Michigan Muslim decision

Fri May 14 11:44:37 PDT 2004

I agree about cacaphony, although I particularly like churchbells.  I 
thought a closer analogy to the cries of muezzins might be brimstone and 
hellfire sermons.  But even that is not a good approximation, because it 
might not engender the same sort of harms.  One can imagine the threat or 
anguish that might be experienced by families in a once-quiet neighborhood 
subjected five times a day to prolonged Muezzin cries if those families 
were mourning loved ones killed by extremists, terrorists, or "freedom 
fighters" in the name of Islam.  Yet it seems that our law cannot 
constitutionally protect them from these kinds of harms except by neutral 
noise ordinances going to time and volume.  So their only remedy would be 
to tear up their ties and move away.  Since they are "infidels," this was 
likely the desired result.
Louise

At 10:30 AM 5/14/04, Menard, Richard H. wrote:
>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 
>>>>
>>>>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
>
>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.
>_______________________________________________
>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/20040514/27617f88/attachment.htm