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
_______________________________________________ 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
