opposite of what you will hear on the news. Most Americans believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. In public schools we teach our children a doctrine of tolerance, and in some schools students are even required to memorize passages of the Qur'an. While in comparison Islamic children are taught that America is the Infidel. We are the enemy. When the towers came crashing down on September 11, 2001 and thousands of innocent people were killed, Muslims all over the world danced in the streets and praised the hijackers.

Islamic terrorists are referred to in the West as radicals and extremists, while in the Mid-East they are heralded by fundamentalists as martyrs and heroes, and the families of suicide bombers are rewarded monetary pensions. The disparity between the two perspectives is staggering, yet Americans do not seem to understand the truth about Islam.

In Post-Saddam Iraq

Today post-Saddam Iraq has become the battlefield between two opposing religious and political worldviews. There appears to be a consensus among Iraqi and American leaders that Iraq should become a democracy. However, it is not clear whether both sides define "democracy" the same way. While the Iraqis, emerging from dictatorial rule, may understand democracy to mean primarily the ability to select leaders who will be accountable to the people, the United States undoubtedly understands democracy also to mean the protection of civil rights.

If the people of Iraq democratically elect a government that disregards many essential human rights, Iraq may grow to look like any other struggling Islamic state. Many women's groups and minorities in Iraq grow increasingly concerned as Iraqi religious leaders continue to push for Islamic Law to shape a future constitution. The interim government has approved a temporary constitution, and in June the U.S. is planning to hand over full control to Iraqis, but Iraq is not scheduled to hold direct elections or draft a permanent constitution until next year. If religious and political leaders have their way, the door to sharing the Gospel in Iraq could once again be shut.

In Malaysia

Muslims leaders have attempted to exert control in other parts of the world as well. For example, last year in Malaysia the Malaysian Islamic Political Party unveiled its plans for the establishment of an Islamic state in which both Muslims and non-Muslims would be subject to Islamic law. The Malaysian Islamic Party already controls two of Malaysia's 13 states, in which they have already implemented numerous Islamic laws.

Prove ALL Things 1: Learning How not to be decieved On the Web

You Want Me To Do What?????












There is a growing tendency in Prophecy

1. to Exaggerate,
2. to Shock Jockey,
   
3. to Lie,
4. to Speculate
5. to Associate
6. to Accuse
7. to Tabloidisms

How do you know when you favorite Commentator just gave into the weakness of the flesh and promoted a piece of False Information?

This will help:

As President Obama watches silently:Iran puts 100 protesters on trial

Iran puts 100 protesters on trial

The scene in the court

The trial has begun in Iran of 100 people arrested for their alleged involvement in post-election violence.

The charges included rioting, vandalism, "acting against national security", and conspiring against the ruling system, state media reported.

Those on trial included members of the opposition reform movement, including a former vice-president.

Pro-government media reported what they say were confessions by some of the leading reformists.

But the leading reformist party Mosharekat described the proceedings as a laughable show trial and said the confessions had been forced.

'No fraud'

The first court session has now ended and it is not clear when the next will be held.

Some of the accused, who had allegedly accepted the charge of treason, told the court their earlier claims of fraud during the 12 June poll were baseless, official media said.

Allegations of vote-rigging were made by defeated candidates and their supporters as soon as it became clear the president had been re-elected by a large margin.

KEY DEFENDANTS Mohammad Ali Abtahi (left): former vice-president, member of the Assembly of Combatant Clerics Mohsen Mirdamadi (centre): leader of the biggest reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front Behzad Nabavi (right): member of the central council of the Organisation of the Mujahideen of the Islamic Revolution, former industry minister and former vice speaker of parliament Mohsen Aminzadeh: former deputy foreign minister, served under reformist president Mohammad Khatami, member of Islamic Iran Participation Front

Former vice-president Mohammad Ali Abtahi was quoted by Fars news agency as telling the court: "I say to all my friends and all friends who hear us, that the issue of fraud in Iran was a lie and was brought up to create riots."

Another of the accused, Mohammad Atrianfar, was quoted as saying that they should all submit to the law.

"We mistook certain irregularities [in the vote] as fraud," Fars quoted him as saying.

