RE: Michigan Muslim decision
Doug Some while ago you asked about literature about responses to the Courts prayer decisions. See WK Muir, Law and attitude change: Prayer in the Public Schools (University of Chicago 1973).I have a copy. Marc From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 9:51 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Michigan Muslim decision The old ordinance apparently prohibited any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise, or any noise which either annoys or disturbs. Easy to see why the imam thought he wasn't violating that, and why sensitive neighbors thought he was. This is hardly a neutral ordinance; it is reminiscent of the ordinance struck down in Coates v. Cincinnati, which made it illegal to conduct yourself in a manner annoying to persons passing by. Most of the annoyance being expressed seems to flow more from the content than from the noise. We don't know how loud this is, or how far it can be heard, or how early in the morning. Maybe it is such a problem that it would have been regulated independently of its content. But my hunch is that if that were so, the City Council would not have amended the ordinance to expressly permit it. The underlying legal issue is how strong an interest is required to justify suppressing speech or a religious practice. I assume that under Kovacs v. Cooper they could ban all loudspeakers. But they may not want to live with the consequences of that. It may shut down events they would like to permit. I don't think they can ban only those loudspeakers that someone finds annoying. 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 Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
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 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 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?LouiseAt 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-nationor here:http://www.freep.com/news/locway/call8_20040508.htmBest,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/religionlawDouglas LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 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/
RE: Michigan Muslim decision
Could as likely result in cacophony, which is less benign. Doug's point is half-persuasive. Church bellsdo 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 GaubatzSent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:16 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 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 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 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?LouiseAt 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-nationor here:http://www.freep.com/news/locway/call8_20040508.htmBest,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 ge
RE: Michigan Muslim decision
A funny aside. Many years ago I represented a southern California beach city in an appeal challenging its anti-barking ordinance. The offended dog owner who brought the suit claimed that the ordinance was void for vagueness because it barred barking that was audible at the property line after 10pm. He wanted greater clarity by use of a decibel level. We beat back that challenge when we pointed out that the court's own rule against cell phones and pagers in the courtroom used the same word: audible. More interesting was the plaintiff's claim that the ordinance was overbroad. Apparently, he thought the ordinance was having a chilling effect on his dog's speech!! Fun case -- my very first appellate argument, in fact. I have had great fun with the story in the years since. John Dr. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Leigh Armstrong Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 8:15 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Michigan Muslim decision How about an ordnance that prohibited noise above 65 dba (or any other number) at the property line? Generally applicable and can be measured irrespective of content. I think Glendora CA had a similar ordnance. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On May 14, 2004, at 7:51 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote: The old ordinance apparently prohibited any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise, or any noise which either annoys or disturbs. Easy to see why the imam thought he wasn't violating that, and why sensitive neighbors thought he was. This is hardly a neutral ordinance; it is reminiscent of the ordinance struck down in Coates v. Cincinnati, which made it illegal to conduct yourself in a manner annoying to persons passing by. Most of the annoyance being expressed seems to flow more from the content than from the noise. We don't know how loud this is, or how far it can be heard, or how early in the morning. Maybe it is such a problem that it would have been regulated independently of its content. But my hunch is that if that were so, the City Council would not have amended the ordinance to expressly permit it. The underlying legal issue is how strong an interest is required to justify suppressing speech or a religious practice. I assume that under Kovacs v. Cooper they could ban all loudspeakers. But they may not want to live with the consequences of that. It may shut down events they would like to permit. I don't think they can ban only those loudspeakers that someone finds annoying. 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 ___ 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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
Many cities have decibel limit ordinances, and that would seem to be the most neutral approach. Having said that, I do think that quality of life especially in a residential neighborhood is a compelling interest (and I say this completely distinct from any RLUIPA issue). The difficulty is in finding the best neutral approaches to serve such an end. On a side note: I spent a summer in Maastricht, and there the church bells chimed every hour. I never became accustomed to it, and could not wait to leave. If the 5xday prayer calls are loud enough to be heard through one's windows, I feel sorry for the residents who must be subjected to it. Marci How about an ordnance that prohibited noise above 65 dba (or any other number) at the property line? Generally applicable and can be measured irrespective of content. I think Glendora CA had a similar ordnance. Alan ___ 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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
- Original Message - From: Menard, Richard H. .. Church bellsdo not generally chime for a long stretch five times every day; if they did, you can bet most residents, Christians included, would object. Neither does the call to prayers. And whether you find the call to prayers more annoying than church bells seems to be a matter of opinion and cultural taste. As someone who appreaciate diversity, I like both. David E. Guinn -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Derek GaubatzSent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:16 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 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 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 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?LouiseAt 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-nationor here:http://www.freep.com/news/locway/call8_200
