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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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)
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Reply via email to