Re: Michigan Muslim decision

[Douglas Laycock]

        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