RE: Michigan Muslim decision
Quality of life-whatever the phrase means- is an interest of the highest order as a compelling interest must be? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 12:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Michigan Muslim decision Many cities have decibel limit ordinances, and that would seem to be the most neutral approach. Having said that, I do think that quality of life especially in a residential neighborhood is a compelling interest (and I say this completely distinct from any RLUIPA issue). The difficulty is in finding the best neutral approaches to serve such an end. On a side note: I spent a summer in Maastricht, and there the church bells chimed every hour. I never became accustomed to it, and could not wait to leave. If the 5xday prayer calls are loud enough to be heard through one's windows, I feel sorry for the residents who must be subjected to it. Marci How about an ordnance that prohibited noise above 65 dba (or any other number) at the property line? Generally applicable and can be measured irrespective of content. I think Glendora CA had a similar ordnance. Alan ___ 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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
While it couldn't seriously be argued that preventing the disturbance of quality of life--without more-- reaches the level of compelling interest, preventing noise levels from reaching a certain painful level or during the night could be said to further an actual--and not imagined--public health and safety interest. That said, the wisdom of neutrality is especially apparent in the application of local laws such as these. I'd bet that the importance of hearing one's own church bells, or calls to prayer, or pleadings for reason, may diminish when the consequence is the direct impact of hearing others' religious noise. Roman -- Roman P. Storzer Director of Litigation The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 605 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 955-0098 Email/Blackberry: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri May 14 12:19:04 2004 Subject: RE: Michigan Muslim decision Quality of life-whatever the phrase means- is an interest of the highest order as a compelling interest must be? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 12:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Michigan Muslim decision Many cities have decibel limit ordinances, and that would seem to be the most neutral approach. Having said that, I do think that quality of life especially in a residential neighborhood is a compelling interest (and I say this completely distinct from any RLUIPA issue). The difficulty is in finding the best neutral approaches to serve such an end. On a side note: I spent a summer in Maastricht, and there the church bells chimed every hour. I never became accustomed to it, and could not wait to leave. If the 5xday prayer calls are loud enough to be heard through one's windows, I feel sorry for the residents who must be subjected to it. Marci How about an ordnance that prohibited noise above 65 dba (or any other number) at the property line? Generally applicable and can be measured irrespective of content. I think Glendora CA had a similar ordnance. Alan ___ 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
RE: Michigan Muslim decision
In answer to Derek (see helow) ~ Lots of people have may well have something to fear from hearing messages, especially very loud penetrating important messages and counter-messages in their backyards as they try to relax with a few friends and do some barbecuing. Louise At 10:16 AM 5/14/04, you wrote: content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C439C6.685AE834 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
RE: Michigan Muslim decision
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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
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, you 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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
The ACLU of Michigan put out the following press release on April 30: Press Statement Regarding "Call to Prayer" in Hamtramck Kary Moss, Executive Director April 30, 2004 In the past week, the ACLU of Michigan has received hundreds of call and emails from around the country from people asking our position on the amended Hamtramck noise ordinance (No. 434) passed by the City Council. The change in the ordinance occurred in response to a request that the City allow a Muslim call to prayer five times a day. We applaud the City for attempting to accommodate religious speech and there are ways that they can do it in a constitutional manner. The ACLU is a strong advocate of both religious freedom and the separation of church and state. We believe that government should remain neutral in matters of religion. It must not suppress the free exercise of religion nor may it promote religion over non-religion. It is because of the separation of church and state, not in spite of it, that Americans enjoy such a degree of religious freedom unknown to the rest of the world. And Americans take full advantage of their freedom: The United States is home to more than 1500 different religions, with more than 360,000 churches, synagogues and mosques. Balancing these important constitutional rights is tricky: In an effort to be accommodating to members of the Muslim faith, the City has tried to make it lawful for a mosque to broadcast the call to prayer five times a day which would not have been possible under the original noise ordinance. That ordinance, which we also believe has its own constitutional problems, makes it unlawful "for any person to create, assist in creating any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise, or any noise which either annoys, disturbs." The new amendment says: "The City shall permit call to prayer, church bells and other means of announcing religious meetings to be amplified between the hours of 6am and 10pm for a duration not to exceed five minutes." (emphasis added). The city must allow for reasonable "accommodation" of religious speech, as it would for other forms of _expression_, but it cannot single out any religious speech whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other -- for favored treatment over other speech protected by the First Amendment. To solve this dilemma, make the original ordinance constitutional, and to accommodate the needs of Muslims, Christians, and members of other faiths, the City should fix the original ordinance and create what are called "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." These restrictions need to equally apply to other non-religious protected speech. The City can, for example, limit the hours, duration and maximum noise level, in which calls to prayer and ringing of church bells are permissible. It should do so by adopting specific neutral criteria that covers both religious and non-religious noise. The maximum level of sound permitted under the ordinance should be scientifically measurable and not subjectively based. To reiterate, the City has done its best to be sensitive to the needs of the community. It has, unfortunately, gone too far but it is a problem that needs to be corrected in the interests of all those who live in Hamtramck. == Art Spitzer ACLU Washington DC ___ 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
