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
., 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
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
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
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
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
: 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
-
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
, 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
]]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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
