Michigan Muslim decision

[lweinberg at mail.law.utexas.edu]

Thanks.  But suppose the permission to the muezzins was indeed an exemption 
from the noise ordinance, and suppose some  mean old atheists, out of sheer 
spitefulness, in retaliation for the loss of peace and quiet, insisted on 
an exemption from the noise ordinance for chanted calls to reason, 
enlightenment, progress, and moderation?  Five times a day, from a huge 
donated tower to be built especially for the purpose?   And suppose ~ 
church bells being insufficiently verbal and expressive ~ missionizing 
Christian bible-beaters insisted on an exemption  from the noise ordinance 
so that five times a day they could harangue us about brimstone and 
hellfire from a fleet of donated trucks with megaphones?  Is it possible 
given the Capitol Square case that we can preserve peace and quiet?
Louise

At 02:10 PM 5/13/04, Doug Laycock wrote:
>         This is private speech; failure to regulate is not 
> establishment.  The imam at least claims this is not even an exemption 
> from some noise ordinance or the like; the loudspeaker was already legal 
> and the amendment is clarifying.  If he is wrong about that and it is an 
> exemption, of course the exemption would have to be sect neutral.  I 
> think it should have to be neutral as between religious and political 
> speech.  But it does not have to be neutral as between speech and other 
> sources of noise.
>
>         And of course the city does not have to broadcast Christian or 
> Jewish messages; it need only refrain from interfering with them.  And I 
> would be surprised if it has interfered with them.  Church bells are 
> designed to be widely heard for the same purpose, they were not illegal 
> in Hamtramck.
>
>At 01:33 PM 5/13/2004 -0500, Louise Weinberg wrote:
>>I find the below message somewhat disturbing.  The thought of having 
>>amplified Muezzins five times a day calling to prayers in my own 
>>residential community is disturbing. My neighbors and I would be forced 
>>repeatedly to talk over or stop our ears against intrusive chanted 
>>messages from a faith we do not share.  I fail to see why a town 
>>government in America, even one in which a majority of the population is 
>>Moslem, should be allowed to impose religious harangues on the minority 
>>of its residents who happen not to be Moslems.  It is true that these 
>>harangues are customary in Islamic traditions, but it is the prayers that 
>>are a pillar of Islam, not the calls to prayer.  Once having made such an 
>>"accommodation," does the town then have to broadcast immediately before 
>>or after each muezzin call the Hebrew chant, "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy 
>>God, the Lord is one?"  Will an amplified shofar have to be blown five 
>>times a day?  How about The Lord's Prayer?  And what noise will 
>>accommodate the atheists?  Unless the atheists are allowed to summon 
>>their listeners to reason at least five times a day, why isn't all this 
>>holy racket an establishment of religion?
>>
>>
>>
>>At 08:07 AM 5/13/04, Stuart BUCK wrote:
>>>An interesting law out of Hamtramck, Michigan.  It apparently amends the 
>>>noise ordinance there to allow loudspeakers to broadcast Muslim calls to 
>>>prayer 5 times per day.  Story here:
>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mosque6may06,1,4014143.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
>>>or here:
>>>http://www.freep.com/news/locway/call8_20040508.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>Stuart Buck
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to 
>>>win $1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>
>
>Douglas Laycock
>University of Texas Law School
>727 E. Dean Keeton St.
>Austin, TX  78705
>         512-232-1341 (voice)
>         512-471-6988 (fax)
>         dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040513/44163074/attachment.htm