At the trial, pictures from the packed courtroom showed seated defendants wearing prison uniforms and with guards next to them.

Surprise timing

Foreign media, including the BBC, have been restricted in their coverage of Iran since the election protests turned violent.

The BBC's Kasra Naji, in London, says the timing and scale of the trial came as a surprise and suggests Iran's leadership wanted to send a message to stop any more protests.

But judging from messages on micro-blogging site twitter and the internet, our correspondent says, the move may have the opposite effect, with several people talking about the need for new demonstrations and calling those on trial "national heroes".

Official news agency Irna said other charges against them included "having ties with counter-revolutionary groups."

Some of those on trial had been photographed "committing the crimes", and their accomplices were "on the run", Irna reported, without specifying the number of people on trial.

The defendants included supporters of opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi - both defeated in the election - and aides of former reformist president Mohammad Khatami.

Fars news agency reported that former deputy foreign minister Mohsen Aminzadeh, former government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh, former senior lawmaker Mohsen Mirdamadi and former Industry Minister Behzad Nabavi were among the defendants.

The protests were the largest mass demonstrations seen in Iran since the 1979 revolution which brought the current Islamic regime to power.

IRAN UNREST 12 June Presidential election saw incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected with 63% of vote Main challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi called for result to be annulled, alleging poll fraud Mass street protests saw at least 30 people killed and foreign media restricted Profile: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Q&A: Election aftermath

In the days of violence following the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at least 30 people were killed.

Authorities also arrested hundreds during the protests.

About 140 people arrested at the time were released from prison on Tuesday, with a further 200 accused of more serious crimes remaining in prison.

Opposition groups believe the number of prisoners and those killed in the violence to be higher.

Mr Ahmadinejad is due to be officially sworn in on 5 August.

Clashes have continued since his election, most recently during mourning to mark 40 days since the death of Neda Agha Soltan who was shot as she watched protests on 20 June.

State TV said police used teargas to disperse crowds from around her grave on Thursday.

Cult Granted Rights to Sacrifice Animals

Court gives Santeria priest OK to sacrifice goats

By LINDA STEWART BALL (AP) – 16 hours ago

DALLAS — A federal appeals court reversed a lower court's ruling on Friday that barred a Santeria priest from sacrificing goats in his Texas home, saying a city's decision to prohibit the ritual violated the man's religious rights.

Jose Merced, 46, accuses the city of Euless, Texas, of trampling on his constitutional right to religious exercise. The city claims the sacrifices jeopardize public health and violate its slaughterhouse and animal cruelty ordinances.

Last year, U.S. District Judge John McBryde sided with the Fort Worth suburb and dismissed the Puerto Rico native's claims. Merced appealed.

In its ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the Euless ordinance placed a substantial burden on Merced's "free exercise of religion without advancing a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means."

"It's a great day for religious freedom in Texas," said Eric Rassbach, Merced's lawyer, in response to the three-judge panel's ruling.

Merced said by practicing his faith in the privacy of his own home, he didn't harm anyone.

"Now Santeros can practice their religion at home without being afraid of being fined, arrested or taken to court," Merced said.

Euless city attorney, William McKamie, said he plans to file a motion for a rehearing.

"We respectfully believe that it's an incorrect finding on the purpose of application of the Texas Religious Freedom Act," McKamie said.

In court papers, Rassbach described Santeria as an Afro-Cuban religion with a complex ritual for ordaining priests, including the sacrifice of up to nine four-legged animals, such as lambs or goats, up to 20 chickens or other fowl and a turtle.

Merced said police officers interrupted a ceremony at his home in September 2004 and told him to stop slaughtering animals. Police warned him again in May 2006 after a neighbor complained about a gathering at the house.

Merced asked the city for a permit to slaughter animals at his home but was told the practice was prohibited. He said he hasn't been able to initiate any new priests in the past three years.

Euless attorneys have said the ordinances outlawing animal sacrifices were passed before Merced's arrival in 1990 and don't discriminate against any individual or group. McKamie also said Merced isn't equipped to handle many animals on his property or dispose of them in a sanitary way.

Associated Press Writer Anabelle Garay contributed to this report.