Michigan Muslim decision

Fri May 14 08:30:41 PDT 2004

Could as likely result in cacophony, which is less benign.

Doug's point is half-persuasive.  Church bells do not generally chime for a
long stretch five times every day; if they did, you can bet most residents,
Christians included, would object.

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Derek Gaubatz
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:16 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Michigan Muslim decision

Sounds like the slippery slope consequences you imagine would simply result
in more speech.  Hardly troubling, unless one has something to fear from
hearing different ideas expressed.

Derek L. Gaubatz
Senior Legal Counsel
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 605
Washington D.C. 20036
202 955-0095 phone
202 955-0090 fax

  _____  

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
lweinberg at mail.law.utexas.edu
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 12:23 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Michigan Muslim decision

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
<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
<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
<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
<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
<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
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> 

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following annotations on 05/14/2004, 10:32:56 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040514/cb75bb11/attachment.html