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.&q
let's use technology to solve the problem - have pagers go off instead of church bells and shouted calls to prayer.
:)
Steve
On Friday, May 14, 2004, at 10:51 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
The old ordinance apparently prohibited "any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise, or any
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
CTED]
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 retal
ECTED]
-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 h
: 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
: 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 diffe
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 find
versity 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:
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
., 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
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 198
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 re
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, enlig
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 ou
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 cours
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
